Just a quick...ish note. This topic can really get me going so I could easily write a book.
Screw that dude, why not blog about it, better still, when the site is setup, why not blog about these as individual topics and the many others?
I also co-own a private data center and disaster recovery facility.
*cough* I fully own one of them.... it's a 2Gig USB stick *cough* Ta da!
Like everything associated with this field and phenomenon, trying to consolidate UFO data is a story laden with drama, dripping with frustration, and burdened by short sighted and "me"centric ego. It is gonna be a hard row to hoe.
I am hopeful that the miscreants of these forums will keep us honest in this regard.
Pitfalls and Problems
1. Access to Data. MUFON is the widest and largest UFO related data collection and consolidation entity in the world not run by a government or reclusive billionaire. Probably 85%+ of the worlds reports end up there. Personally I think this is a conservative estimate. This collection runs for over 40 years. A few years back MUFON sold their entire data collection effort to a notorious figure in Las Vegas and the entire collection was boxed up and sent there. The contract between MUFON and Bigelow was leaked and is displayed somewhere in the forum archives in its entirety. Its a dry but interesting read. One interesting part is that the Bigelow group got everything and only had to return something like 3 or 4 pieces of data to MUFON.
(Bob Bigelow Bought MUFON ?? | The Paracast Community Forums)
It is my recollection that part of this contract was that MUFON could not grant unrestricted access to the data it retained. But I have not read it in years and cant remember all the details. Instead MUFON created an extremely worthless database search engine that gives very little if any relevant research data. But, it does give MUFON the ability to represent themselves as having a degree of transparency of data. To be clear, they do not and are not at all interested in hearing about data search patterns, cross correlative data analysis, historical data reconstruction, or any number of other ways the data collected could be used to garner information.
I understand that, as you say, you only have to look at the search to understand that. Although part of me thinks that it might be hard for them to do lots on a shoestring budget and with people running who are not clued up on the tech side of things. I guess in some ways, it benefits them NOT to have a good search facility otherwise more people would use it = more bandwidth charges = more drains on their funds - it might eventually bankrupt them and then it all disappears.
Of the remaining 15% of collections, most are guarded by people or entities that do not want to share their data. Most of my pleas were either unanswered or I was given a "not at this time" response. But, in fairness, I was one man. I feel now and have always felt that a group would get more attention and perhaps elicit a different reaction.
yeah, that's what i expect, that's a mindset that needs to change.. but would take a long time. You can understand from one perspective if they've put all the leg work in. However, if you can get enough people over time to each address one case or work a small area but will share their data, then the relative cost for all comes down markedly. It is then a matter of using your time productively to look over the data and pick out the bits of interest.
2. Deaf Ears. I have personally plead the case to MUFON about truely opening their database to qualified researchers. I suggested things like creating a qualification or certification program, creating a MUFON profit center by allowing researchers to pay for access, Requiring researchers to sign very restrictive NDA's, and many more ideas. But no. ALL of my suggestions were ignored or shot down and I kept being referred to the same bullshit database search engine you get access to when paying for a MUFON membership. Frustrating.
Out of interest, did you approach only US based entities? I do find that European's tend to be more open in this regard, and you can see this at a low level by the govts releasing data along these lines.
3. Data Integrity/Consistency. How do you ensure that the data you are collecting is reliable and unaltered. I have seen the same incident reported in 3 different ways from 3 different sources. If you have been looking into this subject with any depth you have seen the same thing. The problem is that some of these stories are so freakishly divergent they almost need to two or three different occurrences. So much of this phenomenon seems to be perception. When you have 3+ stories your going to get 3+ different perceptions of the events. How do you consolidate these and still maintain consistency, cohesion, and integrity? It becomes a really difficult job very quickly. All of this only compounds when your data provider is sketchy.
I think I need to be clear here, for me, I would have no objection to having three different sources in three different ways reporting the same case. I just want to collect / give the data. I'm still expecting the person using the data to use their brain and to cross analyse those reports - we're not trying to build BigBlue here
Secondly, when they put their points across, they could clearly cite the cases and sources for others to correlate. There is not much difference (to me) from making the same comparison of a sighting that might be reported in three different newspapers in the same region - the perspectives will be driven by the reporter, the editor and what other news events are happening on that day. It is all about perceptions(or opinions) and I think that should be left in the hands of the researcher or person presenting that data.
What we can do, is make it easier for people to contribute data that they may be able to collect from their block/neighbourhood and not to have to go miles out of their way to do something. In some ways, I guess we could be enabling the 'lazy researcher' and trying to motivate them to become more involved, or giving the seasoned researcher a chance to look at their data in a much wider context.
There are more negatives, but these are the biggest issues. NOBODY wants to give up their data. Sure they will give you small tid bits or point you to their book. But if you want to have a database that is useful for research it must include details that are more often irrelevant to a story. For instance, in a book I might say, "the object was seen on the ground in Macon County". For a book that might suffice. But a researcher might want to cross correlate data points with other databases or services. I might need to know exactly where in Macon County so that I can lookup common vegetation, topography, soil composition, population dispersal, etc.
This is true, but its a long game here, things will not be perfect on day one. I would fully expect that cases/data should be curated over time, some will be quick and then stabilize, others will grow over a much longer burn as people's interests wax and wane.
Even congenial researchers/authors that preach openness are not willing to provide their data. Some will angrily tell you to go do the research yourself. Others will promise and never quite "make the time" to get you what you ask for. I have even been told that I could buy all the research a certain guy had for $2000. I declined.
BUT, and I want to stress this, lets not let history deter from trying again. Its frustrating and sometimes you have to take a step back for a while but the pay off would be too cool to "go quietly into the night" on the idea. I am still willing to help and it looks like the forum is attracting more of the technical crowd, much to my pleasure, so why not give it another try.
tenacitate per adversis
bb
.
But I suspect his understanding of available data and ufos is currently unequaled.