Actually, according to the biggest and only official study of it’s kind, the Battelle Study, more than 20% of sightings can be categorised as “unknown” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf p.24). Not only that, they also showed that the more reliable the report, the greater the proportion of unkowns there were.
That’s highly misleading…
No, what
you have presented (below) is HIGHLY misleading (but of course I have come to expect just such from the members of this forum by now). Did you not think I would demonstrate that?
The data for the study only consisted of ~4,000 reports total. (from 1947 to 1952)
What “only”?
”…this study is based on a number of reports considered to be large enough for a preliminary statistical analysis, approximately 4, 000 reports.” (p.2)
” Three principal sources of reports were noted in the preliminary review of the data. The bulk of the data arrived at ATIC through regular military channels, from June, 1947, until the middle of 1952.
A second type of data consisted of letters reporting sightings sent by civilian observers directly to ATIC. Most of these direct communications were dated subsequent to April 30, 1952, and are believed to be the result of a suggestion by a popular magazine that future reports be directed to the Air Technical Intelligence Center. As could be expected, a large number of letters was received following this publicity.
A third type of data was that contained in questionnaire forms completed by the observer himself. A questionnaire form, developed during the course of this study, was mailed by ATIC to a selected group of writers of direct letters with the request that the form be completed and returned. Approximately 1,000 responses were received by ATIC. (p.3)
” Altogether, the data for this study consisted of approximately 4, 000 reports of sightings of unidentified aerial objects. The majority were received through military channels or in the form of observer-completed questionnaires; a few were accepted in the form of direct letters from unquestionably reliable sources. Sightings made between June, 1947, and December, 1952, were considered for this study. Sightings alleged to have occurred prior to 1947 were not considered, since they were not reported to official sources until after public interest in "flying saucers" had been stimulated by the popular press.” (p.4)
Of these only 3,201 reports were evaluated. (~800 rejected as non-factual)
Now that “rejected as non-factual” is more than misleading – it is an outright lie.
” To expedite handling of the data, temporary serial numbers were assigned until each report had been evaluated and the phenomenon had been placed in a category of identification. The use of temporary serial numbers permitted the consolidation of duplicate reports from apparently diverse sources, such as a teletype message and an Air Force. Form 112. However, this consolidation was made ONLY when it could be proved conclusively that the sources of the two documents were one and the same. Factors of the observer's location, date and time of observation, description of the phenomenon, and finally, the name of the observer were considered. In this manner, the assignment of major serial and minor subserial numbers in continuous series was made only to the reports accepted for the statistical study. It is believed that the reports accepted represent unique and unduplicated instances of sightings.” (p. 7)
Of these 21.5% (689) were classified as UNKNOWN.
Yes, 21.5% UNKOWNS! … and this is a section of Blue Book data - which the Air Force said contained only 5% UNKNOWNS!
Interestingly, the scientists also created an “INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category – which they distinguished fro the UNKNOWN category:
”INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION - This identification category was assigned to a report when, upon final consideration, there was some essential item of information missing, or there was enough doubt about what data were available to disallow identification as a common object or some natural phenomenon. It is emphasized that this category of identification was not used as a convenient way to dispose of what might be called "poor unknowns", but as a category for reports that, perhaps, could have been one of several known objects or natural phenomena. No reports identified as INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION contain authenticated facts or impressions concerning the sighting that would prevent its being identified as a known object or phenomenon”(p.12)
Of those ~2/3 were from 1952 alone. (in the midst of a major “flap” and widespread panic)
What “panic”? Interestingly also:
” In order to implement the transcription of data from past sighting reports, each succeeding form was put to use as soon as it was developed and approved. Accordingly, experience was obtained with each form in relation to past data, an important factor in the improvement of the quality and completeness of the later reports included in this study.” (p.5)
And since the cutoff was December 1952, that mean the 1952 reports were considered to be of
better quality and completeness…
Of the reports evaluated, only 2,199 reports were classified as “object sightings”.
”During the course of the transcription of the data to machine card form, it became obvious that certain reports could have been independent observations of the same phenomenon. So, if the presentation of an analysis based on one report for each sighting -was valid (the concept of UNIT SIGHTINGS), a presentation of an analysis based on one report for each phenomenon should be .valid also. Further, the examination of data relating to the actual number of phenomena was considered to be the proper basis for assessing the probability of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge. Therefore, a designation of OBJECT SIGHTINGS was established, with the following definition:
OBJECT SIGHTING - (1) The group of,reports consisting of one report for each phenomenon. (2) The questionnaire, work sheet, and IBM card representing a report for each phenomenon accepted for the statistical study.
In brief review, ALL SIGHTINGS refer to all reports, UNIT SIGHTINGS
refer to actual sightings, and OBJECT SIGHTINGS refer to the assumed
number of phenomena.
It must be recognized that the process of identifying OBJECT SIGHTINGS was deductive, while that for UNIT SIGHTINGS was definitive. A conservative approach was adopted in the determination of OBJECT SIGHTINGS, using the factors of date and time of observations, location of observers, duration of observations, and range, bearing, track direction, and identification of the phenomena. Any error of selection of OBJECT SIGHTINGS will tend to be in the direction of reducing the actual number of phenomena observed (several instances of UNIT SIGHTINGS that might be one OBJECT SIGHTING were noted, but the evidence was not conclusive enough to justify consolidation of the reports). ” (p.9)
Further:
” ALL SIGHTINGS (all reports) 3,20 1 cards
UNIT SIGHTINGS, all observers 2,554 cards
UNIT SIGHTINGS, single observer 2,232 cards
UNIT SIGHTINGS, multiple observers 322 cards
OBJECT SIGHTINGS 2,199 cards” (p.15)
Of those 9.7 % (213) were classified as EXCELLENT.
Of the 2199 OBJECT SIGHTINGS, the reliability classification was as follows:
EXCELLENT 213 (9.7%)
GOOD 757 (34.5%)
DOUBTFUL 794 (36.0%)
POOR 435 (19.8%)
Of those 33.3% (71) were classified as UNKNOWN.
Of the 213 EXCELLENT reliability reports, 71 (33.3%) were classified as UNKNOWN, of the GOOD reports 188 (24.8%), of the Doubtful 103 (13.0%) and of the POOR 72 (16.6%)
This means of course, as I stated, that generally, the more reliable the report, the greater the percentage of UNKNOWNS.
(The UFO debunkers would have us believe the opposite - that the less reliable the report (naturally) there will be more unknowns
because of that. In fact that turns out NOT to be true.)
Therefore only ~1.8% of the total reports were classified as EXCELLENT and UNKNOWN.
That is absolute garbage – it is false and you know it! That percentage your stated there is derived from dividing the 71 Excellent/Unknown reports into the original 4000. However 4000 reports were NOT analysed for this section – only 2199 were!
If you were being
honest you would have stated that it was 3.23% (71/2199x100/1).
But even then you are discounting the GOOD reliability reports – which when added in makes that statistic 11.78%! Not to mention all the other reports!
Clearly, far from attempting to clarify and inform, you have been attempting to obfuscate and mislead. There is a name for people who do this - but I will leave it to others to make up their own minds.
