“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi
PART 2: Challenges to produce lists of top cases
If UFO proponents wish to persuade scientists to examine the evidence for the alleged objective reality of UFOs, then it is not unreasonable to expect those UFO proponents to make serious efforts to identify the material which the scientists should focus upon.
Unparticularised suggestions to read the “UFO literature” or “witness reports” are simply poor advocacy, given the relevant mass of material and the variability of its quality.
Scientists and skeptics are only human. They will keep going as long as the initial material gains their interest. If (as many UFO-proponents claim) they wish to encourage serious study of UFO reports by scientists, why not refer them to the best material to get their attention?
One online debate about UFOs and aliens began with one individual asserting that it is “obviously true they are out there". When challenged to state the facts in support of his statement he responded in the following way: "try googling UFO reports and sightings etc....and any decent site that comes up on google or any other search engine for that matter will be my facts" (see Footnote 2.01).
Unsurprisingly, the skeptics involved in that discussion did not find this suggestion very helpful or persuasive.
It is not merely those new to ufology that make such statements to skeptics. When asked to provide evidence for UFOs, the astronomer and famous ufologist J Allen Hynek would respond sarcastically “Where do you want the truck to stop” (see Footnote 2.02). During an online debate, skeptic Andy Roberts asked ufologist Jerry Clark (author of the leading encyclopedia on UFOs) what evidence there was of “non-mundane UFO origin”. Jerry Clark responded: “Read the UFO literature, guy, if it's not too much trouble. The answer’s there” (see Footnote 2.03).
Any scientist that bothers to respond to a vague suggestion to read the UFO literature by visiting his local bookstore in search of UFO books could be discouraged from pursuing the matter further. Looking for UFO books in a bookstore, a scientist may become embarrassed by the fact that he is lurking in a section entitled “Esoteric” or “Occult”, in which the UFO books are mixed with books on spell-casting, ghosts and prophecies. If he randomly purchases a few UFO books, then he is unlikely to be impressed. There is probably a consensus among most serious UFO researchers that many of the mass of books on UFOs are an embarrassment to ufology. For example, J Allen Hynek has written that books about UFOs “regale the reader with one UFO story after another, each more spectacular than the other, but little space is devoted to documentation and evaluation. What were the full circumstances surrounding the reported event? How reliable and how consistent were the reporters (all too often it is the lone reporter) of the event? And how were the UFO accounts selected? Most often one finds random accounts, disjointed and told in journalese” (see Footnote 2.04).
Comments on the UFO literature and recommendations for reading are worth a separate article (and I am presently drafting such an article). For present purposes it suffices to say that that body of literature is considerable and there is only a limited consensus regarding recommended reading.
Sometimes skeptics are lucky enough to be referred to a specific well-researched book with references to further reading. Typical examples for such recommendations are Jerry Clark’s “UFO Encyclopedia” and Richard Hall’s “The UFO Evidence”. However, if a well-intentioned skeptic did actually follow a recommendation to read, say, Jerry Clark’s “UFO Encyclopedia”, then he may not bother going beyond the entries beginning with “A”. Those entries include (but are, of course, not limited to):
(a) Adamski, George
(b) Aetherius Society
(c) Allende Letters
(d) Angelucci, Orfeo Matthew
(e) Ashtar
Jerry Clark’s “UFO Encyclopedia”, as with virtually all other UFO books, was not written to present the best evidence for the objective reality of UFOs. The cases and individuals discussed include many the author considers to have been significant in the history of ufology for various reasons, even if those cases have been explained and relevant individuals have been discredited. Indeed, Jerry Clark has himself commented that his Encyclopedia “features many solved cases” (see Footnote 2.05).
This is not a criticism of the content of such books. Ufology has much to gain from a consideration of UFO reports arising from stimuli which were subsequently identified. There are many lessons to be learnt from such reports. Indeed, such material is probably under-utilised by most UFO researchers. However, the fact that most UFO books are not limited to the best evidence means that scientists referred to such books will be spending some, if not most, of their time on material which is not the most persuasive evidence of the objective reality of UFOs.
It is not only UFO sceptics that have complained about the tendency of ufologists to refer to large books about UFOs. Ufologist Brad Sparks has commented as follows: “Typically the UFO proponent in desperation will cite some big 500-page or 1,000-page tome and say "All the UFO proof is in there! Go read it!" Whereas in fact the huge tomes are hopeless hodge-podges of bad cases, good cases, mediocre cases, erroneous cases, all intermixed according to some order (maybe alphabetical or chronological) that has nothing whatsoever to do with selecting best cases according to any scientific or quasi- scientific criteria ("criteria" is plural by the way, and "criterion" is singular). Indeed those few books were not really written for the purpose of presenting the best scientific case for the UFO to scientists. They were written for other worthy purposes, but let's not kid ourselves, though, they were not specially designed to state the case to scientists” (see Footnote 2.06).
Similarly, Brad Sparks has also commented that, “Busy scientists …. [are] not going to read through huge books, multiple books, looking for something they don't even think is there, with not a clue as to what to look for” (see Footnote 2.07).
Thus, even when scientists are occasionally provided with a recommendation as to a specific book, it is not uncommon (or unfair) for a skeptic to respond by asking “But what am I to look for in that book? Which specific cases should I focus upon?”. As UFO researcher Richard Hall has commented, “…anyone who is serious about this subject knows full well that it all comes down to individual cases…” (see Footnote 2.08).
If the sheer mass of UFO books (and their uneven quality) may discourage some scientists from starting to consider the evidence regarding UFOs, then the massive number of UFO reports is even more daunting. Jacques Vallee has commented “… heaven knows we have more data than we can process. So much that a complete catalogue of close encounter cases would encompass between 5,000 and 10,000 reports, depending on the criteria one used. The total number of unexplained UFO cases on record worldwide is well in excess of 100,000, yet we are fairly certain on the basis of opinion polls that only one witness in ten comes forward with a report” (see Footnote 2.09).
Few serious ufologists would regard UFO reports as being equally important. Indeed, most serious ufologist accept that most UFO reports could be the result of a failure to identify a wide range of ordinary objects - e.g. aircraft, balloons, stars etc. The precise percentage of reports attributed to such a failure vary from ufologist to ufologist, but figures of between 70% and 99% are commonly accepted by serious ufologists. A small sample of relevant comments includes the following:
(a) J Allen Hynek has said “it is quite true that the great majority of UFO reports turn out to be ordinary things like balloons and aircraft that people misidentify, very often honestly” (see Footnote 2.10).
(b) Allan Hendry (author of “The UFO Handbook”, unusual for being respected by many sceptics in addition to many ufologists) has written: “Reasonable UFO proponents admit that ‘genuine’ UFO sightings are in the minority, around 10-20 per cent” (see Footnote 2.11).
(c) Jerry Clark has written : “I think we know that most ostensible UFO cases are resolvable, but the precise percentage is up for discussion” (see Footnote 2.12).
If, as most ufologists accept, some UFO reports are more interesting and valuable than other UFO reports, then why not seek to identify the best cases so that these can be presented to scientists?
Several sceptics have expressed frustration with the alleged refusal of that UFO-proponents to nominate the best cases. They have suggested that this means that, although they claim could explain any case put to them, whatever cases they manage to explain will merely be dismissed as insignificant. This view was expressed with particular force by one leading skeptic, Philip J Klass:
(1) In his first book about UFOs, Philip J Klass made the following comments:
“The UFO mystery resembles the mythical nine-headed serpent Hydra. When one of the Hydra’s nine heads was cut off, two more grew in its place. In the same way if after weeks of investigation in becomes possible to explain one important UFO sighting as a natural phenomenon or a hoax, this makes no converts, for during the same period there have been two or three new UFO sightings which must now be explained. And by the time these are explained, there are half a dozen new UFO sightings in hand.” He continued: “The extraterrestrial hypothesis is based entirely on sheer numbers of seemingly mysterious reports rather than on, say, ten sightings - or even one sighting - which can stand up under rigorous investigation and provide convincing proof of spaceships from another world. I have yet to meet a UFOrian who is willing to stake his case on one, two, or even ten sightings.” (see Footnote 2.13).
