UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Oct > Oct 17

Re: Strange Manitoba Sky Sights Pick Up

From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows.nul>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:54:13 -0500 (CDT)
Archived: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:00:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Strange Manitoba Sky Sights Pick Up

>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:48:35 -0300
>Subject: Re: Strange Manitoba Sky Sights Pick Up

>>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.

>That's a pretty safe but tired estimation of unsolved cases in
>my estimation and there's no research to prove that only 3-5
>percent are unsolved. I make it more like 25 -30 percent in
>cases I've looked into over the last 15 years. I think it's time
>to throw out that throw-back to Project BlueBook reference. Even
>their cases are proving to reflect more like 30 percent unknown
>as was the case with the Condon report.

>But if it makes researchers feel safe in using this bogus and
>unproven percentage of 3-5 percent when dealing with the press,
>so be it.

Geez, Don...

We've spent the better part of 20 years going through Canadian
UFO report data and publishing it as the Canadian UFO Survey
every spring. We even make the raw data available for anyone to
look at and use themselves.

This is pure research, scientific and justifiable, and there is
no question that when you actually look at the data - what is
actually being reported by witnesess - only about 3 to 5 per
cent are what we call "high quality unknowns." It's NOT that the
rest are explainable; most have insufficient information or are
judged as having possible or probable explanations based on the
information available. (This is outlined in our studies.)

>I just don't think the public are as unsophisticated as they are
>often purported to be, aided and abetted by researchers that
>have nothing to back up this claim.

All we have to back this up is facts, and it's not a claim.

My guess the reason you're estimating the percentage of unknowns
to be higher is because you're being selective about your cases.
You probably aren't interested calls or emails about simple
"lights in the sky" or reports that sound like planes, stars and
planets. But when these are reported as UFOs, which they are in
great numbers on Vike's site, directly to us via Transport
Canada and other ways, we include them in our data, and that
drops the percentage of "real" UFOs. (Again, this is all
explained in our annual studies.)

>It should be remembered that the only reason that the 3-5
>percent claim as "Unknown" was allowed in the first place was
>that there wasn't enough data to explain it away as a known but
>presummably would be when all of the data was in.

In our case, we're just being thorough.

>I'm not sure why today's researchers still buy into such a low
>percentage. Is it just in hopes they can slip a figure that low
>[and perhaps safe] past the media and science? To me it does
>more harm than good.

I disagree. It's a fact. And even if it's only 5 per cent,
that's still significant and worth pursuing. 5 per cent of 5,000
(about how many Canadian cases are in the database now) is still
about 250 "real" UFOs.

That's pretty good, I'd say!

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