“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi
PART 26: Quantitative criteria : Moravec's rating system
Mark Moravec has suggested that assigning “numerical weights” to the factors which are considered important when comparing UFO reports produces “a system whereby UFO reports can be objectively compared”. He has suggested that “a good system is one that is more than just a logical exercise; that does not violently clash with our own subjective (but carefully considered) comparisons of cases; and is simple and practical to use” (see Footnote 19.02).
When putting forward the “UFO Report Rating System” summarised below, Mark Moravec suggested that the individual factor weightings can be combined to give numerical totals and that “a point in the range of possible totals could be defined as the dividing line between UFO reports of ‘limited’ and ‘high’ merit” (see Footnote 26.02).
Moravec’s involves 5 factors, each with values of 0 to 5.
The first four factors (i.e. “Documentation” [“D”], “Time Lapse Before Investigation” [“T”], “Witness Credibility” [“W”] and “Physical Evidence” [“P”]) relate to “supporting evidence”.
The fifth factor (“Strangeness” ["S"]) emphasizes “the value of proximity and substantial effects associated with a UFO experience”.
Moravec suggested obtaining a total rating by adding the first 4 values and multiplying by the fifth (i.e. Strangeness) i.e. R = (D + T + W +P) S.
He commented that cases with a rating of less than 20 points could be considered “limited merit reports”, while cases with a rating equal to or exceeding 20 points are “high merit reports”.
The values to be assigned for each factor were:
“Documentation” ("D")
0 = Anecdote or unconfirmed media account
1 = Witness statement
2 = Report form completed by witness
3 = Brief witness interview by qualified investigator
4 = Detailed witness interview by qualified investigator
5 = Detailed on-site investigation by qualified investigator
“Time Lapse Before Investigation” ("T")
0 = More than 5 years, Not known or Not applicable
1 = 1-5 years
2 = Within a year
3 = Within a month
4 = Within a week
5 = Within 24 hours
“Witness Credibility” (W)
0 = Single witness with low or unknown credibility
1 = Multiple witnesses with low or unknown credibility
2 = Single witness with high credibility
3 = Multiple witnesses with high credibility
4 = Multiple independent witnesses known to each other
5 = Multiple independent witnesses not known to each other
“Physical Evidence” ("P")
0 = No physical evidence detected
1 = Transient physical effect not instrumentally recorded (physiological, electromagnetic etc)
2 = Transient physical effect instrumentally recorded/analysed (photograph, radar, radiation reading, etc)
3 = Durable physical effect not instrumentally recorded (unanalysed ground trace, artefact, etc)
4 = Durable physical effect instrumentally recorded/analysed
5 = Multiple durable physical effects instrumentally recorded/analysed
“Strangeness” ("S")
0 = Identified or Probable identified
1 = Possible identified or Not enough information
2 = Distant light or object (NL [Nocturnal Light] or DD [Daylight Disc]
3 = Distant light or object with substantial effects on witness/physical environment
4 = Close encounter (CE1, CE2 or CE3)
5 = Close encounter with substantial effects on witness/physical environment
Actual applications of Moravec’s proposals
Moravec has published the application of his rating system to “all the cases presented in PSIUFOCAT” (see Footnote 26.02). The extract I have obtained of the relevant book does not include the relevant evaluations.
I am not currently aware of any database or publication which has applied Moravec’s proposals.
FOOTNOTES
[26.01] Mark Moravec’s article entitled “Evaluating UFO Reports” in the Journal of the Australian Centre for UFO Studies, Volume 2 number 1, February 1981 pages 13-15.
[26.02] Mark Moravec, “PSIUFO Phenomena : A Study of UFOs and the paranormal”, 1982, Appendix 1 : “Evaluation of Reports”