“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.
Brad Sparks has:
(1) Referred to the two lists repeatedly. He has referred to them as being : “…two surveys of American and worldwide UFOlogists in 1966 and 1981 which listed the best-evidence UFO cases” (see Footnote 5.03). He commented “only the very myopic could fail to grasp” that “since most of these ufologists believed in ETH as the best explanation of the UFO phenomenon, these lists were therefore de facto best-evidence ETH lists” (see Footnote 5.03). He has also referred to the lists as being “consensus lists of best UFO cases”, that were “based on surveys of UFO researchers worldwide” (see Footnote 5.01).
(2) Implied that those skeptics that are unaware of the relevant two “consensus lists” are simply ignorant of the history of UFO research compared to serious ufologists. For example, Brad Sparks has commented 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 5.01).
(3) Suggested that skeptics have failed to address these lists. For example, Brad Sparks has said that: “It is incumbent on skeptics to tackle the unexplained best UFO cases on these lists published by the pre-eminent Jacques Vallee in 1966 and by Ron Story and Richard Greenwell in 1981” (see Footnote 5.01). He has also referred to both lists as being “lists the skeptics all but ignore” (see Footnote 5.02). Brad Sparks has also claimed that “skeptics have evaded these lists for decades, despite their repeated demands for ‘ten best UFO cases’ (etc)” (see Footnote 5.03).
Brad Sparks is to be congratulated for at least attempting to address the complaints raised by various skeptics and thus distinguishing himself from most ufologists. Unfortunately his claims are misleading (particularly in relation to the Ronald Story poll) and could easily be addressed by any skeptic that bothered to look at the actual publications that Brad Sparks relied upon. (It is noteworthy, however, that despite Brad Sparks making the above claims on several different occasions in online debates, none of the various skeptics participating in those debates appear to have bothered looking at the publications he cited and then correcting his claims. Neither side of the debate is exactly covered with glory).
While comments by Brad Sparks are critically evaluated in some detail below, the repeated reference to Brad Sparks are mainly due to the fact that at least he has sought to highlight the issue of “consensus lists” of the “best” cases and referred to some relevant information.
The actual details of the relevant poll by Jacques Vallee, and the list of cases that he compiled as a result, can be found in Appendix 5 of “Challenge to Science : The UFO Enigma” (1966) by Jacques Vallee and Janine Vallee. Those details are summarised below.
In short:
(a) A questionnaire was sent to 217 groups between January and March 1965, with the survey being closed in August 1965 (see Footnote 5.04).
(b) The questionnaire invited UFO groups to select the 5 sightings most significant UFO sightings (see Footnote 5.05).
(c) 29 active groups responded (see Footnote 5.06), although questionnaires were also returned by several individuals associated with organizations that had ceased their activity (see Footnote 5.07)
(d) A total of 26 different sightings, of which 13 were given several times (giving a total of 63 answers), were indicated. Out of that total of 63 answers, 49 were relative to American observations (see Footnote 5.08).
The sightings referred to in the poll were as reported by Jacques Vallee as follows (see Footnote 5.09):
1. Socorro 9 votes (see Case 5 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
2. Washington 8 votes (see Case 8 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
3. Trindade 5 votes (see Case 26 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
4. Kenneth Arnold 4 votes (see Case 1 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
5. Mantell 4 votes (see Case 6 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
6. Southwest, 1957 4 votes (see Case 16 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
7. Kinross Case 3 votes (see Case 54 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
8. Personal sightings 3 votes
9. Rapid City, SD 2 votes
10. Lubbock Lights 2 votes (see Case 31 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
11. Nash & Fortenberry 2 votes (see Case 44 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
12. Father Gill 2 votes (see Case 15 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
13. Fort Itaipu 2 votes (see Case 70 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
14. Alpert (photo) 1 vote (see Case 75 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
15. Red Bluff 1 vote (see Case 93 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
16. Captain Sperry 1 vote
17. BOAC crew 1 vote (see Case 46 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
18.
