UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > Oct > Oct 19

Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:26:55 EDT
Archived: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:23:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>From: Franklin D. Fields <fields.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:55:58 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>>From: Dick Hall <dh12.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:11:15 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>>>From: John Rimmer <j.rimmer.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:51:17 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos


>>John and List, this is from the Foreword to The UFO Evidence,
>>Volume II (2001) by yours truly:

>>"The problem of obtaining recognition of UFOs as a genuine
>>scientific mystery (whose origin may or may not be
>>extraterrestrial) is compouned by credulous UFO proponents who
>>uncritically believe everything they read, and think every light
>>in the sky is a UFO. These so-called believers, with their wild-
>>eyed speculation, apparently don't undersand science at all.


>>This is my argument in a nutshell. In my opinion, John Harney is
>>right in this one respect: It all comes down to what we accept
>>as valid data, and centrally important data. ...

>In my opinion UFOs are real and no reasonable person who
>examines the evidence can argue otherwise. Given that belief,
>one comes to the next logical question and that is who or what
>is responsible. The ETH is by far the best hypothesis. In my
>mind it is clear from the evidence. But unlike the reality of
>UFOs, there it is still room for a reasonable debate of the ETH.

Debunkers deny that there is a real UFO phenomenon. Skeptics say
that it is so extremely difficult to tell a UFO from an IFO,
that not even UFO investigators can do so easily, and this must
be because there is no real difference between UFO's and IFO's,
it is just chance that a case gets arbitrarily assigned a "UFO"
label instead of an "IFO" label. They point to the alleged
statistics that say only 5% of all cases are UFO Unknowns, and
they argue that over time with additional investigation even
these UFO Unknowns eventually become IFO's.

My position, as readers on this List know, is that these
arguments and statistics are contaminated with bad data, namely
Insufficient Data cases, which must be excluded right from the
outset, using objective criteria (what? no sighting date? then
no statistics!).

Project Blue Book discovered that when Insufficient Data cases
were eliminated (and that means eliminating Possible and
Probable IFO's as those should be Insufficient Data too) they
had 71% Unknowns and only 29% IFO's.

I contend that if single witness cases are excluded (as Hynek
urged), and minimum durations of at least 1 minute and minimum
Angular Sizes of at least Full Moon are required, then the
proportion of UFO Unknowns will approach 100% and we will find
that it is extremely easy to tell the UFO's from the IFO's.

Furthermore, most UFO Unknowns of high quality remain that way
over time and do not become IFO's. In fact, the reverse is the
case, the most seemingly well-explained IFO cases such as RB-47
and Lakenheath-Bentwaters become UFO Unknowns with exhaustive
additional investigation.

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