In September of '98 I felt it necessary to change the timing and the length of my proposed 6.75 day cycle.  Several months have passed since then and I was still not confident with the new results.  I felt the only way to resolve the situation was to review the high concentration of UFO reports that were recorded at the National UFO Reporting Center's internet site for the months of Sep.-Nov'98 and look for a pattern that could further refine my cycle length and the timing of its peaks.  Of the 470 reports in the database for that period, I hand picked what I felt were the best 57 reports and plotted them out.  What I found was two possible values, one that seems to contradicted my last conclusions (given here in non-italics), and the other giving a value that was only a bit longer than my original value. Commentary based on my new results will be given here in italics and inserted at various points within the following document:

Three recent occurrences have caused me to reevaluate the length of my short period cycle (originally estimated to be 6.75 days in length). Some time in May '98, I began to get the impression, while comparing sighting events over the previous few months to my peak occurrence graphs, that my estimates for the peaks seemed to be around a couple of days off.

Not long after this observation I received an email from UFO Investigator Dr. Bruce Cornet, dated June 4, 1998, who had just found out about my website. He was kind enough to share the observation that during sky searches he had conducted from 1992-1997, the best day of the week for viewing seemed to move about one day in time forward each year (this based on my first impression; it is actually more like 3/4 of a day). My estimate, based on a cycle length of 6.75, was that the peak would move around 12 hours into the future from one year to the next. My preliminary view of his data seemed to show that the cycle length should be something like 6.759 days. Based on this, and looking back at key dates of UFO activity, I settled on a value of 6.76367 as the closest one to his observations that would fit. This value yielded a peak day which was 2-1/2 days in advance of my present estimates (for July '98 using 6.75 days as the length). In otherwords what was originally estimated to peak at noon on 7/25/98 (all times are PDT) would instead peak in the evening of 7/27/98.

One of the results of my newest findings produced a cycle length of 6.752475 which creates a peak just a bit later than with my old date and time.  The newest cycle length yields a peak on 7/25/98 at 11pm.  This new figure causes the peak day of the week to advance 0.633 of a day from one year to the next.

A month later I discovered sighting data from researcher Jennifer Jarvis in Canada that she posted to the UFO Updates mailing list on July 5, 1998. In that post she gave five dates and times during the first half of 1998 when UFOs were seen submerging into Lake Ontario. Four of these five dates fit the pattern for my cycle, but required the period of the cycle to be lengthened even more than before. My best present estimate of the cycle period that would fit her data is 6.77445 days. This would yield a cycle peak date 4-1/4 days in advance of my prior estimate (again for July '98). In otherwords what was originally supposed to peak at noon on 7/25/98 would instead peak in the early evening hours of 7/29/98 (my original value for this cycle would also yield 8/1 at 6am as a peak time or 2-1/2 days off). The peak time based on this new data would be at 5:30pm, PDT on 7/29 with a range of 14.5 hours before and after.

Unfortunately, with a cycle length increased to the value indicated by JJ's data, the best viewing day of the week would advance by 1.8 days from one year to the next (compared to Dr. Cornet's observations which translates to about 3/4 of a day). Also, if one uses a cycle length of 6.77445 (based on JJ's data), it doesn't mesh well with observed peaks in UFO activity for 1997. Better would be a value of 6.7554, translating to an advance of 0.8 days from one year to the next for the best viewing day of the week. Although I now believe that this last cycle length estimate corresponds with Dr. Cornet's observations, it would yield a date 3.3 days prior to the peak indicated by JJ's data (it would occur at approximately noon on July 26 or one day after my originally estimated peak day for Jul'98 based on a 6.75 day cycle length). 

The second results of my newest findings is a cycle length of 6.85587 days in length.  This is a bit more than 1/2 of my old 13.625 day cycle length that I never really refined and I've now decided to eliminate from my projection graphs.  This cycle length fits both the results of sightings in early '95, mid '97, and Jarvis' data for '98. Results appear to indicate that this last cycle and the 6.752475 day cycle were in synch during the middle of the September to November '98 UFO wave as recorded by NUFORC.  Based on the newest data I have estimated that the next time these two cycles will peak together at 11pm, 1/3/2000 (all times given on this page are in Pacific time).

What does all this mean? There seems to be only two possibilities: (things are no longer so simple):

1. The cycle is of a consistent length of approximately 6.7554 days in length. Dr. Cornet's observations were correct, but JJ's data was a hard to imagine fluke that happened to very consistently fit the pattern of this cycle.

As stated earlier in italics, JJ's data now fits a cycle length of 6.85587, and Dr. Cornet's observations fit in with a cycle length of 6.754752, advancing the peak by 0.633 days for the best day of the week a year later.

2. Dr. Cornet's observations were correct, but JJ's data is the best to go by for predicting current trends, and this cycle was responsible for the peaks in 1997, which if all three are true then the cycle is not a constant value and can slow down and speed up (the length being considerably longer at present).

The interaction of two cycle lengths would account for the difference in the results and there is no longer the need to believe that the cycle varies in length.

Where does this lead us? I'll be watching the period between 7/24 and 7/31 closely to see what days seem to have the greatest activity. I will also be comparing that data to the weeks before and after then to try and refine the cycle length and determine which of the two possibilities above are correct. Another date worth watching, if JJ's data is the best to predict by, is the night of 7/22-23/98 (at around midnight) when the cycle, if 6.77445 days in length, would also peak. If that is to be the time of a peak of this cycle it could produce a rash of sightings then since it also corresponds with a peak in my roughly 13 day cycle. I would appreciate any feedback from interested parties that may have important observations to share in regard to the above information.

UPDATE: After reviewing some reports for July and August from the internet newsletters of UFO Roundup and Filer's Files I now feel that the cycle length is more like 6.7612 days in length (causing the peak day to shift 1.1 days into the future from one year to the next). Based on this new information (and moving back my original calculation start date by 12 hours to 4/10/95 at 1800 UT) I now believe the peak in late July occurred at approximately 0600 UT on 7/27/98 (2300 PDT on 7/26/98). This would seem to indicate that the pattern seen in J.J.'s data was a fluke and that my earlier impressions based on Dr. Cornet's data was correct. 

As I said earlier, things are now not so cut and dried.  After looking at a longer period of even greater UFO sightings concentration (which was even more current) I believe two cycles are responsible and can account for the apparently contradictory observations.

During this period of reevaluation I had skipped posting a graphic picture of the progression of peak days for this cycle. As a result the prediction graph for the month of August was never prepared and posted. I have now recalculated the data points and will be posting these graphics again for each month as before.\

Beginning with April '99, I will be posting new graphs that display both the peak days for the 6.752475 day and 6.85587 day cycles (eliminating the 13.625 day cycle).