19. New Jersey, 1964 1 vote (?? see Case 72 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
20. Chiles & Whitted 1 vote (see Case 10 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
21. 100% pure magnesium 1 vote (see Case 28 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
22. McMinneville (sic) 1 vote (see Case 17 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
23. Adamski’s sighting 1 vote (see Case 3 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
24. Star of
25. Lady of Fatima 1 vote (see Case 37 in Isaac Koi’s “Top 100” article)
26. Angel Moroni 1 vote
Brad Sparks has referred to referred to the relevant survey as being “of 29 U.S. UFO organizations (about 13 responding)” (see Footnote 5.01). In fact, as indicated above, in fact the relevant survey was of 217 groups, with 29 active groups responding (mentioning 13 different cases that were referred to more than once, and an additional 13 different cases receiving a single vote each).
The slight inaccuracies in Brad Sparks comments about the number of groups surveyed and responding were, in my view, more than compensated for by Brad Sparks providing an annotated version of the relevant list of cases. Those annotations are significant in relation to some of the sightings for which Jacques Vallee only published rather brief and vague descriptions (e.g. “Rome” and “New Jersey, 1964”), since the annotations by Brad Sparks represent intelligent guesses as to the cases referred to. The list as annotated by Brad Sparks is set out below.
1. Socorro,
2. Washington,
(
3. Trindade Island, Brazil,
4. Mt. Rainier, Wash,
5. Ft. Knox, Kentucky,
6. Southwest U.S. (
7. Kinross AFB, Mich,
8. Rapid City, SD, Aug 5-6, 1953 (radar-visual jet case)
9. Lubbock, Texas,
10. Newport News, VA,
11. Boianai, New Guinea, June 26-7, 1959 (Father Gill case)
12. Fort Itaipu, Brazil,
13. Salem, Mass,
14. Red Bluff,
15. Washington, DC, May 29, 1950 (Capt Sperry case)
16. Goose Bay, Labrador,
17.
(radar-visual?? Clare Booth Luce??)
18.
19. Montgomery, Alab, July 24-5, 1948 (Chiles-Whitted case)
20. Ubatuba, Brazil, Sept 1957 (magnesium physical evidence)
21. McMinnville, Ore,
It is noteworthy that the annotated list of cases put forward by Brad Sparks:
(a) Does not mention the number of votes received by each of the entries in the list. In particular, this has the effect of disguising the fact that about half the entries in the list only received 1 vote each despite the fact that the questionnaire was sent to 217 groups.
(b) Only includes 21 items. Thus, it omits several of the sightings included in the publication of the relevant result in Jacques Vallee’s book. In particular, Brad Sparks omitted any reference to “Adamski’s sighting”, the “Star of Bethlehem”, “Lady of Fatima” and “Angel Moroni”. While these may be viewed as not really “UFO” sightings, or weak cases, the fact remains that these sightings received the same number of votes as many of the other cases that appear in the list (i.e. one vote).
In relation to complaints by Brad Sparks that Jacques Vallee’s list is one that “the skeptics all but ignore” (see Footnote 5.02) and a list that “skeptics have evaded” (see Footnote 5.03), it is noteworthy that the relevant list has virtually been ignored by ufologists, not just by skeptics. Suggestions that skeptics have “evaded” the list therefore appear to be unwarranted.
Indeed, at least one prominent skeptic has referred to Jacques Vallee’s poll in one of his books (which is more than 99.9% of ufologists have done, whether in their books or during debates online). Philip Klass has written that “When UFOlogist Jacques Vallee surveyed numerous UFO groups and asked them to list the most impressive UFO case on record, their overwhelming first choice was Socorro” (see Footnote 5.10).
Suggestions by Brad Sparks that Jacques Vallee’s list is a “consensus list” that skeptics have “evaded” are particularly unfair given the disparaging comments made by Jacques Vallee himself about the results of the relevant poll in his book “Challenge to Science : The UFO Enigma”.
