Conclusions drawn from the map

Given what I claim to be a rather significant conclusion, I felt this merits it's own thread.

If you are curious as to the methodology used in the conduct of this study, please click HERE for the first thread in which this map was posted.



This map represents plots of UFO sightings (by shape) as reported to NUFORC, and as having occurred between Nov. 1, 2003 and. Nov. 7-8, 2004.

Triangles = red Discs = magenta Spheres = Lt. blue Ovals/Eggs = off-white

Cigars/Cylinders = yellow Diamonds = dk. blue Rectangles = orange

Chevrons = Lt. green Crosses = purple

************

Now, as per my last post, I postulate the following:

1. There is a significant and strong correlation between the number of reported sightings and the number of people living within a given area (i.e., population density). Again, this is to be expected...

2. However, the number of reported sightings is not solely dependent on population density. In other words, it is not a bivariate relationship.

************

Okay -- we have two sets of variables: The number of reported sightings (of which the plots are a statistically valid subset), and the number of people in the general vicinities from where the reports originate.

Is the location of reported sightings completely random? Of course not. Everyone can look at the population density map posted by Vegie and see that it strongly resembles the plot distribution on my map.

As mentioned, there is a strong relationship between these two. The question to ask yourself is, "Is this the only relationship that exists with regards to the location and frequency of reported UFO sightings?"

If the answer to this question was "yes," then all one could conclude from this map is that there is an equitable distribution of reported sightings, and that the only reason there are more sightings in some areas than others is due to the presence of more people.

But as I postulate above, this is not the case, as illustrated with the example of Alabama (for those already well familiar with this example, please accept my apology for yet again restating it):

Number of plotted sightings in and around Birmingham, AL, a metropolitan area of nearly 850,000 people? Zero

Number of plotted sightings in and around Birmingham, AL, a metropolitan area of nearly 340,000 people? Zero

Please take note that together, these two metropolitan areas account for over 25% of the state's population, but account for0% of the plotted sightings.

Yet Mobile, AL, which accounts for less than 5% of the state's population is home to 25% of the reported sightings in the state!

Note: the number of sightings in little 'ol Mobile (a city of less than 200,000 people) accounted for exactly as many sightings as St. Louis, a metropolitan region with a population of over 3 million people?

Anyway, these are but a couple of the examples which nullify the hypothesis that the distribution of reported UFO sightings is just a simple function of population density... as this is simply not the case as evidenced by the data.

**********

CONCLUSIONS

1. The occurence of UFO sightings is not random. This in and of itself is extremely significant.

2. There in fact exists a multi-variate relationship between the occurrence of reported UFO sightings and where they occur.

Think about this. The occurrence of reported UFO sightings -- NUFORC has collected over 25,000 in their database -- are not random. They occur where they do for a reason.

And the existence of a multi-variate relationship between the occurrence of reported UFO sightings and where they occur implies there are reasons other than the number of potential witnesses present to see them. Think about that for a minute...

Now, let me ask you this: Can something that "does not happen" in fact occur with a purpose?

Now if it can be demonstrated -- mathematically, mind you -- that there exists a relationship between independently reported UFO sightings spearated by thousands of miles of distance, does this not in and of itself speak to the very validity of these reports, and therefore speak to the very existence of UFOs?

Those who already acknowlede their existence and very presence aren't going to do much beyond yawn at this conclusion.

But for some of those "on the fence" who recognize the mathematical significance behind what is in fact the non-random occurrence of UFOs, this might come as quite a shocker.

Okay -- here's the concise version:

The fact that these near-thousand individual reported sightings are not random in their occurrence infers they are in fact related.

So the question is how are they related?

There is obviously the existing relationship between population density and frequency of occurrence. However, there are enough examples outside of acceptable variance to nullify the hypothesis that population density is the sole determining factor in regards to the frequency of UFO occurrence.

Therefore, these 1,000 or so individual non-random occurrences a) follow a pattern and b) are thus related in that they share this pattern.

Further inspection of subets of this data, i.e., maps consisting of the plots of individual shapes, not only supports this conclusion but nearly verifies it. In fact, the only shape to not follow a more distinctive pattern were the triangle sightings... Every other shape follows a clear non-random pattern which further validates an existing relationship between individual sightings.

The data is verifiable, the method by which this conclusion is drawn is objective and would pas scientific scrutiny by any qualified person or persons.

"Irrefutable proof?" I wouldn't go that far... But in truth, strong, substantiating evidence for the legitimacy of these reported sightings and thus the very existence of UFOs.

Folks, this is one you can take to your resident skeptic.

For those of you in school -- college, high school, whatever -- if you are comfortable enough to share this with a math teacher/instructor -- print this out and take it with you!

Well there you go, again sdrumrunner a fine job, and the right conclusion that you make... However I did not take that into account when you first started to taunt us with your intune mind... It just took 24 hrs to get it out of you! Thanks again!
For what ever it means to you... I voted for you as Top or over Top award for this month... If I could of voted twice I would have, darn rules....

[edit on 8-2-2005 by jessemole]

Thank you, sir, and I am happy to have contributed something perceived to be of substance here at ATS. To date, that would make three photos and one map with rather profound implications that have been "ATS exclusives," so to speak...

So am I correct in assuming such votes have some impact on my point total or something? Do I trade these in like Marlboro Bucks at the end of the year for a tee-shirt? A collapsable duffle bag?

Now if it can be demonstrated -- mathematically, mind you -- that there exists a relationship between independently reported UFO sightings spearated by thousands of miles of distance, does this not in and of itself speak to the very validity of these reports, and therefore speak to the very existence of UFOs?

No, it doesn't. A random distrubution would speak more to the reality of these things in my mind than anything else, because the only way UFO sightings can have a random distribution is if who ever controls them wants them to be randomly distributed. Any coordination of the sightings with other factors, whehter its proximity to military bases, airports, weather stations, or just population density, need not be because of aliens.

Also, whats up with South Dakota? Is it the only state without any sightings? Wtf?

Originally posted by Nygdan
Also, whats up with South Dakota? Is it the only state without any sightings? Wtf?

Maybe that's where the aliens are coming from, its pretty strategically located

[edit on 8-2-2005 by merka]

Originally posted by Nygdan
A random distrubution would speak more to the reality of these things in my mind than anything else, because the only way UFO sightings can have a random distribution is if who ever controls them wants them to be randomly distributed.

Also, whats up with South Dakota? Is it the only state without any sightings? Wtf?

Hi Nygdan,

Thx for the reply and feedback.

However, I must correct your mistaken assertion that a random occurrence would be more significant than a non-random occurrence.

This is not true. Please bare in mind, this is not my opinion but rather fact.

Please re-read the post. If they were in fact random in occurrence, it would pretty much signify, well, nothing.

It is in the existence of a non-random multi-variate relationship that there exist significant implications.

For instance, please refer to your own observation regarding the complete absence of plotted sightings in S. Dakota. If the occurrence was random, then this would signify nothing. It is thus only significant due to the existence of a non-random relationship.

The fact you take notice of this anomoly with interest and the degree to which this inherently contradicts your previous statement to me signifies that you do not fully comprehend the extent of your own postulation.

I would be happy to continue this discussion, but only ask in return you show me the respect of qualifying such statements. Thx...

Originally posted by Nygdan

Now if it can be demonstrated -- mathematically, mind you -- that there exists a relationship between independently reported UFO sightings spearated by thousands of miles of distance, does this not in and of itself speak to the very validity of these reports, and therefore speak to the very existence of UFOs?

No, it doesn't.

Ugggh. Another non-qualified contradiction.

Please allow me to re-phrase these questions for you Nygdan:

1. If the thousands of individual reported sightings are in fact valid, i.e., the people responsible for the reports actually saw what they reported, then did they not then see an Unidentified Flying Object?

From the Cambridge Dictionary:

valid
adjective
1 based on truth or reason; able to be accepted

2. Now, if thousands of individuals actually saw thousands of Unidentified Flying Objects, please explain to me how you can so arbitrarily state this does not in fact imply they do in fact exist...

So again, I postulate that the existence of a non-random, multivariate relationship between the reported UFO sightings and where they occur does in fact imply validity, based on the logic as previously stated in this thread.

SDR, my attempt to answer this question...

So am I correct in assuming such votes have some impact on my point total or something? Do I trade these in like Marlboro Bucks at the end of the year for a tee-shirt? A collapsable duffle bag?


Would be, it just buys you our attention, with some wiggle room!

Also a good argrument on the prior post, and the post before that, or yes that one to.

Perhaps you could put a map up with this info, or add to that map, locations of nuclear reactors and nuclear missile bases/silos. BTW, why did you say birmingham alabama twice, with different ammounts of people?

Originally posted by Paladin327
Perhaps you could put a map up with this info, or add to that map, locations of nuclear reactors and nuclear missile bases/silos. BTW, why did you say birmingham alabama twice, with different ammounts of people?

Good idea! I t has long been suggested there exists a very strong correlation between UFO sightings and the presence of nuclear facilities...

But as I would really rather avoid popping up on some govt. database as someone who searched for "nuclear facilities" in the country right now, would someone else do the honors?

Regarding the question as to two different figures put forth for Alabam's population, I'm guessing I made a mistake in one of them -- either a typo or a misquote. My bad. Thx. for pointing that out.

For what it's worth, I'm sure you'll see the logic holds true regardless of which of the two figures is used.

And BTW, Thx jesse...

This helps to confirm what I already suspected. Aliens are visiting us. I have never had a personal sighting (I tend to look more inward - occult, paranormal - rather than skyward), but the evidence I've seen so far (by no means limited to ATS), irrefutable or not, has convinced me of their prescence. Besides, simple logic would dictate their existence. We are but one planet of millions like ours in but one galaxy of millions like ours in a virtually infinite universe. Logic would dictate that we're not the only intelligent life out there. Logic would also dictate that an advanced lifeform from a nearby solar system could very well have interest in our humble little planet, what with us being on the cusp of interstellar travel. I believe that they're here, have been here, and will remain here. I've always felt that it's only a matter of time before they truly announce their prescence. I also believe that they won't reveal themselves until we're ready to accept them, and perhaps have proven that we won't kill ourselves off. If that's the case, the vast majority of humankind will force us to wait many more years before an official "first contact."

To see a real picture of what's going on or what "targets" these "craft" are visiting one would need to sift through all these sightings on this map, eliminate what are explainable by natural or man made events, then plot the unexplained sightings on the map and then see what pattern you have or don't have. There has got to be alot of informational clutter here. Statistically, it is highly unprobable that these were ALL ebe craft, no?

Originally posted by Der Kapitan
To see a real picture of what's going on or what "targets" these "craft" are visiting one would need to sift through all these sightings on this map, eliminate what are explainable by natural or man made events, then plot the unexplained sightings on the map and then see what pattern you have or don't have. There has got to be alot of informational clutter here. Statistically, it is highly unprobable that these were ALL ebe craft, no?

Actually, if you will refer to the description of the methodology as applied to this study, you will see that I selected the criteria I did in regards to which sightings were chosen so as to include only the highest quality reports.

This was identifed as a risk from the beginning of the study, included in the riskl mitigation plan, and
as such mitigated to the greatest degree possible by use of a defined selection process. In industry, my billable rate was $200/hour for training in the domains of project management, which included risk mitigation planning and process engineering. These are tasks in which I have rich industry experience, and have applied each of these principles in the conduct of my study.

So, in closing: reports were chosen for their intrinsic value and validity so aso to avoid including reports of comemrcial or military aircraft or otherwise easily explainable conventional phenomenon.

Of course, if you had read the cursory background to the study linked to in both this and in the original post, you would already know this.

Of course, if you had read the cursory background to the study linked to in both this and in the original post, you would already know this.

Nice stab.

"You've sucessfully belittled (probably justifiably, too.) a busy father of two with about 15 mins. of freedom tonight. He hasn't been able to visit ATS in a while and wanted to see what's up and sorrilly doesn't have time to go back thouroughly. Johnny, tell him what he's won..."

"Sdrumrunner.. You've won nothing..... Enjoy."

[edit on 8-2-2005 by Der Kapitan]

Originally posted by Der Kapitan

Of course, if you had read the cursory background to the study linked to in both this and in the original post, you would already know this.

Nice stab.

"You've sucessfully belittled a busy father of two with about 15 mins. of freedom tonight. He hasn't been able to visit ATS in a while and wanted to see what's up and sorrilly doesn't have time to go back thouroughly. Johnny, tell him what he's won..."

Please accept my most sincere apologies. I never meant for it to seem as if I was attempting to belittle you, and I wish you more freedom later on tonight once your little ones are asleep so that I may have a chance to rectify my perceived "stab."

In all fairness, however, I do take offense to a) the weeks of intense effort that went into the planning and execution of this project, b) the weeks that passed before I felt comforatble posting this publicly on ATS, and c) the hours spent on addressing the questions of those who have made the time to inform themselves all being so casually dismissed by yourself (via what I perceive to be an unintentional attempt to invalidate the very data used in the study) with assumptions that were incorrect and in fact spoken for in not one, but several earlier posts.

I understand you're a busy father, and admire you as such.

But regardless of whether you have two kids or two hundred, I only ask that you first make the time to adequately inform yourself before going on record with a post that other new readers may mistakingly perceive as invalidating what is in fact very valid data.