(2) In a later book, Philip J Klass made similar comments:
“For some years [prior to 1972] I had attempted – without success – to get leading proponents of the extraterrestrial viewpoint to designate a single ‘best case’ which they had rigorously investigated and were certain could not be explained other than as an extraterrestrial visitation. It had been frustrating for me through the years to investigate and explain a case such as Socorro, which Hynek had once categorized as the most crucial one in eighteen years of UFO reports, only to be told by some that I had spent my time on an ‘unimpressive case’. Or to spend months investigating the RB-47 case, which had so impressed the AIAA and the late Dr McDonald, only to be informed that I had ‘picked an easy one’. After more than a quarter-century of UFO incidents … it seemed to me that it was time for them to designate a ‘make-or-break’ UFO case” (see Footnote 2.14).
Such complaints have been echoed in similar remarks by numerous other skeptics, including:
James Oberg (UFO skeptic and author of “UFOs and Outer Space Mysteries”) has commented:
“How can the ‘UFO question’ ever be solved? The claim that there must be some extraordinary stimulus behind at least some UFO reports is, in the final analysis, immune from disproof. No matter how many cases are found to have prosaic explanations, there are always more to be researched” (see Footnote 2.15).
John Rimmer (editor of Magonia magazine) has said, during a discussion on the Internet, that:
“The ETHers are unable to come up with any cases that they are prepared to list as evidence for extraterrestrial intervention. Instead we get airy-fairy armwaving about the ‘weight of evidence’. Unfortunately the weight of an awful lot of nothing is nothing. How can we possibly have any rational discussion of the UFO phenomenon if we do not discuss specific cases and weigh them individually?” (see Footnote 2.16).
Peter Brookesmith (author of several popular UFO books) has said, during a discussion on the Internet, that:
“[it is] a truth universally acknowledged, that those fallen into a sympathy with the extra-terrestrial hypothesis (
Peter Brookesmith has also commented:
“… it remains a mystery as to why … [ufologist Jerry Clark] cannot bring himself to cite a few cases in which he considers the
It is extremely rare for the contents of any book on UFOs to attempt to address such complaints. However, in debates on the Internet the complaints have been made repeatedly and occassionaly responses have been given by ufologists.
The responses on the Internet tend to fall into two categories:
Reasons for not providing lists of the best cases. Some of these reasons for not providing lists of the best cases are explored below.
Less frequently, by referring to existing lists of the best cases. The relevant referral is usual simply to one list. I will address various existing lists of the best cases in Part 3 to Part 11 of this article. Several of the more interesting lists have not been mentioned at all, or at least extremely infrequently, in relevant debates on the Internet.
The most common reason for not providing a list of the “best cases” is usually the argument that the evidence must be considered as a whole. This is sometimes (but not often) coupled with an express admission that no single case (or short list of cases) provides proof in support of the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis. For example:
J Allen Hynek has asserted that US Air Force investigators “did their best to come up with ‘commonsense’ explanations for each new UFO report. I stress the word ‘each’, for there was no attempt to look for patterns in the reports; each report was regarded as though it were the only UFO report in the world. This made it easier to find some individual explanation, even though it was sometimes far-fetched. It might even be stated as a sort of theorem: ‘For any UFO report, when regarded by itself and without reference to similar or related reports, there can always be found a possible commonsense explanation, even though its probability may be small’ ” (see Footnote 2.19).
Jenny Randles, a prolific British ufologist, has stated that has “often been asked to produce a top ten list and these days decline for good reasons”, the first of those reasons being that “no case is ever imune to resolution. More than a few cases that have looked promising - sometimes for years - crumble when the facts finally fall into place” (see Footnote 2.20).
Gildas Bourdais has commented:
“We don't have a "smoking gun", but we have a mountain of testimonies, thousands of reliable witnesses, plus hundreds of landing traces well recorded (several in France), and last but not least, official documents” (see Footnote 2.21).
