From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 23:50:36 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 07:37:36 -0500 Subject: Re: 1966-67 UFO Sighting Wave Study - Maccabee >From: Nick Pope <nick.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:46:50 -0000 >Subject: Re: 1966-67 UFO Sighting Wave Study >>From: Isaac Koi <isaackoi2.nul> >>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 01:55:48 -0000 >>Subject: Re: 1966-67 UFO Sighting Wave Study <snip> >What everybody wanted to know was how many sightings were >unexplained. But at the heart of that question was the f.undamental difficulty over when to use the word "unexplained" >and when to use the phrase "insufficient data". The sceptical >faction in the MOD never wanted to categorise any sightings as >"unexplained". Their view was that had additional information >been available, it would have enabled desk officers to explain >any and every UFO sighting in conventional terms. >The producers of the recent BBC2 Timewatch documentary on UFOs >asked me about this and requested that I send them copies of >official documents where this issue had been addressed. The >material below is adapted from my initial email response to >Timewatch associate producer Lisa Charles. >In strictness, both the Flying Saucer Working Party's final >report and the Air Ministry's 9 August 1952 response to Winston >Churchill's question about flying saucers stated that all UFO >sightings had conventional explanations. >On 15 July 1964 a Hansard extract records an MOD statement that >90% of sightings had a "perfectly rational explanation" while >10% of cases involved information "insufficient to support an >adequate inquiry". >On 24 June 1965 the MOD responded to a request for information f>rom the USAF and told them that 90% of cases investigated could >be explained. The remaining 10% were categorised as >"insufficient data". >The USAF's Project Blue Book figures for 1947 - 1965 (inclusive) >showed that 646 cases out of 10,047 (i.e. approx 6.4%) were >categorised as "unidentified". Blue Book had a separate category >for "insufficient data", which averaged out in the years 1953 - >1964 (inclusive) at approximately 18.3%. >Based on my own official research and investigations, and my >analysis of previous MOD files, I would agree that 5% of >sightings could legitimately be categorised as "unexplained". The differentiation between "unexplained" (U) and Insufficient Information (II) is important. In the only really self consistent study (done by Battelle Memorial Inst along with the Air Force at Wright Pat... ATIC and published as Special Report #14) divided the 3201 reports they analyzed (from between 1947 and the end of 1952) into Excellent (E), Good (G), Doubtful (D) and Poor (P) subgroups. The quality was based upon the self consistency, apparent credibility and amount of detail in the reports. They found that as the quality went from P to E the percent II dropped from 20% to 4% while the percent U increased from 18% to 35%. Here they emphazied that the U cases were not merely II cases, but rather that the U cases had aspects of description which should have allowed for identification had identification were possible, whereas the II cases dd not have enough description to clearly reject one or more possible explanations. In year the years after the Battelle study Project Blue Book tried to make it look to the public as if all the U cases could be explained with more information, in other words that U cases were actually II. However, during the Battelle period (47-52) the II and U cases were distinct. When the 204 excellent military reports (out of 1226 total military) were separated from the group of E cases the percent U was as high as 38% and the II cases amounted to only 1.5%.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp