UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 4

Re: Percentage Of UFOs That Are Unknowns?

From: Vincent Boudreau <vincentboudreau.nul>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:25:33 -0400 (EDT)
Archived: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:18:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Percentage Of UFOs That Are Unknowns?


>From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 16:55:55 -0500 (CDT)
>Subject: Re: Percentage Of UFOs That Are Unknowns?

>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:26:17 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Percentage Of UFOs That Are Unknowns?

>>>From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:16:18 -0500 (CDT)
>>>Subject: Percentage Of UFOs That Are Unknowns?

<snip>

>>No mention is ma! de of debunker slander of "UFO" witnesses
>>for making stupid mistakes of "saying they saw a UFO" when
>>"any PhD meteorologist or physicist" could have explained their
>>errors and stupidity, according to debunkers in their typical
>>condescending and insulting way. No mention that the pro-UFO
>>types who slap the "UFO" labels on witness reports are the ones
>>who set witnesses up for this kind of public abuse by debunkers.

>>Did you catch that? "Insufficient Info" cases, what I call
>>NFO's, should be completely _excluded_ from UFO/IFO statistics,
>>"altogether". You don't know for sure what they are, whether IFO
>>or UFO, so they can't just be assumed to be one or the other
>>(I've seen it argued both ways). It's garbage and not valid
>>data, and does not belong in the statistics. It inflates and
>>distorts "UFO" statistics.

>Ah, ! but here's the thing. If we eliminate all the reports of
>object s that are "Insufficient Information" or "NFOs" we will
>effectively decimate the database. In fact, all we would be left
>with would be UFOs and IFOs. So out of, let's say, 5,000
>received reports, we would have a database of about what, 1,000?
>Populated about equally by UFOs and IFOs. Then you could say
>that 50% of the reports were UFOs! But it would not say anything
>about the actual nature of the reports received.

>I agree with you that there are problems with UFO data. I do not
>agree that "NFO" will work as a term when looking at general UFO
>data. I don't see a solution, though. Cases will always be
>under-investigated and there will always be doubts. Do we ignore
>them entirely?

>>Let me be crystal clear here: My position is this, that when
>>there are sufficient data in a sighting report it is _easy_ to
>>tell whether it is an IFO or a UFO
>Okay.

>>The term "UFO" is a loaded term regardless what you claim. I
>>can't believe I have to remind anyone on this List of that
>>indisputable fact.

>>>>>Strange Sky Sights Pick Up

>>>>>UFO reports near-triple average

>>>>"Every year, it's whittled down to about 3% to 5% that don't
>>>>have an easy explanation," said Rutkowski.

>>Nowhere did you tell the press that your actual figure was 15%
>>Unknowns, not "3% to 5%," and nowhere did you tell the press
>>anything about a special category of "high-quality unknowns."

<snip>

Hello Chris, Brad and List,

The fishy subject of UFO statistics reminds me of the way fish
studies are carried.

If you intend to study bass, for example, you setup nets and
pick them up once or twice a day.

You take all the bass and discard the rest: perch, carp,
etc.

You gather the data on bass, then publish your work. Hopefully,
your paper serves as a reference on bass for the next 75 years.

Back to the present discussion: I see two eminent ufologists -
 two nice guys I am sure who will find people to testify for
their integrity and character - fighting each other because they
are trying to figure a way to have the reality of UFOs accepted
by debunkers and the media.

I do not think this is about scientific methods.

In my bass example, Minnow Clearwater, PhD, might mention she
caught one bass for every 45 fish. Nobody will ever say: "Doc,
Bass does not exist."

Dialog is possible with honest people. Debunkers debunk, you
know. The ones you guys are trying to convince are either
uninterested or will not be bothered by the data. Do you know
anyone who have really looked at the data and has rejected its
reality?

As for the media, I think things are slowly turning around.

It is not on th! e account of statistics but because of cases
that strike the imagination. The Chicago Airport case in one of
them. The fact that the French and the British have started
releasing official documents also helps. Never mind the value of
the data they have released. It creates a buzz and media feed on
buzz.

500 is 10% of 5 000 and 30% of 1 500. It is 5% of 10 000.

What do I care? It is still 500.

Maybe ufology should try selling the 500. The way I see it, the
present fight is the debunker's meal. Ufology should find a way
to sell to the media. The scientists will eventually follow.

3-5% is a debunker straw man. One does not want to get into the
argument.

It is a semantic trap of no scientific value.

Hey, only 1% of golfers shoot under 100. If your handicap is 27
or better, does this mean you don't exist?


Vincent Boudreau



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ 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