Several ufologists have responded to requests for lists of the “best cases” by stressing the importance of “patterns” in the totality of the available reports. For example, in one fairly typical response during a debate on the Internet, Mark Cashman has said: “What all of these important scientific processes have in common is discovery of pattern. A pattern which can only be revealed by studying the body of observations _as a whole_” (see Footnote 2.22). However, the relevant alleged patterns, and the evidence supporting them, are virtually left unspecified (or expressed in extremely vague terms) in such responses.
Quantity is no substitute for quality. The responses put forward above relating to the alleged inappropriateness of considering UFO reports on a case by case basis has been forcefully attacked by James Oberg, in his book “UFOs and Outer Space Mysteries”: “UFO experts do not appear to like being put on the spot to be specific, to designate actual individual reports as ‘unsolvable’. This viewpoint would give skeptics the opportunity to narrow their fire and concentrate on cases certified by top UFOlogists as unsolvable. As a leading UFO specialist said in 1975: the UFO evidence is most convincing when, like a bundle of sticks, considered en masse. Of course, his analogy tacitly implies that individual UFO cases, like individual sticks, can be easy to ‘break’; and suggests that the evidence for UFOs will stand up only it is not investigated too closely. While not a very flattering portrait and clearly not what the speaker intended, it may have been right on the money.” (see Footnote 2.23).
Oberg’s comments reflect a view expressed by various skeptics for several decades. For example, during the late 1960s Hynek emphasized to Menzel the desirability of studying all the cases collectively, with the hope of finding relevant patterns of similarity between them. In particular, Hynek objected to the method of treating each case separately and individually. Hynek stated ‘It is clear that each case, taken by itself, like a lone duck in a shooting gallery, can nearly always be shot down by an ad hoc, frequently Menzelian approach’ ” (see Footnote 2.24). Menzel commented that he was “honoured to become an adjective. But I simply cannot understand how Hynek feels that the cases can be ‘shot down’ individually but not collectively. Each case is a separate item. It seems highly dangerous to suppose that one can add data from another case, unless one is absolutely sure they concern the same phenomenon” (see Footnote 2.25).
Again, it is not merely sceptics that have expressed concern about statements by ufologists which rely upon vague assertions of “patterns in the data” or the alleged strength of UFO cases taken collectively. For example, Allan Hendry (in his book “The UFO Handbook” (1979)) commented on the arguments that “All of these witnesses can’t be crazy” and “The cases taken individually may be weak evidence but are strong collectively”. Hendry commented that “Both of these rhetorical arguments make use of the ‘weight of numbers’ technique, which obscures the distinction of individual reports. Both statements would be valid if, and only if, the multitude of witnesses were describing the same stimulus, or at most, a small number of similar stimuli. However, every indication seems to be that the sightings taken individually and in detail portray a huge variety of mutually independent events. … Furthermore, the ‘weight of numbers’ argument can’t support the existence of UFOs when the IFO reports outnumber them nine to one” (see Footnote 2.26).
In any event, whether or not such attacks are justified, an unwillingness to identify specific cases which scientists should focus upon can be (and, indeed, has been) taken as a sign of weakness and a reason for avoiding spending any time or resources examining UFO reports.
Jerry Clark has provided probably the most thought provoking response to such challenges to produce lists of the best cases. He put forward the challenge for skeptics to “Show me an exchange between skeptics and proponents of ball lightning in which the latter were challenged to produce their 10 best cases, on which presumably their case rises or falls” (see Footnote 2.27). However, this somewhat misses the point. If UFO proponents want sceptics to spend time and effort considering UFO reports, then the sceptics need to be persuaded.
Failing to meet challenges made by sceptics (even if those challenges are considered unfair) is likely to result in a failure to persuade them. Ufologists may need to swallow their pride and attempt to meet the challenges put to them by sceptics.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 2.01] Exchange on the Bad Astronomy internet forum at the link below:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=37870
[Footnote 2.02] Hansen, Terry in his “The Missing Times : News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-Up” (2000) at page 44 (in Chapter 1) of the Xlibris softcover edition.
[Footnote 2.03] Clark, Jerome on the UFO Updates discussion list at the link below:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1999/nov/m04-018.shtml
[Footnote 2.04] Hynek, J Allen in his “The UFO Experience” (1972) at page vii (in the Preface) of the Henry Regnery hardback edition (with same page numbering in the Abelard-Schuman hardback edition) at page vii of the various Ballantine paperback editions, at page 7 of the Corgi paperback edition.
