Good point sensfan, though I would have to imagine that "professional" astronomers find less time to skygaze than ametuer astronomers, if for no
other reason then due to the fact that (at least when on the clock) they must perform more tasks than simply sky watching (e.g., data collection and
analysis).
And thx, Frith, for the link.
From the source text:
"The returns identified 62 respondents who had witnessed or obtained an instrumental record of an event which they could not identify and which
they thought might be related to the UFO phenomenon."
This equates to slightly over 4.5% of the repsondents -- less than one in twenty.
I find it especially interesting that while less than 5% opf the repsondents had actaulyl witnessed and/or recorded an event they attributed to the
UFO phenomenon that
23% of the respondents answered "certainly" when asked whether or not UFO's deserved scientific study (another 30%
answered "probably").
However, when asked to assign probabilities to explanations for UFO reports, the average probability assigned to the explanation having to do with
extraterretrial life was only 3% -- less than the number of respondents who reported actually having witnessed a UFO.
Is this indicative of our inherently skeptical nature -- that someone can see something out of the ordinary yet deny the validity of someone else's
experience?
Or is this simply a result of some accepted (allbeit unofficial) baseline of the percentage of sightings which can historically be explained by
conventional means?