“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).

“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

PART 3:    Existing lists by various individuals

Have individual UFO researchers and UFO groups put forward lists of the top cases? Which cases did they list?  How much overlap is there between the various lists?  Do the same cases come up all the time, or do opinions differ significantly between researchers?

(1) It is relatively rare for UFO books or articles to list the cases which the author considers to be the best. A very limited number of UFO researchers and groups have nominated an individual case, or short list of cases, which they consider to represent the best evidence in support of their position. I refer to a number of such lists below. While the collection below may appear to be fairly extensive, it should be noted that these lists are collated as a result of reading approximately 960 UFO/SETI books and tens of thousands of webpages.

(2) Very few of the lists mentioned below were accompanied by even the most general of explanation as to why these cases were considered to be the “best”. Item by item justifications for including each case were even rarer, accompanying virtually none of these lists.

(3) The lists that have been produced are remarkable in their diversity. There is very little, if any, consensus among the relatively few ufologists prepared to nominate a list of the “best” cases.

(4) As far as I have been able to determine, no-one in the history of ufology has previously attempted to publish a collection of the various lists that have been produced and to provide references to such lists.

“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

PART 4:    Consensus lists : Introduction

Have leading UFO researchers ever reached a consensus as to which UFO cases are the "best"?  What polls have been done of UFO researchers and UFO groups asking them to identify the best cases?  If no real consensus emerges from the various lists of the “best” cases put forward by various ufologists, why should any skeptic pay attention to the lists put forward by any one individual? Have skeptics "evaded" consensus lists of the best cases?

These cases are addressed in a series of articles about lists that actually, or purportedly, reflect the views of various UFO researchers as to the best UFO evidence.

Robert Sheaffer has asserted that “If we were to ask a dozen leading UFOlogists to name the most complex, the most puzzling, the most inexplicable of all reported UFO encounters, the consensus would probably be ‘the Hill UFO abduction’” (see Footnote 4.1 and Footnote 4.2).

That comment by Robert Sheaffer makes at least two incorrect assumptions:

“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

PART 5: Consensus lists : Jacques Vallee’s poll (1965)

As discussed earlier in this series of articles (see PART 1: Top 100 UFO Cases: Introduction and PART 2: Challenges to produce lists of top cases), various skeptics have complained that ufologists have failed to put forward their “best cases”, or to agree amongst themselves which cases are the “best”.

Those complaints have generally not been addressed, or apparently considered, in any depth by most ufologists. However, Brad Sparks has contended that the skeptics are simply wrong and contended that two such “consensus lists” exist.

The earlier of the two lists relied upon by Brad Sparks was published by Jacques Vallee in 1966 (discussed below) and the second is said by Brad Sparks to have been published by Ronald Story and Richard Greenwell in 1981 (this claim in addressed in the next part of this article - see PART 6: Consensus lists : Ronald Story’s poll (1979) ).

This article looks into the first of those polls, i.e. the poll conducted by Jacques Vallee during 1965.

“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

PART 6:    Consensus lists : Ronald Story’s poll (1979)

In his first book on UFOs, skeptic Philip J Klass wrote “I have yet to meet a UFOrian who is willing to stake his case on one, two, or even ten sightings” (see Footnote 6.01).

Having read over 1,000 UFO books and countless articles, I am aware of only one researcher that has met the implied challenge set by Klass. That researcher is Ronald Story.

Ronald Story has written an interesting book entitled “UFOs and the Limits of Science” (1981), which set out a list of ten “best” cases. Story expressly stated that “If anyone were to ‘debunk’ or explain in prosaic terms – to my satisfaction – all ten of these cases, I personally, would no longer regard the UFO phenomenon as worthy of serious study, except in the realm of the behavioral sciences” (see Footnote 6.02).

Thus, the list set out by Story is to be distinguished from the various other lists of cases set out in PART 3:    Existing lists by various individuals, which were not accompanied by any such clear statement resting the relevant researcher’s case on the sightings listed and were in fact almost universally expressed in slightly vague terms, e.g. as being a list of “good cases” or “important cases”.

Ronald Story’s list of the ten “best” cases has another claim to fame. Brad Sparks has stated that “Us veterans who have been involved in UFO research since the 60's and earlier are quite knowledgeable of the fact that consensus lists of best UFO cases were published in the 60's and 80's based on surveys of UFO researchers worldwide” (see Footnote 6.03). He has alleged that these “consensus lists” are ones that “the skeptics all but ignore” (see Footnote 6.04) and that “skeptics have evaded” (see Footnote 6.05). The first of those lists, based on a survey by Jacques Vallee, was discussed in PART 5:    Consensus lists : Jacques Vallee’s poll (1965). The second list is that published by Ronald Story in “UFOs and the Limits of Science”.

The actual list published by Ronald Story (see Footnote 6.06) is set out below:

“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

As discussed in earlier sections of this article, Jacques Vallee and Ronald Story conducted polls of ufologists in an attempt to determine which cases were considered to be the best (see PART 5:    Consensus lists : Jacques Vallee’s poll (1965) and PART 6:    Consensus lists : Ronald Story’s poll (1979) of this article respectively).  Those polls were conducted quite some time ago.  Vallee’s questionnaire was sent to UFO groups between January and March 1965, with the survey being closed in August 1965 (see Footnote 7.01). Ronald Story’s form letter was sent to ufologists in October 1979 (see Footnote 7.02).

Rather more recently, Paul Kimball has conducted a poll which formed the basis of his documentary “Best Evidence”, which was first broadcast on the Canadian “Space” channel on 10 May 2007.

Paul Kimball described the relevant poll in the opening words of his documentary : “In 2005 and 2006, documentary filmmaker Paul Kimball surveyed a select group of the world’s leading UFO researchers. He asked each of them for a list of their ten best UFO cases of all time. The cases were assigned point values, based on their rank, and then averaged together. Over seventy UFO incidents from around the world received votes. At the end of the process, the following ten incidents comprised the best evidence UFO cases of all time” (see Footnote 7.03).

The relevant poll of the relevant “select group of the world’s leading UFO researchers” is discussed in PART 8:    Consensus lists : Paul Kimball’s expert poll (2005/6) (i.e. in the next Part). Further information and relevant multimedia can be found on the blog “Best Evidence : Top Ten UFO Sightings”  (see Footnote 7.10).

As part of that polling process, Paul Kimball also conducted an informal poll on his main blog, “The Other Side of Truth” (see Footnote 7.09). Anyone could vote in that informal poll, which Paul Kimball e has described this poll as his “Vox Populi” poll.  When launching gus “Vox Populi” poll, Paul Kimball indicated that he would factor in the results when determining the “top 10 list” for the documentary, assigning the results of the Vox Populi poll “a weight equivalent to one of our ufological experts” (see Footnote 7.04).

“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

PART 8:    Consensus lists : Paul Kimball’s expert poll (2005/6)

A documentary entitled “Best Evidence : Top Ten UFO Sightings” premiered on “Space: The Imagination Station” in Canada during May 2007 (see Footnote 8.01).

The opening words of that documentary, produced and directed by Paul Kimball, stated the following:

“In 2005 and 2006, documentary filmmaker Paul Kimball surveyed a select group of the world’s leading UFO researchers. He asked each of them for a list of their ten best UFO cases of all time. The cases were assigned point values, based on their rank, and then averaged together. Over seventy UFO incidents from around the world received votes. At the end of the process, the following ten incidents comprised the best evidence UFO cases of all time”.

(As discussed below, that statement is somewhat misleading…)