MUFON Symposium "Science Review Board" Results for 2014

[Christopher O'Brien]

[Did any Paracasters attend the 2014 MUFON Conference? I have hardly heard a peep about how it went... In the meantime, here is a Roger Marsh-penned article about the new MUFON "Science Review Boards" results for 2014 –chris]

ARTICLE HERE:

Top UFO cases from 2013 identified by MUFON’s science review board
by: Roger Marsh 7.25.14

The second highest number of UFO sightings were reported to the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) in 2013; a total of 6,448 reports.

MUFON employs trained field investigators with backgrounds in science and law enforcement that interview witnesses to “identify” UFOs. Although most of the reports are identified as known celestial objects, aircraft, meteors, etc., there are always a small percentage of the cases that remain as true “UFOs.” These latter cases are carefully reviewed by a science board.

MUFON’s Science Review Board (SRB) consists of scientists with degrees in physics, chemistry, geology and electrical engineering. Their work experience includes NASA, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Advanced Mico Devices, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and France’s national space program, CNES. The SRB has reviewed the best cases from the year 2013 and have identified the strongest cases that cannot be identified as any known object…

Breakout of case types
Resolving cases is an important part of the MUFON mission. Below is a chart showing report final classifications as assigned by Field Investigators for 2012 vs. 2013, for the U.S only: Unknowns (36.6% vs. 31.9%), Identified Objects (30.6% vs. 33.5%), Insufficient Information (12.4% vs. 12.2%), Information Only (8.1% vs10.0%), Hoax & Keystroke error (3.3% vs. 2.9%), and Incomplete (8.8% vs. 9.5%). We continue to make progress in the elimination of unknown cases categorized as unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Over the last two years the number of cases resolved as unknown has dropped from 39.5% to 31.9%. The following pie chart shows the breakout of case dispositions for 2013.

REST OF ARTICLE HERE:

 

[junius]

BBC News - Top secret UK drone Taranis makes first flight

BBC News - Inside BAE's research lab for aircraft of the future

For consideration of drone advances from the UK. Of note, proposed drones that can 'dock' with a mothership.

 

[Bananas]

Uhh... that pie chart thingy? Yeah, it makes 0 sense to me.

First, shouldn't Hoaxes fall to the identified objects category? Second, if there's insufficient information... would't that mean it's unknown? I mean... stating something is "unknown" doens't really leave room for interpetation, right? You either know what it is/was or you don't know.

 

[E. L. Wisty]

Bananas has a point. "Hoax" and "Identified Objects" are the same thing. "Incomplete" and "Insufficient Information" also appear to be the same thing, which cannot be differentiated in any logical way from "Unknown". And I don't have the slightest idea what "Information Only" is supposed to mean. If you have the information and it isn't insufficient, you know what it is - right?

So this chart really ought to read: "37% identified, 63% unidentified". Since just about every reputable UFO research group takes it as a ball-park figure that 95% of all UFO reports are misidentifications, hoaxes, etc., not being terribly sure what almost two-thirds of of what the public report to you actually are (and even this garbled chart admits unequivocally that almost one-third of reports are never properly identified) makes MUFON staggeringly incompetent, even by the standards set by every other amateur flying saucer club ever. Which in turn heavily implies that they do very little field research, and resolve most cases from an armchair.

Even if that's untrue, any UFO club which has a two-to-one likelihood of assuming that absolutely anything reported by anybody is either mysterious or insoluble is spectacularly inept, and needs to stop being so open-minded that its collective brains have clearly fallen out.

PS - I'd just like to add that the figure of 3% for "Hoax" is just plain bonkers! You're running a website or phone-line or whatever inviting the general public to tell you anything weird, no matter how unlikely, that they've experienced, and you honestly believe that only 1 person in 33 who contacts you is winding you up for a laugh? Get real!

 

[Bananas]

Yes, the difference between an open mind and a gaping hole in your head can sometimes be small, but it is crucial

 

[Randall]

Since Mr. Sheaffer is a skeptic in general but a UFO skeptic in particular, I would like to ask him if he considers the entire subject, bearing in mind that "UFO" stands for "Unidentified Flying Object", not "alien spacecraft", to be entirely without merit?

I'll apologize in advance for speaking up when your question wasn't addressed to me, and hope you don't mind that my comment is posted outside the question bank. I don't think posting there would have been appropriate.

While it is true that the acronym UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object, the literal interpretation of the words that make up the acronym isn't how the word was intended to be interpreted. The vast amount of examples in historical and contemporary usage clearly indicate that the word UFO ( or ufo ) is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft, not merely some vague or merely "unidentified" object off in the distance.

Even the official interpretation ( e.g. AFR 200-2 ) left little room for any conclusion other than something extraordinary, and the word itself was introduced as an official designation for what were being called flying saucers; craft that at the time were popularly interpreted to be something alien, possibly, but not necessarily from space. I think you probably know this, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a point of impressing your point. I suggest that if you want to avoid the subject matter of alien craft, that you use a less definitive term, like UAP ( Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ). Introduced by NARCAP, the term UAP is a reference to a wide array of possibilities that in general terms, can safely be lumped under the literal interpretation of that acronym.

To offer my opinion on your question ( if you're interested ), I assume that what you mean by "the entire subject" is the field of ufology as a whole, and "entirely without merit" to mean without status as a scientific field. Ufology as a whole is far too diversified a subject for the scientific method to be applicable to it all, and therefore it's not that the study of the subject is without merit in general, it's that the field as a whole just doesn't fit within the bounds of science and therefore it would be a mistake to try to jam it all in there. It's possible that valid science might be applied within the field in certain rare instances, but the field as a whole is not a science unto itself and it never will be. That also isn't a bad thing, and ufologists should get used to it, otherwise we do little but invite allegations of pseudoscience.