UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Oct > Oct 18

Re: Is Ufology 'Anti-Science'?

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:21:57 EDT
Archived: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:27:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Is Ufology 'Anti-Science'?

>From: Claude Mauge <claudemauge.nul>
>To: UFO UpDate <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:13:06 +0200 (CEST)
>Subject: Re: Is Ufology 'Anti-Science'?


>[4.]1 Stories =3D Data. Most of the information we possess on UFOs
>is anecdotal in nature, and UFO cases that are built solely on
>human testimony form 'soft data' indeed.

Excuse me but this is a bunch of crap. It's pretty slick that by
simply never discussing _non_-anecdotal UFO cases a skeptic can
pretend that these do not exist and that the UFO phenomenon is
merely unscientific anecdotes and folklore tales.

It is then quite shattering to be confronted with military UFO
cases with scientific measurement data such as the missile
tracking cameras that tracked a UFO moving from azimuth 86=B0 9'
9.2" to 85=B047' 9.2" and elevation 25=B048' 0" to 25=B0 7'50" over
the course of 14.6 seconds of phototheodolite film. This is not
a vague sighting of a light in the sky by some housewife or
truck driver! There is no comparison. And when I point out these
cases to skeptics such as here on UFO UpDates they go silent and
disappear from the discussion and wait to reappear again after
everyone has forgotten all about the dumbfounding UFO cases I
presented earlier.

For years now I have posted details on UFO UpDates of such
strong multiple-witness UFO Daylight Disc triangulation cases in
Air Force files as the following, where the triangulation
determines size, speed and distance - supposedly never known in
UFO cases according to skeptics and debunkers. There is no
possibility whatsoever of hoax or so-called "misperception" here
in these daylight sightings:

World renowned astronomer and meteoriticist Lincoln LaPaz, July
10, 1947 (4 witnesses, 200 ft object maneuvering at up to 1,400
mph in and out of a cloud bank at known distance). Daylight

World's leading aircraft designer Kelly Johnson (of U-2 and
later SR-71 fame) and Cal Tech aerodynamicist and test pilots in
the Lockheed triangulation case of Dec 16, 1953 (7+ independent
air-ground witnesses, 200 ft hovering object suddenly
accelerating to 25,000 mph into space). Daylight sighting.

Pentagon R&D Director's Oct 7, 1958, triangulated observation
(2+ independent air-ground witnesses, 500 ft hovering object
suddenly accelerating to 36,000 mph into space). Daylight

Are these world's top scientists and engineers deluded morons
who don't know what they were doing or talking about?? Were
these religious cranks, kooks, or esoteric nutballs? Were they
alien contactees or abductees?

They were the _world's_leading_experts_ on astronomy,
meteoritics, aircraft design, aerodynamics, visual observation,
experimental test piloting of advanced aircraft, with inside
knowledge of leading edge advanced R&D aircraft and missile
designs in classified projects (or were personally involved in
such projects such as Kelly Johnson's now famous ultrasecret CIA
"U-2" Aquatone).

You could not possibly pick out a better set of UFO observers,
as these are the best possible UFO observers one could ever
conceive of. If you dispute that then name any better top world
experts to be witnesses of a UFO!

LaPaz was an expert in personal short-period nighttime visual
observation of meteors and the planet's leading expert in
investigating witness sightings to track and find fallen
meteorites. LaPaz knew how to sift the wheat from the chaff in
assessing the quality and accuracy of witness reporting, which
was calibrated and proven by his success in using this analysis
to actually find the needle-in-a-haystack meteorites on the
ground, little rocks found in miles and miles of vacant
wastelands. LaPaz was more than just a cliched "trained

One of the Lockheed test pilots actually had unusual training in
testing his visual estimates of distance to remote aircraft
against actual radar tracking data, which helped him calibrate
his visual cues to arrive at his distance estimates - which
turned out to be correct in the UFO case in any event when
checked against the triangulation data.

Air Force files contain numerous cases of special UFO and
missile tracking networks of military observers who triangulated
the locations, sizes and distances to UFO's. Numerous cases of
special highly classified SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) flights
and equipment detecting and tracking UFO's emitting radar and
radio signals - not just the famed RB-47 case of July 17, 1957.
Stop talking about worthless "anecdotes"!

The RB-47 case is one of a number of supposed IFO cases
seemingly disposed of by skeptics which have been stunningly
rescued from oblivion and turned into some of the strongest
Unexplained UFO cases on record. There are few if any genuine
UFO Unknowns that have ever been resolved into IFO's contrary to
debunker dogma that this UFO-turned-IFO is some kind of
inexorable trend that proves the nonexistence of a real UFO
phenomenon. The exact opposite is the actual trend - IFO to UFO.
The case for the UFO gets stronger not weaker with continued

Deal with it!

