“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

PART 24:        Quantitative criteria : Olsen’s Reliability Index

There have been various proposals for quantitative criteria to assess the reliability of UFO reports.  Most are considerably less well-known than, say, the schemes proposed by Hynek and Vallee  (see PART 20: Quantitative criteria : Hynek – Strangeness and Probability and PART 21: Quantitative criteria : Vallee’s SVP ratings respectively).  Some of those less known schemes have been implemented due to support from large UFO groups, e.g. BUFORA and MUFON (see PART 22: Quantitative criteria : BUFORA’s case priority and PART 23: Quantitative criteria : Ballester/MUFON index respectively).  Some, such as the scheme outlined below, have largely remained unapplied.

Thomas Olsen wrote a book entitled “The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports” (1966).  That book was discussed in the Condon Report in 1969 (see Footnote 24.11), which stated the following:  “There apparently exists no single complete collection of UFO reports. ... Proposals have been made from time to time for a computer-indexing of these reports by various categories but this has not been carried out. Two publications are available which partially supply this lack: one is The UFO Evidence (Ha11, 1964) and the other is a collection of reports called The Reference for Outstanding UFO Reports (Olsen)”.

While the first of the two books mentioned in that paragraph of the Condon Report, i.e. Richard Hall’s book “The UFO Evidence” (1964) remains well-known and the complete text of that book is now available on several websites, Olsen’s book is now relatively obscure. 

In his book, Thomas Olsen discussed at length the calculation of a “reliability index” for UFO reports in a book he wrote in 1966 (see Footnote 24.01)

Olsen acknowledged that his “reliability index” was an approximation, but suggested that it was nonetheless useful since it gave “in a single number, some general, conservative indication of probable reliability” (see Footnote 24.08).   He also claimed that another use of the reliability index is “in arranging thereports according to their relative reliability” (see Footnote 24.09).

Olsen’s “reliability index” is a value between zero and which represents “the probability that the sighting report accurately describes a real event - that it is not the result of a hoax or hallucination”.  This value is obtained by multiplying the probabilities of three factors, summarised by Olsen as follows (see Footnote 24.04):

1. Witness factor: probability that the witnesses, reporting in concert, accurately described a valid experience;

2. Investigation factor: probability that the investigating agency correctly documented a reported experience which has no explanation in terms of known man-made or natural phenomena.

3. Transcription factor: probability that intermediate sources for the report have related it as originally obtained, without omission, distortion or addition of spurious details.

The relevant chapter of Olsen’s book discusses his proposals for assigning values to each of these three factors, as summarised below.

1. Olsen’s “witness factor”

At the heart of Olsen’s proposed method of calculating this factor appear to be the following points (see Footnote 24.05):

a. Olsen assumes that the more experienced a witness has of “aerial phenomena” then the less likely that individual is to provide “false, inaccurate testimony”.  Thus, the probability of an astronomer or commercial pilot (individuals with “extensive” experience with “aerial phenomena”) providing “false, inaccurate testimony” is assumed to be 12.5%, while the probability of a baker or plumber (individuals with “essentially” no experience with “aerial phenomena”) providing “false, inaccurate testimony” is assumed to be 50%.  Olsen's discussion of this factor should now be considered in the light of the matters covered in PART 16 : Qualitative criteria: Credible witnesses.

b. Olsen himself notes that calculating a more accurate (or “literal”) value of the probability that the witness has provided false or inaccurate evidence would require “information about the character, personality and moral integrity” of the witnesses, but such information is “often not stated in a sighting report”. Such further information should be taken into account when available.

c. Multiple witnesses have a very dramatic effect on the value assigned by Olsen to the “witness factor”.  The formula put forward by Olsen for assigning a value to the “witness factor” assumes that in cases with multiple witnesses, the probability of testimony either being inaccurate or false decreases _exponentially_ with the number of witnesses.  Thus, a sighting report from one pilot has a 12.5% (1 in 8) probability of being false or inaccurate, but if the report is from two pilots then the probability decreases to 1.56% (1 in 64).  Similarly, a report from one plumber has a 50% (1 in 2) probability of being false or inaccurate, from if the report is from 3 plumbers from the probability decreases to  6.25% (1 in 16).  Olsen's discussion of this factor should now be considered in the light of the matters covered in PART 17: Qualitative criteria: Multiple witnesses.

d, The dramatic effects of multiple witnesses on the witness factor results in considerably more weight being given to a report from several individuals of unidentified profession than a report from a single astronomer, meteorologist or pilot.

 2. Olsen’s “investigation factor”

This factor represents the probability that the following two conditions are met (see Footnote 24.06):

a. The reported details were documented correctly and completely.

b. They have no explanation in terms of known man-made or natural phenomena.

According to Olsen, the values assigned to this probability “reflect the importance given to a check for correlations with other phenomena … a high value of the investigation factor is assurance that a report can be used with confidence, without having to double-check for a conventional explanation”.

