UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Oct > Oct 23

Re: Non-Investigated Flying Objects

From: Richard Hall <dh12.nul>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:15:43 -0400
Archived: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 06:13:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Non-Investigated Flying Objects


>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:41:00 -0600
>Subject: Re: Non-Investigated Flying Objects

>>From: Richard Hall <dh12.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:37:28 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Non-Investigated Flying Objects

>>>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:38:20 -0600
>>>Subject: Re: Non-Investigated Flying Objects

<snip>

>Dick,

>>From your response of 21 Oct to Brad Sparks' proposal:

>"Far too much time is wasted on NFOs and far too much confusion
>is created by not focusing more on true UFOs (well-investigated
>former NFOs)."

>This certainly seems to entail an assumption about NFOs in the
>absence (by definition) of investigation. How does one reconcile
>this with the last sentence of your reply to me?

Mike,

I think that all we have is a minor semantical confusion in
trying to understand each other's comments. I see no problem of
'reconciliation' or any assumption on my part one way or the
other about NFOs. To the contrary, my main point was that no
assumption should be made one way or the other.

>In any case, I think we are in agreement that Brad's overall
>point is well-taken. The essential point of my reply to him is
>that, by adjusting the 'filter' on what constitutes a case worth
>investigating, one can obtain just about any desired number for
>the fraction of genuine unknowns in the investigated set.
>However, a debunker can similarly expand the overall 'report'
>database such that the fraction of unknowns tends to zero.

I would reply to this by saying that as former head of the NICAP
investigation network and later a MUFON officer, I have decades
of practical, hands-on experience in screening raw reports (as
do many of my contemporaries), and it is rather easy to screen
out highly likely IFOs (fireball meteors, advertising planes,
aircraft strobe lights, bright astronomical objects such as
Venus, atmospheric rocket launches among the most common).

The rest of your argument about a filtering process skewing the
percentage of unknowns completely eludes me. In the first place,
I consider the 'percentage of unknowns' argument to be totally
meaningless (as does Brad Sparks). Once you scree out the
(highly likely) obvious IFOs, some of the residuum does turn
out, after careful and thorough investigation mind you, to be
explainable by some unique or unusual local event.

The UFO phenomenon, if there is a real and non-trivial one as I
am convinced there is, lies in the fully investigated and
unexplainable cases or "True UFOs." Very importantly, this body
of hardcore, fully investigated cases shows strong patterns of
appearance and behavior.


- Dick



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