>[4.]5 IFOs overwhelm UFOs - in numbers. The poor signal-to-noise
>ratio of UFOs to IFOs has always been a tough problem to

No they don't! UFO Unknowns vastly overwhelm IFO's in numbers.
This is a debunking statistical trick that Project Blue Book
borrowed from its predecessors and made a permanent false
fixture in the ongoing UFO controversy. Most sightings are _not_
reported as "UFO" or "flying saucer" or "spacecraft" sightings,
as these are false and misleading labels slapped on by reporting
agencies and UFO investigators, and never even mentioned by the
vast majority of witnesses, who are so slandered by the
debunkers for being sloppy and careless morons - yet are so
careful to not used loaded or biased phrases like "UFO."
Witnesses are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Before Blue Book revived the statistical trick they were finding
Unknowns running at 27% of all reports and IFO's at only 11%, so
UFO Unknowns outnumbered IFO's by almost a factor of 3 to 1.
Then BB chief Ruppelt saw that his staff was not looking like
they were doing their jobs if they couldn't "solve" or even
figure out what to do with over 60% of their cases so they
seized on a Project Sign/Grudge trick of calling these 60% IFO's
instead of Insufficient Info or Insufficient Investigation as
they should have done if they were honest. (They reduced
Insufficient Info from about 20% to 10% and from here on I will
ignore this dishonestly reduced category for simplicity of

Blue Book's newly devised contribution to this statistical trick
was to separate out "Probable" and "Possible" IFO categories and
then shove those 50-60% indeterminate cases into one or the
other and then treat the whole bunch as 100% Certain or "Known"
IFO's. At this point Blue Book could claim that at least 60-70%
of its caseload were IFO's. But they were not done yet.

Then Blue Book started working on whittling down the still high
27% Unknowns by use of another grossly dishonest dirty trick.
They made up a one-sided double standard by which Unknowns could
_not_ include "Probable" Unknowns or "Possible" Unknowns like
the bloated IFO categories were permitted. From then on a UFO
Unknown had to be Certain and could not be "Possible" or

Thus the UFO Unknowns were treated with unfair discrimination
and treated differently than the IFO statistical categories.
=46rom then on Blue Book turned those "Probable" Unknowns and
"Possible" Unknowns into "Possible" and "Probable" IFO's. The
stats for Unknowns suddenly dropped to less than 10% as a result
and soon to less than 5%.

As an historical footnote though, I should mention that while
struggling to destroy that 27% Unknown figure, Ruppelt came up
with one of the most incredibly dishonest lying sleazy tricks of
all, which was apparently too much to get away with (or maybe
someone caught him redhanded cooking the books this way and
called him on it). This dirty rotten deceit did not last long
and was wisely omitted from his book written in 1955.

In Ruppelt's Air Defense Command Briefing of January 1953 he
mendaciously took the 7% unexplained radar cases out of the 27%
Unknowns so that the latter figure dropped to only 20% Unknowns.
Then he created a new IFO category of explanation called "Radar"
- as if "Radar" is an explanation and Radar =3D "IFO"!!! All this
7% "Radar" category was actually unexplained but now was
categorized as explained!

This travesty of deceit and statistical lies is not science! But
the debunking trickery continues to haunt us to this day.

>7.2 As a consequence, we lack (despite several interesting
>attempts) a good definition, a good classification scheme, etc.
>(Hynek's six types have only a circumstancial value and do not
>describe all the possible cases, even with the additions of
>contacts, CE4 and CE5). These are yet the basic elements of any

Excuse me but this is just plain ridiculous! I have _never_
heard of any astrophysicist complain that another astrophysicist
must not investigate pulsars because he has not developed "a
good classification scheme" of "all possible cases" of
astrophysical phenomena such as, say, quasars, galaxies and
supernovas!!! I have never heard of any such thing!! Never heard
anyone say that you can't study pulsars because you don't also
study quasars.

I have never heard of any cetologist protest that cetologists
cannot study humped-back whales because they didn't also study
and classify the sperm whales!!! This is madness!!!

It's also self-contradictory on your part because in sections
4.7, 6.4 and 6.5 you complain that UFO researchers turn off
mainstream scientists because they _do_ include "all possible
cases," including everything but the kitchen sink. You complain
that UFO researchers include UFO cases with discrediting "links
with the occult," "aberrant features," "violation of laws of
physics," "science-fiction" features, "strong symbolic content,"
"cases ... linked to the personal concerns of the witness" or
seemingly designed special for the witness, etc.

Either the UFO field is right to include "all possible cases" or
it is wrong to do so. You can't have it both ways. In fact,
science does not advance by mindlessly incorporating all kinds
of disparate phenomena. That is a prescription for utter chaos
and confusion.

Science is fundamentally reductionistic - it reduces complex
problems to simpler elements and attempts to explain and solve
the simpler problems first before proceeding to tackle the more
difficult. Why on earth would anyone want to deliberately ignore
the _easiest_ puzzles to solve and insist that _everything_ no
matter how complex must be explained _all_ at once or not at
all??? That is sheer pseudoscience and insanity.

And if you don't like Hynek's UFO classification system there is
Vallee's classification system which preceded his, and is based
on UFO shape and motion rather than on Hynek's combining of UFO
behavior and observational circumstances.

A headsup on Allan Hendry's fatally flawed 1979 book The UFO
Handbook. As I have been pointing out for years on UFO UpDates
(in 2001, 2004, etc.) Hendry proves that he didn't know the
difference between azimuth and elevation angles and completely
confused one with the other, didn't have a very good grasp of
angular size, and overall demonstrates a profound ignorance of
basic scientific concepts. You rely on Hendry to your peril.

Hendry absurdly tried to prove that UFO's were exactly the same
as IFO's by preposterously and fallaciously slapping together
completely improper visual comparison drawings that were never
drawn to a common scale. This is like someone "proving" that
microscopic bacteria are the same things as 30-foot octopuses by
printing "similar" drawings of each side by side!

Brad Sparks

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