UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Oct > Oct 19

Re: Strange Manitoba Sky Sights Pick Up

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:09:43 -0300
Archived: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:39:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Strange Manitoba Sky Sights Pick Up


>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.

>>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.

I'm not taking away from your research Chris, or Geoff's for
that matter. But do you think it's objective where it's dealt
with with your criteria? None of us can be experts in all fields
necessary to determine for sure what another has seen in the sky
is in fact one thing or another-not having been there to begin
with.

>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."

Actually you said, "Every year, it's whittled down to about 3% to
5% that don't have an easy explanation." Suggesting that with
more data these too would be explained as prosaic in nature.

I know that you get a good cross section of reports from across
the country each year - I've sent in cases myself on occassion -
 but I wasn't aware that you investigated each to determine the
cause of each event or the lack of cause. Over 700 last year if
memory serves.

>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.)

There again it subject to your interpretation

>>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.

No. Actually I don't throw much out without at least a
preliminary look. Over the years I've been involved in about 50
odd cases. Very few of these were easy to solve or even solvable.
I didn't filter them, they just came in that way. Most were up
close and personal and in fact probably 70 percent were of high
strangeness with no links to the ususal suspects.

>You probably aren't interested calls or emails about simple
>"lights in the sky" or reports that sound like planes, stars and
>planets.

You are correct, I'm not... but I rarely get these calls

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!

Well it's nothing to sneeze at but I'm convinced the numbers are
greater than that. Of course it goes without saying that you
aren't receiving all of the reports either.


Don Ledger



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