Jacques Vallee commented upon the results as follows:
“The sightings are ranked practically in the order of the publicity they have received, regardless of their intrinsic value or their convincing character. The sentimental attachment for such cases as the dramatic Mantell accident or the ‘Lubbock Lights’ is very evident. Clearly, the group take it for granted that the most publicized cases are the most convincing, when even a small amount of research would have brought to light an entirely different type of reports” (see Footnote 5.11).
The comments by Jacques Vallee hardly suggest that he considered that the results of his poll should be taken as a list of the “best” cases. It is noteworthy that whilst Brad Sparks has suggested that “It is incumbent on skeptics to tackle the unexplained best UFO cases on” Jacques Vallee’s list, Brad Sparks has himself indicated that “I do not personally endorse these lists” (see Footnote 5.01).
Finally, one point that might be considered somewhat pedantic. Ronald Story refers to Jacques Vallee’s list as being “based on surveys of UFO organizations and researchers”. That it true. However, this does not result in a “consensus” list. I consider such lists to be valuable in that they give some indicatation of the views of a number of ufologists, but they do not seek agreement between those ufologists. Votes are simply tallied and an indication given of which cases got the most votes. We would not refer to, say, President Bush as representing the individual elected as a result of a consensus of the American people.
While this point may be considered somewhat academic, there have in fact been several (albeit fairly limited) attempts in the history of ufology to obtain a consensus between various UFO organizations and researchers as to the “best” cases. Such attempts are addressed in Part 9 (relating to a National Enquirer Panel) and Part 10 (relating to the Rockefeller Briefing Document) of this article.
FOOTNOTES
[Footnote 5.01] For Brad Sparks’ comments, see:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1999/apr/m05-001.shtml
[Footnote 5.02] For Brad Sparks’ comments, see:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1999/apr/m04-008.shtml
[Footnote 5.03] For Brad Sparks’ comments, see:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1999/apr/m10-029.shtml
[Footnote 5.04] See “Challenge to Science : The UFO Enigma” (1966) by Jacques Vallee and Janine Vallee at page 270 (in Appendix 5) of the Ballantine Books paperback edition, at page 225 of the Tandem paperback.)
[Footnote 5.05] See “Challenge to Science : The UFO Enigma” (1966) by Jacques Vallee and Janine Vallee at page 286 (in Appendix 5) of the Ballantine Books paperback edition, at page 236 of the Tandem paperback.
[Footnote 5.06] See “Challenge to Science : The UFO Enigma” (1966) by Jacques Vallee and Janine Vallee at pages 270-277 (in Appendix 5) of the Ballantine Books paperback edition, at pages 225-229 of the Tandem paperback.
[Footnote 5.07] See “Challenge to Science : The UFO Enigma” (1966) by Jacques Vallee and Janine Vallee at pages 277-279 (in Appendix 5) of the Ballantine Books paperback edition, at pages 230-231 of the Tandem paperback.
[Footnote 5.08] See “Challenge to Science : The UFO Enigma” (1966) by Jacques Vallee and Janine Vallee at page 285 (in Appendix 5) of the Ballantine Books paperback edition, at page 235 of the Tandem paperback.
[Footnote 5.09] List included by Jacques Vallee and Janine Vallee in their “Challenge to Science : The UFO Enigma” (1966) at page 285 (in Appendix 5) of the Ballantine Books paperback edition, at page 236 of the Tandem paperback).
[Footnote 5.10] Philip J Klass in his “UFOs Explained” (1974) at page 109 (in Chapter 12) of the Random House hardback edition, at page 128 of Random House paperback edition.
[Footnote 5.11] See “Challenge to Science : The UFO Enigma” (1966) by Jacques Vallee and Janine Vallee at page 286 (in Appendix 5) of the Ballantine Books paperback edition, at page 236 of the Tandem paperback.