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: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 13:58:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 06:00:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Science and UFOs

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

> JC:   Sorry for this interjection again, but:  A problem existing in
> Ufology today is that skeptics, because they have not researched deep
> enough, often quote statistics that skew historical fact. Example, the
> following quote:

> >........ There are tens and tens of
> >thousands of UFO sightings reported over the last 50 or so years and
> >that is our raw uninvestigated data population.  That is also the
> >most useless number in all of ufology.  Of the uninvestigated total
> >we know that easily from 80% (being very generous) to 95% are IFOs
> >(and some, a small percentage) are hoaxes.  We know statistically
> >that 80% to 95% will be retired as IFOs.......

> REBUTTAL:

> JC:   In the past, most of the statistics used to retire UFOs as IFOs
> were provided by the Air Force.

We also have APRO and NICAP data from the same time period.  We also
have other data sources since then.

> Anyone can easily go to the library and check out many of the sources
> listed below for yourselves. It is basic straightforward history.

If you prefer 70% to 95%, instead of my saying "80% to 95%," that's fine
with me, I don't think the difference is significant with respect to the
three points I was trying to make:

1) _Most_ UFO sightings turn out to be readily explainable.  We
shouldn't be surprised by that since most sightings originate from
untrained and unequiped casual observers.

2) The raw sighting count or the raw sighting report count is an utterly
useless and meaningless number.

3) After extensive research and investigation, _some_ (small)
percentage, with a high point around 15% to 30% <grin> to a low of
around 5%, of UFO sightings remain beyond current explanation.  _Some_
older UFO sightings (Catalina film and at least one other) did yeild a
common Earthly explanation upon the use of modern technology, and its
likely a _few_ more will follow in time.  Howeover, _this_ remaining
core dataset should be the primary focus of ufology.

There's at least one good (or sensible to some <grin>) reason why the
really good UFO stuff didn't go to Bluebook.  Bluebook was a PIO
quasi-investigative operation and if they had to explain a particular
sighting as being an advanced USAF R&D craft I rather think the folks at
the DoD would get upset...

I suspect that if the DoD would be forthcoming with declassification
and disclosure we could whittle our core dataset down to around 5%.  But
I think the difference between 30% or 15% or 5% is largely irrelevant.

--

Thanks, take care.
John.

([]][][][][][][][][][][][][][])
[                             ]
[  sjpowell@access.digex.net  ]
[                             ]
([]][][][][][][][][][][][][][])