ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Colorado Leads Arizona 2 to 1 in June 7-9 UFO Contest

Updated on June 14, 2015
retrojoe profile image

MUFON UFO Journal author (March 1995, June 1996). Self published on UFO Window website from 1997 to 2002. Hubpages articles began late 2011.

U.S. State Distribution (factoring in population density) of highly filtered UFO Sightings Reports from MUFON (36 reports) and NUFORC (15 reports) for 3 days (June 7-9, 2012)
U.S. State Distribution (factoring in population density) of highly filtered UFO Sightings Reports from MUFON (36 reports) and NUFORC (15 reports) for 3 days (June 7-9, 2012)

In my last hub I zeroed in on a period of 4 days in late May 2012, where UFOs in the Close Encounter category were at their most intense in the United States. They were at a level of 2.2Xs greater than usual (based on filtered data) when compared to the full 28 day period reviewed (5/6-6/2/12). There was a similar span of 3 days in June 2012 (6/7-6/9/12) where Close Encounters (CEs) were at 1.9Xs greater than usual (based on raw data) for another 28 day period (6/3-6/30/12). Similar to the 2 daytime CEs that occurred on May 29th (or the last day of the 4 day concentration of CEs at the time), there was a daytime CE on each one of the three 3 day concentration of CEs from June 7th to June 9th. Since UFO activity was already at a high level for the days surrounding these bursts of CEs, the concentrations of activity actually represent levels more like 3Xs that of normal. I now present my second study related to current high concentrations of Close Encounter activity in the U.S.

Most Ufologists will tell you that out of the hundreds of UFO sightings that are reported each month, usually only as little as 4% are inexplicable, true UFOs, or the polar opposite of IFOs (Identified Flying Objects). While I believe that figure is true during months of lowest activity, it is my belief that the percentage rises as the number of reports increases. During an average month I would guestimate (or make an educated stab at a figure) that 7-12% of reports are ones that Blue Book would have eventually labeled an "Unknown". In wave or flap periods, where sightings are in concentrations of 2-3Xs that of normal however, I feel that the percentage of Unknowns can rise to a level of 20-30% of the total. Perhaps even as high as 40% as a former director of Blue Book once stated it did during the summertime UFO wave of 1952.

In my last study of CE concentrations I filtered out a large chunk of reports so that about 75% of the raw data was used. This time I read each report and rejected a good deal more, leaving just 37.5% of the reports to use for analysis.. One reason such a big chunk was thrown out was that I decided to add rather than average the NUFORC (National UFO Reporting Center) data (15 out of 62 reports or 24%) with MUFON's (Mutual UFO Network's)(36 out of 74 reports or 49%). Since I was now adding rather than averaging I took great care to remove duplicates or sightings that had been reported to both agencies (part of the reason why so many more sightings were rejected with NUFORC).

The Close Encounter reports used (within 500 feet of the witness), only categorized as such by MUFON, represented only about half of the MUFON total (8 out of 15) for the 3 day period studied. Of the 8 CEs used during those 3 days, there were 3 that occurred during the day or a staggering 37.5%, which also represents 4.7Xs the average for a 3 day period within the full 28 days reviewed (the 3 such reports during those 3 days represented half of the 6 filtered daylight CEs during the 28 day period from 6/3-6/30/12).

In other words, something extraordinary was occurring during those three days in June and I set out to try to get as clear a picture of the situation as I could. I plan to give more details related to the individual reports during this period in a later hub but, for now, will only be looking at the numbers and how they have been used to rank the U.S. states (in the spreadsheet below) and how that looks mapped out (shown above).

Spreadsheet showing rankings of the top 20 U.S. states based on highly filtered data from MUFON and NUFORC (factoring in population density) for three days from June 7-9, 2012
Spreadsheet showing rankings of the top 20 U.S. states based on highly filtered data from MUFON and NUFORC (factoring in population density) for three days from June 7-9, 2012

Whereas Missouri and Virginia hosted the only daytime CEs for the 28 day period from 5/6-6/2/12 (both on 5/29 during the last day of the 4 days where CEs dominated), Colorado, Michigan, and Pennsylvania was home to them during the three days of heightened CE activity from 6/7-6/9/12 (3 others occurred in North Carolina on 6/3, New York on 6/15, and Oklahoma on 6/22). When compared to the previous CE storm in late May, Nebraska and Montana fell from their dominant positions (of 1st and 2nd place) to a no report showing status. Similarly Utah and New Mexico (in 6th and 7th place before) dropped out of the picture. Colorado and Oregon maintained a high position (they were in 5th and 4th place before). Arizona, Texas, Minnesota, Washington, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Indiana graduated to significantly higher levels during the June CE storm. Missouri moved down a bit from the number 3 position to the 8th. Michigan, Iowa, California remained in a zone of strength (was 8-13, now 7-11). During the 3 day June storm, the 36 filtered MUFON sightings were concentrated in 18 states while the 4 day May storm with 59 filtered MUFON sightings reports were spread out over 32 states. Although NUFORC's 15 filtered reports during the June storm represented 29.4% of the total used here they played an important role. Minnesota didn't have any filtered MUFON reports, but NUFORC had 2 credible ones resulting in it being ranked in 5th place (having a population density of around 33% less than the U.S. state average made a difference also since that entered into my rating formula). The NUFORC data also ended up tripling Arizona's report numbers, doubling Pennsylvania's, and increasing Michigan's by 67%, effectively advancing the standings of those states substantially.

I leave you with a graphic map display that depicts UFO sighting concentration numbers (NUFORC reports per 100,000 population) by individual U.S. state counties for 15.5 years from 1995.0 to 2010.5. I've modified the colors and contrast of the original image to enhance the county borders and shadings that represent the different concentrations.

Density of UFO Sightings by County (The map above is a visualization of the data collected by NUFORC between 1995 and 2010).
Density of UFO Sightings by County (The map above is a visualization of the data collected by NUFORC between 1995 and 2010). | Source

© 2012 Joseph Ritrovato


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)