UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Oct > Oct 21

Re: Theories of Intent and Ineptitude

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:04:04 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:48:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Theories of Intent and Ineptitude

 >From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Theories of Intent and Ineptitude
 >Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 16:48:33 -0500


 >>>Given that only a tiny amount of research has been done
 >>>classifying and analysing even _raw reported_ UFO and occupant
 >>>behavior, and that the resulting database contains an unknown
 >>>amount of noise, very likely increasing almost asymptotically in
 >>>the cases whose strangeness exceed CE2 and CE3, attempts to
 >>>class reported behavior as inept or expert are doomed to
 >>>founder.

 >If I am reading Mark correctly, perhaps the point that he makes
 >isn/t all that far off from the same point that detractors of the
 >literalist ETH would make. Attempting to speculate about the true
 >purpose and goal of 'aliens' - as many folks who support one view
 >or another often do in scenarios about ecological concern or
 >bovine and human-nappings simply is unjustified for the reasons
 >cited above.

This is a fair reading of my comments.

 >This is not to say that experiences might not have a sexual
 >component or an ecological component, but rather, such a
 >simplistic and literal view of such components can not be
 >justified.

But this part isn't - quite. My point is that the "simplistic"
or "literal" views may very well be _justifiable_, but that
those who put them forward haven't done the work needed to
justify them, core among which is being able to use a very clean
standard database and making both methodology and database
available.

Or even using a not-so clean database but making the methodology
clear, so that disputes can be performed on a case by case
basis.

I did something like this in

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/analysis/toomanylandings/index.htm

where I used 6 classifications for the UFO events in the Magonia
catalog to try to show whether the record justified contentions
that there are too many landings for UFOs to be physical
objects.

 >Personally I think an arguement could be made that the higher
 >the strangeness, when we speak only within the CE3 cases, the
 >more likely that such reports reflect the genuine mystery
 >involved, but thats another rant and I have a headache.....

The problem with this is that as the strangeness increases, the
probability seems to decrease. In other words, as can be seen at

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/analysis/demographics/ufoexperience/index.htm

the demographics of witnesses approach the normal demographics
of the population as strangeness increases. However this means
more kids, more housewives, and far fewer trained observers.

AFAIK, there have been few if any studies of these demographic
and probability issues done for CE and above classifications.

There is an additional problem in that (except for repeater
abductions) the number of cases available decreases with
increasing strangeness, making it very hard to do good
statistics on higher strangeness cases.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------





[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com