UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 5

Re: Percentage Of UFOs That Are Unknowns?

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 22:01:27 EST
Archived: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 07:16:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Percentage Of UFOs That Are Unknowns?


>From: Vincent Boudreau <vincentboudreau.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:25:33 -0400 (EDT)
>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 made 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.

Apparently you don't care that UFO investigators make it easy
for debunkers to slander honest, careful witnesses, because
later on you say say we should just ignore the debunkers.

Here the all-important Hynek quote which needs to be
reiterated was deleted:

J. Allen Hynek: "Clearly, the 'Insufficient Information' cases
should have been excluded from the statistical computations
altogether. Instead, these cases were treated statistically as
if they had been solved!" (Hynek UFO Report, 1977, p. 259)

This is a basic concept in scientific data analysis: You don't
include garbage data in your analysis and your statistics.
"Garbage in, garbage out!" Why is that so difficult to accept?

The Insufficient Info or NFO cases as I call them (no one will
use an "II" abbreviation or see a connection with UFO and IFO)
are _garbage_ data. That doesn't mean they are totally worthless
or unworthy of investigation only that at present they cannot be
used in analysis and statistics without misleading or falsifying
the results.

>>>Did you catch that? "Insufficient Info" cases, what I call
>>>NFOs, 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.

That's too bad, stop defending bad data, "garbage in, garbage
out" and trying to "say something about the actual nature of the
reports received" even if most are bad data, NFOs, which Hynek
said should be "excluded... altogether" from UFO statistics. You
accept "garbage in," you will then give us "garbage out."

Apparently Rutkowski doesn't read his own Canadian UFO Surveys
which he chastized me for supposedly not reading. The latest
Survey released this year tallies up 693 Explained (IFOs) and
966 Unexplained (UFOs) for an eighteen-year total of nearly
1,700 not 1,000, and the percentage of UFOs at about 58%, well
over 50%, and IFOs at 42%, thus not "equally" divided between
UFO and IFO.

In the US a 58-42 split in a presidential election would be
called a "landslide" win.

However I question even this apparently too high a figure for
the Explained category as the Survey indicates they deliberately
include all meteors and meteor fireballs reported, which thus
"pads" the statistics and contaminates them further than ever.

>>>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.

<snip>

>Hello Chris, Brad and List,

<snip>

>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 am not trying to get debunkers to accept anything - they are
hopeless, a lost cause, it's a partisan issue with them and they
as extremists are out to convert the masses.

Instead I am trying to get the mainstream scientific community
to not be turned off by debunker arguments which they see
confirmed by foolish pro-UFO advocates who say the same things
as the debunkers - that 95% of all "UFO" sightings "turn out" to
be IFOs and the tiny remainder of 5% are the UFO Unexplained
cases or Unknowns.

You apparently do not even grasp the issues involved here. The
skeptics have a legitimate point here: They and the debunkers
say that if 95% of all "UFOs" (which I dispute right at the
outset for including "garbage in" data, the NFOs or
Insufficient Infos) "turn out" to be supposedly "real" UFOs
then maybe there is no real difference between IFOs and UFOs,
maybe the last remaining 5% UFOs will also "turn out" to be
IFOs eventually (like it's some kind of natural process of
conversion). They say that the 5% Unknowns are actually
"insufficient info" and that with "sufficient info" they will
"turn into" IFOs - they get away with this because UFO
researchers confuse the categories of insufficent info.

Debunkers also say or imply that the 95% figure is a proof of
failure by UFO researchers to prove the reality of the UFO
phenomenon, that such a high "failure rate" of 95% by UFO
investigators proves that there is no difference between IFOs
and UFOs, and that the whole field itself is a delusion, an
obsession with random errors and "misperceptions" (a false term
that debunkers conjured up to smear highly accurate witnesses)
and that UFO researchers are themselves failures.

But the 95% were _not_ "UFOs" in the first place! They never
"turned into" anything! They never "turned into" IFOs because
as garbage data, poor data, insufficient data, hence what I call
NFOs, no one knows what they are, and certainly therefore
cannot legitimately treat them as if we do know what they are.

The 95% indeterminate NFOs also therefore cannot be said (as
skeptics and debunkers claim) to be "the same things as UFOs
and later will turn out to be IFOs," since no one can possibly
know what Insufficient Info cases really are until Sufficient
Info is obtained. Until then such NFO cases must be discarded in
the "gray basket" and not bean-counted by anal- retentives who
want to boast about how many thousands of so- called "UFO" cases
they have handled.

As Hynek said, these Insufficient Info and/or uninvestigated NFO
cases should be "excluded... altogether" from the statistics.

>I do not think this is about scientific methods.

Hynek's discussion about scientific methods was snipped. See
above. More "garbage in, garbage out" and some people on this
List are fine with that. Well I'm not fine with that.

Brad Sparks



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