[Footnote 2.05] Clark, Jerome on the UFO Updates discussion list at the link below:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2000/aug/m23-018.shtml
[Footnote 2.06] Sparks, Brad on the UFO Updates discussion list at the link below:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/dec/m08-004.shtml
[Footnote 2.07] Sparks, Brad on the UFO Updates discussion list at the link below:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/dec/m08-004.shtml
[Footnote 2.08] Hall, Richard on the UFO Updates discussion list at the link below:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2001/mar/m13-008.shtml
[Footnote 2.09] Vallee, Jacques in his “Confrontations” (1990) at page 14 (in the Introduction) of the Ballantine Books paperback edition.
[Footnote 2.10] Hynek, J Allen in his “The Hynek UFO Report” (1977) at page 24 (in Chapter 3) of the Barnes & Noble hardback reprint (1997) at page 34 of the Dell paperback edition (with the same page numbering in the Sphere paperback edition).
[Footnote 2.11] Hendry, Allan in his “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 4 (in Chapter 1) of the Sphere softback edition.
[Footnote 2.12] Clark, Jerome on the UFO Updates discussion list at the link below:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2000/aug/m23-018.shtml
[Footnote 2.13] Klass, Philip J in his “UFOs – Identified” (1968) by at pages 285-286 (in Chapter 24) of the Random House hardback edition.
[Footnote 2.14] Klass, Philip J in his “UFOs Explained” (1974) at page 313 (Chapter 28) of the Random House Hardback edition, at pages 371-372 of Random House paperback edition.
[Footnote 2.15] Oberg, James in Robert Sheaffer’s book “The UFO Verdict” (1980) at page ix (in the foreword) of the Prometheus softback edition; in Robert Sheaffer’s book “UFO Sightings: The Evidence” (1998) at page 9 (in the foreword) of the Prometheus hardback edition.
[Footnote 2.16] Rimmer, John on the UFO Updates discussion list at the link below:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1999/apr/m02-016.shtml
[Footnote 2.17] Brookesmith, Peter on the UFO Updates discussion list at the link below:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1999/apr/m04-007.shtml
[Footnote 2.18] Brookesmith, Peter on the UFO Updates discussion list at the link below:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1997/nov/m06-032.shtml
[Footnote 2.19] Hynek, J Allen in his “The Hynek UFO Report” (1977) at page 24 (in Chapter 3) of the Barnes & Noble hardback reprint (1997) at page 34 of the Dell paperback edition (with the same page numbering in the Sphere paperback edition).
[Footnote 2.20] Randles, Jenny on the Ufologyinuk discussion list in an email dated 29 November 2004. The archives of the Ufologyinuk discussion list from 2004 are no longer available online.
[Footnote 2.21] Bourdais, Gildas on the UFO Updates discussion list at the link below:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2000/dec/m28-017.shtml
[Footnote 2.22] Cashman, Mark on the UFO Updates discussion list at the link below:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1999/apr/m06-005.shtml
[Footnote 2.23] Oberg, James in his “UFOs and Outer Space Mysteries” (1982) at page 6 (in the Introduction) of the Donning paperback edition.
[Footnote 2.24] Menzel, Donald H in “UFO’s: A Scientific Debate” (1972) (edited by Carl Sagan and Thornton Page) at pages 140-141 (in Chapter 6) of the Barnes and Noble hardback edition (with the same page numbering in the Norton paperback edition).
[Footnote 2.25] Menzel, Donald H in “UFO’s: A Scientific Debate” (1972) (edited by Carl Sagan and Thornton Page) at page 141 (in Chapter 6) of the Barnes and Noble hardback edition (with the same page numbering in the Norton paperback edition).
[Footnote 2.26] Hendry, Allan in his “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 126 (in Chapter 9) of the Sphere softback edition.
[Footnote 2.27] Clark, Jerome on the UFO Updates discussion list at the link below:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1999/apr/m06-012.shtml