SUBJECT: THE PARANET/HYNEK RATING SYSTEM                     FILE: UFO2191




The ParaNet/Hynek Rating System was developed in order to provide
investigators and other interested parties with a point of departure, a
thumbnail sketch of how "good" or how "important" a particular report is, and
how it relates to other reports in the database.

It is a simple system, based on a matrix first proposed by Dr. J. Allen Hynek
of Northwestern University, founder of the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS). The
rating plots the strangeness of a case against its overall credibility, or the
"probability" that the event happened basically as described.

The strangeness of a case, or the degree of its departure from known
principles, is assigned a rating of from 1 to 5. The higher the rating, the
greater the departure.

Rating  Meaning                            Examples
------  --------                           --------
S1      Explained or explainable           Meteor; Venus; Airplane; Balloon

S2      Probably explainable with more     High altitude nocturnal light,
        data                               little observed course deviation

S3      Possibly explainable, but with     Same nocturnal light, but sudden
        elements of strangeness            zig-zag, then return to course.

S4      Strange; does not conform to       Disk-shaped object seen in
        known principles                   daylight.

S5      Highly strange; indicative of      Daylight disk seen close-up;
        intelligent guidance               anomalous motion; entities


The "P" factor, or probability rating, is much harder to gauge. Witness
credibility is only a part of the picture. Quantity and quality of supporting
evidence, such as independent witnesses, photographs, etc. must also be taken
into account. Basically the "P" factor is an overall estimation, or averaging
of these factors. It, too, is calibrated from 1 to 5 as follows:

Rating  Meaning                             Examples
------  -------                             --------
P1      Not credible or sound; hoax         String found in photo; known UFO
                                            hoaxer or "flake"

P2      Suspicious; probable hoax           Prodigious photos by lone witness;
                                            no evidence where there should be

P3      Somewhat credible or indeterminate  lone witness, no supporting
                                            evidence; low-quality photo

P4      Credible; Sound                     multiple independent witnesses;
                                            high-quality analyzed photo

P5      Highly credible; leaving almost     Witness of high repute and/or ex-
        no doubt                            pertise; live TV; quality video

It is tempting to rate one in terms of the other; that is, a high strangeness
case is, by nature, hard to believe, and therefore one is tempted to give it a
low "P" rating. The scientific method demands, however, that the data itself
should dictate the rating, despite our propensity to mistrust stories of
90-degree turns and 3-foot-tall grey men.

Hynek pointed out that 90% of all reports should fall in the range closest to
the two axes. High strangeness cases DO usually turn out to be of low quality
or even hoaxes; multiple reports of bright night-time objects seen over
hundreds of miles most often turn out to be low-strangeness bolides or
re-entering rockets. Obviously, it is the S4/P4's and above that are of
concern to us. These are the cases we point to when we speak of the UFO
phenomenon in the strict sense. It is these that science must answer for.


**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************