UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 8

Re: Percentage Of UFOs That Are Unknowns?

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:27:29 -0500
Archived: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:14:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Percentage Of UFOs That Are Unknowns?

>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:44:12 EST
>Subject: Re: Percentage Of UFOs That Are Unknowns?


>Sorry the text of this paragraph in my posting yesterday got
>garbled with IFO and UFO trading places at one point. Here is
>the corrected paragraph text:

>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 IFOs 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.

This argument about percentages misses another important point:
the real question is, is there _one_ case that cannot be
explained. Klass had it right: if your time is limited (and
whose time isn't limited?)  investigate the _best_ cases.

Where Klass got it wrong was in his "prosaic explanations," many
of which violated physics or contradicted the available credible
information. Whether or not he actually believed that his
explanations were correct, the fact is that had the "desired"
effect of putting a damper on the UFO/TRUFO/AFC evidence and
taking attention away from the really good cases, such as the
one described below.

Consider, for example, his explanation of the Val Johnson police
car damage case of Aug. 1980.

Johnson, while driving in a rural area, saw a bright light which
suddenly moved rapidly toward his police car and caused him to
skid and stop violently and bump his head. It knocked him out
temporarily.  When he regained consciousness he called the
police department for help. The responding officers found
several types of damage to the car, including broken lights (as
if smashed with a hammer) and bent antennas and his car clock
and wristwatch were both 15 minutes slow, although he had
checked the clock before he went on duty. (More on this in my
"Prosaic Explanation" paper in UFO Magazine and at

In his book "UFOs: The Public Deceived" (aptly titled because he
deceived the public) Klass says that _either_ the damage was
caused by malicious ufonauts _or else_ it was a sort of
practical joke (hoax)...there is no other possible explanation!

He got the idea that it might just have been a "practical joke"
 from his "investigation" that included
talking to another officer at the police department where
Johnson worked. That officer said Johnson might do a practical
joke like "hiding your coffee cup."

Wow! Some compArison: he _might_ hide a guys coffee cup as
evidence that Johnson _damaged his police car_ (felony,
anyone?)!!! There is no comparison!!

I reiterate: no other possible explanation.

The joke/hoax argument makes no sense and no one (except Klass
and his skeptical followers) ever believed that Johnson damaged
his car. (I don't know that Klass actually believed that Johnson
damaged his car, in fact, based on the way he wrote about it in
his book I think he may have "secretly" disbelieved his own
"explanation.") Johnson was never charged or even reprimanded by
his police chief.

(There was also a strange physical effect regarding the bent radio

the "bug tar" all spead over the leading edge surface of each
stiff wire antenna was uniform, so apparently no one grabbed
the antenna and bent it by "normal" force. Hence the bent
antennas were not caused by Johnson grabbing them and forcing
them to bend.)

So, one is left with a choice: accept the hoax explanation with
exactly _no_ evidence that it was a hoax, or accept some version
of Klass' ET alternative .

This case was buried inside Klass' book so I guess it was hardly
noticed by believers and skeptics, but, IHMO, in this case study
Klass proved that at least _one_ UFO was some unearthly

And remember, Ufologists don't need 20% or 10% or even 1% of the
sightings to be unexplainable; all they need is one to change
the world.

Skeptics have to be correct all the time.

Ufologists only have to be correct once!

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



[ 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