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

True Percentage Of UFO Unknowns Is High [was Re:

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:19:09 EDT
Archived: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:42:47 -0400
Subject: True Percentage Of UFO Unknowns Is High [was Re:


>From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:54:13 -0500 (CDT)
>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.

I absolutely agree with Don Ledger here, thank you for pointing
this out Don! I have been protesting this debunking Blue Book
statistical trick for years on this list to little avail. Kudos
Don.

No less an outstanding scientist UFO investigator than James
McDonald after extensive research in the BB files estimated the
true percentage of Unknowns as 30% to 40% not 5%.

And for you Canadians McDonald announced this finding in his
CASI lecture in Toronto on March 12, 1968, where he also tore
apart Phil Klass who was also listening in the audience. CASI is
the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute and McDonald's
paper was entitled, UFOs - An International Scientific Problem.
McDonald published and disseminated his CASI paper which has
been available on the Internet and/or from Stan Friedman in
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada for decades.

Methinks Canadians have no excuse for not knowing this. If you
disagree with McDonald then you should have published your
disagreement with him decades ago. The UFO field continually
loses sight of basics like this and again, thank you Don for
calling this highly appropriate corrective to our attention.

>>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.

Tell me then what you do to comply with the Hynek screening
process as explained in his basic textbook of UFO science, The
UFO Experience in 1972? No sighting report according to Hynek
should get the "UFO" label until after a scientifically
competent investigation has eliminated IFO's and other
conventional explanations (for simplicity I call all
conventional explanations including hoaxes "IFO's"). Do you do
that first on _all_ your cases before you call them _all_
"UFO's"?

The UFO skeptic position is that there is no real difference
between UFO's and IFO's, that the "very few" so-called UFO's are
really misperceptions of random IFO phenomena reported
anecdotally and unscientifically, and that even UFO researchers
cannot tell the difference between UFO's and IFO's without an
elaborate and tendentious analysis that merely plays up minor
differences based on preconceived ideas and subjective biases
and then calls that proof of ET visitation.

The skeptic position would be defeated if we used objective
criteria to screen cases, stopped misrepresenting UFO case
statistics, and stopped shamelessly promoting anecdotal cases as
if there was no other kind of data. It's a choice and all we
have to do is make the choice.

>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.)

Justifiable? Scientific? Who actually slaps the "UFO" label on
95% of the reports that come in when the witnesses have _not_
ever used the word or term "UFO"? You have thus artificially
inflated the "UFO" stats so the proportion of true Unknowns
among this vast bloated collection of reports becomes tiny in
comparison -- in fact later on in your posting you admit that
this "drops the percentage of 'real' UFOs." Why play into the
hands of debunkers like that?

Why do that to the honest witnesses who in the vast majority of
reports are careful _not_ to label what they saw as "UFO" or
"spacecraft" even though they don't realize how much hyped
controversy rides on such labeling tricks? It is a credit to the
vast majority of witnesses who exercise such care and a
discredit to them to crassly ignore their caution just to
inflate the "UFO" statistics so one can boasting of so many
thousands of "UFO" reports in Canada by a trick of mislabeling.

If the witness does not use the term "UFO" isn't it a form of
misquotation to say or imply that they did? Or if the UFO
investigator plants the "UFO" label on the witness in
interviewing him or her by using leading questions so the
witness starts using the "UFO" term when they had not done so
previously in regard to their sighting?

Surely you know that some honest witnesses of integrity are
lambasted by debunkers and raked over the coals publicly when
their alleged "UFO" sightings actually turn out to be alleged
IFO's -- when the witness himself or herself never said it was a
"UFO" in the first place! We are the ones who called it a "UFO"
but it's the witness who suffers for it. Is that fair?

We have an obligation to the witnesses to handle their reports
with more respect than this. They may well be reporting IFO's
but we should not set them up to be criticized for it. Witnesses
are not PhD investigators of their own cases and should not be
made to feel guilty or stupid for that.





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