From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys.nul> Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 12:37:54 -0300 Archived: Fri, 04 May 2012 06:07:33 -0400 Subject: Re: UFO Dangers Examined By U.S. News & World >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:20:03 -0500 >Subject: Re: UFO Dangers Examined By U.S. News & World Report >>From: Diana Cammack <cammack.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >>Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 15:30:48 +0200 >>Subject: Re: UFO Dangers Examined By U.S. News & World Report >>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >>>To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers - >>>Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 12:06 PM >>>Subject: UFO UpDate: UFO Dangers Examined By U.S. News & World Report >>>Source: HuffPo >>>http://tinyurl.com/8xut8o3 >>>05/ 1/2012 >>>UFO Dangers Examined By U.S. News & World Report >>>Lee Speigel >>><snip> >>>Every year, thousands of UFO sightings from around the world are >>>reported. And, as the magazine points out, about 95 percent of >>>those reports are explained as ordinary things like military >>>aircraft, balloons, misidentified astronomical objects - such >>>as planets or meteors - and meteorological phenomena. >>Question: where did this 95% come from, and is it a current >>figure? Has anyone tested it lately? >As Brad Sparks has pointed out here and elsewhere, it's >basically an urban legend, based on a very loose definition of >what observers mean by "UFO" sightings. >In the days when Blue Book was conducting actual investigations >of UFO sightings, it concluded that unknowns were between 25 and >30 percent of the total. And it got to that figure by >automatically relegating high-strangeness cases - those >involving landings, close encounters, occupants - to the >"psychological" category. Jerry and Don are both right. An interesting example occurred a few years back during a debate between myself and sceptic Michael Shermer on Coast to Coast radio. He started by saying that with UFOs, as with all paranormal stuff, there is always a residue of about 5% of the cases for which there isn't enough information to provide a definitive answer. I drove my truck through the huge hole he had just created. I pointed out that what he said wasn't true. In the biggest study ever done for the US Air Force, Project Blue Book Special Report 14, it was found that 21.5% of the 3201 cases could NOT be explained completely separate from the 9.3% for which there was insufficient information. I noted that the better the quality of the report the more likely it was an UNKNOWN, that the probability that the UNKNOWNS were just missed KNOWNS was less than 1% even though no sighting could be listed as an unknown unless all 4 of the final report evaluators agreed it was an unknown though any 2 could list a case as a KNOWN. I then noted the 30% of Condon's 117 cases that couln't be explained, the 18% of 4500 of Dick Hall's UFO Evidence cases, etc. It should be no surprise that the audience vote at the end of the program was 80% thought I won. Matter of fact one of my very few complaints about Leslie Kean's important book is her use of the 95% explainable notion. Let us not let the nasty noisy negatavists get by with their propaganda Stan Friedman Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp