Tuesday, March 25, 2014
A few questions (and answers) about the 2013 Canadian UFO Survey
In a Facebook MUFON group,
noted American ufologist Curt Collins posted some questions to me about the 2013
Canadian UFO Survey. He has given me permission to put his questions and my
answers in the Ufology Research blog. Most of this is from March 23 to 25,
2014.
Curt: I see the witnesses’
data is categorized in several ways, but had a few questions: First, is there
an index or subcategory just for sightings where the witness unambiguously
reports seeing a flying vehicle? If not, is there any way to extract that?
Me: Do you mean a witness
seeing a structured object rather than just a light?
Curt: Exactly! At least,
in their opinion, it absolutely cannot be natural and unlikely to be manmade.
Me: The data points or
categories for each case were developed originally as a way of quickly coding
the textual information available on the report. They were actually developed
as far back as the late 1970s, when I was typing UFO data onto keypunch cards
(yes, I'm THAT old), which were limited in characters. Back then, I think we
were at 80 characters, not 140 like Twitter! We had to decide what information
could be easily coded and what information was available for the majority of
reports. After sorting through many hundreds of cases, we arrived at the lowest
common denominators available from all sources of UFO case data.
We used some of the coding
of the original UFOCAT and Hynek's classification system. Then I added a few
more. When we finally started the Survey in 1989, we had NL and DD, but I added
ND (Nocturnal Disc) for nocturnal structured objects that were more than simply
lights in the sky. The "Disc" designation is a matter of convenience,
since "Daylight Discs" are not discs all the time, either, and could
be other shapes. We also include a data point for "shape," so that if
a witness sees a structured object that could be called a "craft," it
would be a ND. Also, the category of Shape would provide additional info about
what was observed. Plus, there's the Comments at the end of the line, where a
note about other characteristics of the observed object can be included.
The other point is that
many witnesses have virtually no ability to discern whether they have seen a
structured vehicle or not. A case in point is the term "Orb" which
can be used to describe something that is spherical, but also simply to refer
to a light without any shape or form.
Not to mention the natural
ability to "fill in" a black object between three or more lights in
the sky, thus creating a "triangle" where there is none.
Curt: Good answer about
the data sorting―I feel like I've had a backstage tour! I understand about
witness reliability problems, but was wondering just what percentage of reports
were of Unidentified Flying Vehicles, since the press seems to think that ALL
of them are!
Me: I use "PS"
for "Point Source" to indicate objects that don't have a discernable
structure for coding. A huge majority of NLs are PSs. I think most DDs are not
point sources, although there are exceptions.
Curt: Some researchers
feel the "UFO" label is contaminated and use UAP or UAO to distance
their work from "flying saucer" silliness. What term to you prefer
and why?
Me: I think it's important
to realize that "UFO" was adopted by the USAF to distinguish it from
the silliness to begin with. A number of other terms were proposed over the
years, too. My favourite was TOPA, or "Transient Optical Phenomenon of the
Atmosphere," proposed by a scientist in a paper. The reality is that even
if we start using UAP regularly, the media will still invoke aliens at every
opportunity. Also, the public is familiar with “UFO” and even if they assume aliens,
at least we don't have to explain as much as if we changed the term. Also,
having to explain that “U” means “Unidentified” gives us the opportunity to
educate the public and media about what we mean, so I'd still prefer to use
UFO.
Curt: If you asked a
random group to draw two pictures, first one of a UFO and the second of a
Flying Saucer, what do you think you'd get?
Me: This reminds me of the
experiment with UFO abductees done by Stuart Appelle comparing drawings made by
non-abductees with those made by "real" abductees. Don Dondieri
thought the drawings were totally different, suggesting UFO abductees were
real, although some debunkers thought the drawings were similar enough to say
imaginary UFO abductions were just as "real."
This also reminds me of an
experiment I did using drawings made by kids in a grade school many years ago.
I had been contacted by parents of two kids and their teacher because the two
kids said they had been frightened by a large UFO that flew low over their
heads one night while they were playing in the schoolyard. I had permission to
talk with the kids, and then because all the other kids in the class were
excited about the story, was asked to give a presentation to the entire class
about UFOs. I took the opportunity to ask all of the class, including the two
who had "really" seen the UFO, to draw a UFO.
The result was
interesting. The kids all drew fantastic images of aliens and elaborate
spacecraft, including some nice artwork of Darth Vader and assorted robots. But
the two kids who had "really" seen the UFO drew the UFO as they had
seen it: a dull grey cigar in a black sky.
So my guess would be that
asking groups to draw UFOs and flying saucers would result in identical images,
although many who were asked to draw a "saucer" would draw a disc.
Now, if you asked the two groups to draw an "alien spaceship" and a
UFO, they would be identical.
Curt: Thanks for the
answer. I'll have to look up that [Appelle] experiment. It's also interesting
about your school children drawing results. I don't think people seeing UFOs on
television makes them see them in the sky, but sometimes it can cause them to
interpret a genuine indistinct object into a flying saucer. Now, I wish I'd
asked for a lab and human test subjects for Christmas. I'd like to do some
experiments...
# posted by rutkows @ 12:01 PM 
