From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 15:01:01 -0700 Archived: Fri, 04 May 2012 06:13:03 -0400 Subject: Re: UFO Dangers Examined By U.S. News & World >From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 11:38:06 -0300 >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 >>>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? >A totally made up percentage that has been around for some 70 >years without any support. UFO researchers bought into it >initially because it at least gave them a foot in the door; a >measely 5% when in fact the numbers are probably closer to 30%, >maybe more. Exactly! Project Blue Book and its predecessors Project Sign and Project Grudge had percentages well over 20%, closer to 30%. Even under the rather stringent criteria of Blue Book Special Report #14 (the Battelle Institute study of 3200 USAF UFO cases) from 1952-1954, where all four science analysts had to agree that a case was a true unidentified whereas only two had to agree that it be listed as identified, the overall percentage of unknowns was still around 22%. However, when the Air Force made the report public in 1955, the press release lied and said the percentage of remaining unknowns was only 3%, which no doubt would disappear with further information. In reality, BBSR #14 placed cases considered to have insufficient information to make a determination in its own separate category, which made up 9% of the sample. Lack of information had nothing to do with it. In fact, BBSR analysts found that the better the case, the higher the percentage of unknowns, not the other way around. Poor data was NOT the cause of the unknowns. The large percentage of unknowns all changed with the CIA Robertson Panel of 1953 which urged an official policy of ridicule, followed by Air Force Regulation 200-2 which ordered the percentage of unidentifieds to be held to an absolute minimum. Simultaneously, the best cases were generally being withheld from Blue Book and instead siphoned away to the very unpublic UFO investigation in newly formed units. Under this new official policy of ridicule and obfuscation, unidentifieds in the public Blue Book statistics typically dropped down into the ridiculous 1% per year range, instead of 20%-30%. Hynek complained about the total abuse of the scientific process and statistics even in the cases that Blue Book examined. Any old explanation was considered sufficient, whether it fit the facts or not. Remotely possible "explanations" became definitive solved as "identifieds". In the long run, when Blue Book finally shut down in 1969, the overall percentage of unidentifieds had been watered down to only 6%. The vast majority of "unknowns" in PBB date to pre- 1954, with only a relative handfull added thereafter. And that is probably where "only 5%" comes from. It is an artificial, phony number, the result of a policy of official debunkery. Unfortunately, that is also the number Leslie Kean conservatively adopted in her book, from which the U.S. News article on airline safety was partly based. That said, other studies come up with different numbers. Allen Hendry's private study for CUFOS came up with only 9% unknown, which Hendry reduced to only 1% for what he considered to be truly inexplicable. But Hendry's database, unlike Blue Book's, was almost entirely civilian cases, with few military, which generate higher percentages of unknowns. Also I have my reservations about statistics based only on one person's analysis. Nobody is an expert in everything. (The recent UK Condign Report has the same problem--only one analyst.) Perhaps the most comparable study to Special Report #14 has been the ongoing French UFO study, GEPAN/SEPRA, which has come up with a hardcore 14% unknowns of ALL reports (which number in the thousands), which rises to around 25% if only those cases with sufficient information to make a determination are included. The numbers game all comes down to who is doing the study and the criteria they apply. The Condon Committee had around 30% unknowns of a rather small sample. (As we all know, Condon lied in his summary about the unknowns.) The French COMETA Committee came in at only 5% of the cases they studied. The Peruvian government UFO study places unknowns at only 2% hardcore cases. But generally, the really big studies of large numbers of cases where politics and a broad sample of cases, including military cases, are considered, such as BBSR #14 GEPAN/SEPRA, have percentages of unknowns in the roughly 20% range. As Mark Twain famously observed, there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. David Rudiak 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