reply to post by neoholographic
It's not making up a number any more than you are. You say "in your experience 95% cannot be explained." Well, if you demand scientific evidence for
the opposite, then where is your scientific evidence? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And where, exactly, does the 95% number come from?
You provide no sources.
In MY experience, having studied this longer than you have, that percentage is probably about right, but mis-construed. What these folks ought to be
saying is that 95% of the sightings are either explainable or OF NO CONSEQUENCE. The reason I say this is because so many sightings are of daylight
disks or nocturnal lights. In other words, someone saw a "dot" in the sky they could not identify. These sightings are of no consequence because you
can't really DO anything with them. Some guy saw a dot. So? Does that mean aliens from space? It could be anything. And when you read through the Blue
Book reports, for example, by far the majority of these sightings are of that nature--dots. I know because I've gone through hundreds of them in
mind-numbing boring detail, straight from the "report cards" that contain the original information. That's what "Document Archivist" means to the
left. It was once an ATS project. Edit: Oh, wait! it's not there any more. Demoted again. (Sigh!)
Now, below is a table which is a summary of witness testimony in the now infamous 2001 Steven Greer National Press Club conference. I printed it
yesterday in a different context, but here let's examine just what these witnesses, chosen especially because they were "excellent witnesses" to
profound sightings and testified at the conference. In the listing below there are three columns, which don't reproduce well on ATS as the column
spacing is lost. They are the type of incident, the number of people who witnessed this type of incident, and the percentage of the total. So you see
the first category is "witnesses in the military" with 43 people representing 61% of the total.
Table X: Statistical Summary
Categories Number Percent
Witnesses in the Military 43 61
Enlisted 23 33
Officer 20 28
Press Club Speakers 19 27
Saw a physical UFO 22 31
Saw lights in the sky 12 17
Saw radar blips 17 24
Saw pictures or a movie 9 12
Saw message traffic 4 6
Were told stories by others 50 71
Total 70 100%
Table X-2 (Note: Numbers are not additive because witnesses are in several categories each)
You can see here that the majority of witnesses saw lights in the sky, radar blips, were told stories by other people, etc. 31% saw a "physical UFO"
but we don't know what that means until we analyze their testimony. I have done that in the context of a larger paper I'm doing on Greer, from which
this summary table is taken. It's way too large to reproduce here.
Bear in mind that these are the "really good" witnesses who flew in to a press conference, not your average guy out riding a bicycle who saw a "UFO."
But even here you see that a whole lot of people (71%) were "told stories by others," which puts those stories squarely in the realm of oral
tradition, not direct testimony. For other testimony you might want to peruse the files and databases of the National UFO
to get an idea of the types of witness reports that are common.
And as far as the sightings that are explainable? If you've been studying the issue for 20 years you must have seen dozens of airplanes, birds, and
even cars on hills at night reported as UFOs. Just yesterday a guy reported a UFO near Seattle. Look at the video and you can even see the strobe
light of the airliner it came from. And birds? Once you've seen one and had it explained to you (Here's the wing. here's the head. Here's the beak.)
they become a lot easier to spot. Yet another seagull.
Does all this mean there aren't any UFOs? Of course not! There are by definition. the real question has ALWAYS been, "What are they?" and the
conclusion that they are "aliens from space" is rarely justifiable. And no, I'm not addressing abductions here. That would take more time than I have.
But to your major point. It's probably true that 95% of UFOs are NOT explainable in the way that you define "explainable," but your claim that 95% are
NOT is equally suspect. You provide no sources or justification for either figure, nor any evidence that you have looked into it carefully from a
statistical standpoint. The reports ARE out three, in everything from the published literature to places such as I have cited above. Perhaps you'd
like to take the time to compile all that and prove your point--or come to a much different conclusion after you have really examined the evidence.
edit on 3/5/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)