So, I think you what you are saying is this:
If multiple, independent observers all see an unusual phenomenon, and they see the same thing (what appears to be a shining orb, say) - this just restates your first scenario above, minus the jet pilot, in general terms - this helps to rule out a hoax.
Do I have that right? If not, please correct.
Paul ...
It's not exactly what I was saying, but I still have no problem with what you interpret what I said to mean in general terms.
The point I was trying to make is that what constitutes a hoax is highly dependent on the context of the situation, and that within certain contexts as described, hoaxes can be ruled out. Admittedly the examples I gave are mostly academic, but since we had no context to work with, they are still fair, and it is always good to understand the various contexts in which things are perceived. Now please try to bear with me before hitting the edit button because this is all leading somewhere constructive ( I hope ) toward the end.
Returning to the topic of UFO reports prior to screening under the official definition. Prior to screening, the object in the report may or may not fall under the definition of a UFO. If the report makes it past the screening process, it was judged to have enough information to rule out the mundane objects in the list, and therefore at that point becomes a UFO as per the official definition, and consequently was not considered to be a mundane object.
This didn't mean that further investigation might not still reveal it to be a mundane object, but it is at that point when we look at the definition and compare it to the null hypothesis proposed earlier (
All UFO sightings are of mundane origin ) they don't match up. That is why I proposed the revised null hypothesis for those who prefer to see the issue in those terms ... again:
The objects in pre-screened UFO reports ( those reports that had not been screened prior to being passed onto the ATIC investigators ) are mundane objects.
Now AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958, did not include hoaxes in the list. It was assumed that USAF pilots weren't hoaxing what they saw. It was also assumed by then that most reports were not hoaxes because past investigations had found very low incidents of proven hoaxes. Certainly hoaxes might still be found during a post-screening investigation, but unless the report itself provides sufficient information to show it was a hoax, the presumption ( naturally for an official agaency ) is to presume it's not and to investigate it.
Now it might seem illogical to presume that sighting reports are not hoaxes and to investigate them, but that is the job of the military, to investigate possible incidents that are covered by their mandates. Similarly, when you call a police station for help, they don't ask for proof it's not a hoax before responding ( or we would hope ), because people's lives and property could be in danger and it is their job to investigate it "without prejudice".
In this context I could see how your point regarding hoaxes could contribute to some unexplained cases falling through the cracks into the percentage of "unknowns". Technically I think you may also be suggesting that there is no way in the absence of proof to know exactly hown many have fallen through the cracks, only that given the information, it's more or less
reasonable to accept some cases more than others. And this point I would conceed is reasonable. However I would not conceed that it means that every unknown sighting can reasonably be explained to have been a hoax.
Are we on the same page now? If not, by all means let's continue until we have it nailed down. And by the way thank you for your very civil participation. I look forward to your next response.
