UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Oct > Oct 21

Re: Non-Investigated Flying Objects

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:36:21 EDT
Archived: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 09:54:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Non-Investigated Flying Objects

Non-Investigated Flying Objects (NFOs) - Neither UFO or IFO

I suggest naming the category of non-investigated or
uninvestigated sightings "NFOs" or Non-investigated Flying
Objects (NFOs). This is an indeterminate catchall category for
initial incoming sighting reports prior to any Hynek screening
or investigation. Most cases will fall into this category and
never get reclassified as either IFOs or UFOs. The 'NFO' term
falls nicely in between IFO and UFO alphabetically which is
conceptually where it belongs.

For simplicity I include all conventional explanations within
the scope of the term IFO including cases where there is no
object at all, such as some hallucinations and hoaxes. I don't
quibble over hypertechnicalities of the 'flying' term, where
purists complain that we usually don't know if the object is
flying using aerodynamic principles, and celestial bodies are
not 'flying' at all, etc. The traditional 'UFO' term uses the
word 'flying' and everyone has a rough idea what 'UFO' and 'IFO'
mean and they don't take it so literally. 'NFO' nicely and
logically alliterates with IFO and UFO so it will suggest the

Trying to replace the term "UFO" because of quibbles over the
word 'flying' will simply lose 99% of the people who have an
interest in the UFO subject.

The Hynek screening process is explained in his basic textbook
of UFO science, The UFO Experience, published in 1972 and
endlessly reprinted in numerous editions ever since. You can buy
paperback copies on Amazon.com for less than the cost of
shipping so there is no excuse for serious UFO researchers not
have it and read it.

No sighting report according to Hynek should get the 'UFO' label
until after a scientifically competent investigation has
eliminated IFOs and other conventional explanations.

Whenever it is unclear what we mean by 'UFO' or if there is a
possibility of some confusion then simply say UFO Unknowns or
'real UFO' or Unexplained UFOs or the like, just as we now do

With this new terminology the AF Project Blue Book statistics
would transform to something like this (these are _extremely_
rough approximations subject to refinement and more thorough
statistics after Will Wise's BlueBookArchives can get all the BB
files online so a more thorough analysis can finally be done):

NFOs  - 10,500 (approx.)
IFOs  -  1,500 (approx.)
UFOs  -  3,000 (approx.)
Total -  15,000 (approx.)

I am being very conservative on the number of UFO Unknowns, as
20% of the total, whereas it is more likely as McDonald
estimated, about 30% to 40% or about 4,500 to 6,000 Unknowns.

UFO's thus outnumber IFOs by at least 2 to 1 when we stop
bastardizing the statistics by including non-investigated NFO's.
Using Hynek's definition an investigation must be scientifically
competent, hence very few BB investigations would qualify in his
opinion and in the estimation of McDonald and others who have
reviewed BB's work.

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