“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:

1. Firstly, Robert Sheaffer’s comment assumes 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, that those ufologists would actually name a single case.  That assumption is extremely improbable (see PART 2:    Challenges to produce lists of top cases). Many ufologists have been reluctant, for various reasons, to commit themselves by providing a list of the best cases and even further have been prepared to name a single “best” case.
3. Secondly, the various lists of the “best” cases put forward by various ufologists (see PART 3:    Existing lists by various individuals) indicate that relatively few ufologists would include the Hill abduction within a list of their top 10 cases. Even fewer have indicated that they would consider it the single best case. Indeed, abduction accounts are relatively rare in the various lists.
5. Thirdly, and most fundamentally, Robert Sheaffer’s comment implies that there would be a consensus amongst a dozen leading ufologists.  The various lists of the “best” cases put forward by ufologists (see Part 3 of this article) indicate that no consensus would be likely to emerge as to the top few cases, and it is even more improbable that there would a consensus as to a single “best” case.

 

One skeptic (William K Hartmann) has complained that: “Often, what one enthusiast quotes as evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) or some other extraordinary phenomenon, another ETI enthusiast concedes as an explained case! Thus there is no agreement on what the evidence is” [Footnote 4.3]

 

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 those lists?

 

One leading ufologist, Brad Sparks, has repeatedly referred to two lists of cases as being “consensus lists” of the best cases. He has further asserted that “skeptics have evaded these lists for decades, despite their repeated demands for ‘ten best UFO cases’ (etc.)”.

Given the desirability of answering repeated challenges of various skeptics to provide them with consensus lists of the best cases, the claims made by Brad Sparks are very interesting.

 

It is therefore somewhat disappointing to find that the claims made by Brad Sparks about those lists are misleading, and misrepresent the nature of the relevant lists.  If any skeptic actually bothered to look at the books cited by Brad Sparks then they would have little difficulty in dismissing his challenge. The claims made by Brad Sparks, and the true nature of the relevant two lists, are addressed in Part 5 (relating to a poll of Jacques Vallee) and Part 6 (relating to a poll by Ronald Story and Richard Greenwell) of this article.

 

More recent examples of similar lists are addressed in PART 7:    Consensus lists : Paul Kimball’s Vox Populi poll (2006) and PART 8:    Consensus lists : Paul Kimball’s expert poll (2005/6) (relating to two polls by Paul Kimball) and PART 9:    Consensus lists : Fortean Times expert poll (2007).

 

Two lists which can accurately be stated to be “consensus lists” are addressed in PART 10:        Consensus lists : National Enquirer Panel and PART 11:        Consensus lists : The Rockefeller Briefing Document.  It is interesting to note that those lists are rarely referred to in the UFO literature or online.

 

The implications of the various “consensus lists” are considered in PART 12:        Consensus lists : Conclusion. In short, “consensus lists” of the best cases are a highly desirable commodity.  It is therefore extremely disappointing (and perhaps surprising) to note that despite numerous challenges by skeptics to produce lists of the “best” cases:

1. with the notable exception of Brad Sparks, few researchers have referred to any of these lists;
2. several of the relatively few references to these lists by leading ufologists have been inaccurate and misleading;
3. ways of obtaining more meaningful “consensus lists” do not appear to have been the subject of any real debate or consideration.

 

For ease of reference, the relevant Parts of this article which relate to the various “consensus” lists are as follows:

PART 4:    Consensus lists : Introduction

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

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

PART 7:    Consensus lists : Paul Kimball’s Vox Populi poll (2006)

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

PART 9:    Consensus lists : Fortean Times expert poll (2007)

PART 10:        Consensus lists : National Enquirer Panel

PART 11:        Consensus lists : The Rockefeller Briefing Document

PART 12:        Consensus lists : Conclusion

 

[Footnote 4.1] Robert Sheaffer in his “The UFO Verdict” (1980) at page 34 (in Chapter 5) of the Prometheus softback edition.

 

[Footnote 4.2] Robert Sheaffer in his “UFO Sightings: The Evidence” (1998) at page 63 (in Chapter 5) of the Prometheus hardback edition.

 

[Footnote 4.3] William K Hartmann in “UFO’s: A Scientific Debate” (1972) (edited by Carl Sagan and Thornton Page) at page 11 (in Chapter 2) of the Barnes and Noble hardback edition (with the same page numbering in the Norton paperback edition) : “In studying photographic cases [as part of the work for the Condon Report] I went to a number of the UFO enthusiasts and asked for their lists of the best cases.  … Later I reviewed the UFO literature and found that what are regarded by some as the ‘classic’ cases have been adequately explained by other investigators.  Often, what one enthusiast quotes as evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) or some other extraordinary phenomenon, another ETI enthusiast concedes as an explained case! Thus there is no agreement on what the evidence is”.