Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jan -> Re: Philosophy of Science and UFOs

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich)
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 08:30:31 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 14:17:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Science and UFOs


> Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 19:47:03 +0100 (MET)
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: Jean van Gemert <jeanvg@dds.nl>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Philosophy of Science and UFOs

> >From: "Jerry Cohen" <rjcohen@li.net>
> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Philosophy of Science and UFOs

> >>As previously mentioned, Dr. James McDonald brought his findings
> >>before several scientific groups.

>  Jerry,

>  Regarding the number of Bluebook unknowns, McDonald felt that the
>  actual number of true unknowns was much higher. He wrote:

>   "The Bluebook position has for years been that UFOs are almost
>   entirely such misidentifieds, and Bluebook has repeatedly asserted
>   that their small percentage of unidentifieds would fall into that
>   category if more adequate data were at hand. After studying hundreds
>   of their cases, I do not agree. I say instead that adequate and open-
>   minded scrutiny of the roughly 12,000 cases now on file at Air Force
>   Project Bluebook would probably raise the percentage of unidentifieds
>   from the currently acknowledged few per cent to perhaps 30-40 percent."

>  UFOs -- An International Scientific Problem. Paper Presented at the
>  Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute Astronautics Symposium,
>  Montreal, Canada, March 12, 1968

This is interesting, but besides the point.  When the 4602d AISS first
started their investigations, their unidentified level was very high.  Of
course, some of this can be attributed to the learning curve.  However,
it soon came down.  They applied little tricks to get it down that I have
discussed in other posts.  One example concern a GOC post where the woman
on duty called the Filter Center to ask if Mars had risen yet.  It became
a UFO case.  When sent a questionnaire, the lady said she was sure that
she had seen Mars and just wanted to confirm the time of rising.  This
incident remained a UFO case in 4602d AISS files.

"Insufficient Information" as Hynek said was usually insufficient
follow up, and, really in a some cases, a trick to get rid of truly
puzzling cases.

The Air Force had no firm criteria as to what was a case.  Sometimes a
two paragraph clipping has a case file while a complete investigation by
Air Force personnel of an Air Force case on a completed AF Form 112 is
listed as "Not a case--Information only."  The OSI files at the end of
the Project Blue Book microfilm contain many cases not in Project Blue
Book's files.

Hynek's reevaluation of Air Force files did not change the total of
unidentified greatly.  See, THE HYNEK UFO REPORT, P.298.

Another argument could be made that the Air Force system increase the
number of unidentified because cases determined to be IFOs at an place in
the chain were not forwarded.  From the unit histories I have posted you
can see this in operation.

However, there is another reason, I am interested in finding cases in
unit histories.  They generally tell where in local file the cases are
found.  All that you have to have is a commander who says "There will be
no UFO reports in this command."  Boom.  There are none. (I am interested
in the these local files as a possible of source of new official
material.)

My search of Navy logs tends to confirms this.  Even before UFOs, there
was a bias against recording unusual events because the deck officers
were afraid of embarrassing the Captain.  So when the rough log was
transferred to final version, these things just fell out.  Once again, in
the HYNEK REPORT you will find a series  of reports off Korea by the
carrier Phillipine Sea and the battleship Missouri involving in some
cases radar visual sighting.  These are official reports sent through
Navy channels and to the AF, but search the ships' logs in the Task
Forces, and you find nothing except a sighting of a green meteor.

Whether the percentage of unknowns is 30% or 5% is besides the point.
Arguments can be made in either direction, just the define the sample in
different ways. The true unknowns are not in the majority, granted.
Despite the arguments of USAF, MOD, DND, this is irrelevant.  It is like
saying amount of the isotope U235 compared to the amount of Uranium is
not significant.

>  And for those who are interested, Brian Zeiler and I have a special
>  page dedicated to James McDonald at:

>  http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers_e.htm

>  Jean

Excellent!  McDonald's work is a great counter weight to foolishness and
fuzzy headedness seen in some of ufology.