Olsen suggests the following numerical values for the investigation factor:

(a) 99.9% - Quality of Investigation: High - (1) On-site investigation by Federal investigator, supported by local Weather Bureau data, evaluated by USAF consultant, and documented in detail.  (2) Lengthy interview by professional astronomer, filing a detailed report privately.

(b) 75%    - Quality of Investigation: Intermediate - (1) Detailed report filed by one crew member of squadron of fighter-bombers, after discussion with accompanying witnesses.  No check for correlation with other phenomena.  (2) Professional astronomer filing report of personal sighting.

(c) 50%    - Quality of Investigation: None or unknown - (1) Detailed newspaper report.  (2) Personal sighting report filed by mechanic; no check for correlation with other phenomena.

3. Olsen’s “transcription factor”

This factor reflects the reduction in reliability resulting from secondary reports, which may be abbreviations of the originals or reflect other alterations (to dramatize the account, or simply due to typographical or translation errors) – see Footnote 24.07.  

Olsen suggests reducing the value to be assigned to the reliability of an account _exponentially_ with the number of transcriptions involved (the “n-th handedness” of the report).  Thus, the transcription factor is equal to 100% if the report is a primary report, 50% (1 in 2) if a second-hand report, 25% (1 in 4) if a third-hand report.

Actual applications of Olsen’s “reliability index”

Olsen applies (or at least purports to apply) his system to generate “reliability indexes” for a relatively large sample of UFO reports.  He includes a table which lists each of the UFO reports included in his book according to their Reliability Index (R.I.), i.e. “160 oustanding UFO sigting reports” with each report being “so clear-cut, detailed, unambiguous and unconventional that rational misinterpretation of natural or man-made phenomena is obviously impossible”. 

The top 12 entries in Olsen’s table (see Footnote [610]) are as follows:

1)   R.I. = 0.99999,  Summer 1952 - Haneda Airport

2)   R.I. = 0.99999,  14 September 1954 - Vendee, France

3)   R.I. = 0.99999,  22 October 1954 - Marysville, Ohio

4)   R.I. = 0.99999,  22 May 1962 - Paraiso Del Tuy, Venezuela

5)   R.I. = 0.99999,  12 October 1961 - Indianapolis, Indiana

6)   R.I. = 0.99975,  16 January 1951 - Artesia, New Mexico

7)   R.I. = 0.99975,  3 April 1964 - Monticello, Wisconsin

8)   R.I. = 0.99804,  3 August 1951 - Silver Lake, Michigan

9)   R.I. = 0.99804,  27 July 1952 - New Jersey, opposite NYC

10) R.I. = 0.99804,  25 July 1957 - Niagara Falls, Municipal Airport

11) R.I. = 0.99609, 11 April 1964 - Homer, New York

12) R.I. = 0.99218,  14 September 1952 - Hill near Sutton, West Virginia

Olsen’s “reliability index” does not appear to have been discussed on the Internet prior to this article. No one appears to have been inclined to provide a summary online of the factors which it took into account.

However, this “reliability index”:

a. is briefly discussed and applied to one case in an appendix to Illobrand Von Ludwigger’s book “Best UFO Cases : Europe” (1998) – see Footnote 24.02. That discussion adds little, if anything, to the original presentation of the proposed scheme by Olsen in his own book.  However, Von Ludwigger’s book does make several references to Von Ludwigger’s participation in MUFON-CES (see Footnote 24.12), i.e. the Central European Section of MUFON.  It is therefore possible that MUFON-CES has applied Olsen’s “Reliability Index” scheme to some extent.  I note, however, that MUFON’s centralised database appears to have implemented the scheme outlined in PART 23 rather than Olsen’d criteria.  Von Ludwigger’s was published by NIDS (i.e. the National Institute for Discovery Science), but I am not aware of NIDS ever applying the “Reliability Index” scheme.

b. Olsen’s “Reliability Index” scheme is discussed in the book “Ufology” by James McCampbell at slightly greater length (see Footnote 24.03).   That discussion includes a comment that Realibity Theory had “been successfully applied to UFO reports”, stating that “as with any complex system, the problem was first broken down into its finest elements”. It noted that “such factors as the number of witnesses, their training in aerial observation, and the circumstances of the sighting were isolated” and stated that “details of the original documentation were accounted for with emphasis upon interviews of the witnesses and the professional qualifications of the interviewers”. While the McCampbell’s book notes that 160 sightings “were selected and analysed”, he was referring to Olsen’s own application of the “Reliability Index” rather than any later application.

FOOTNOTES

[24.01] Thomas Olsen, “The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports” (1966) at pages 4_1 to 4_13 (in Chapter 4) of the UFOIRC spiral-bound edition.

[24.02] Illobrand Von Ludwigger, “Best UFO Cases : Europe”, 1998, NIDS, Appendix A: “Reliability Index according to Olsen”, page 159.

[24.03] James McCampbell, “Ufology” at pages 2-4 of the version online at:

http://www.nicap.org/ufology/ufology.htm

[24.04] Thomas Olsen, “The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports” (1966) at page 4_1 (in Chapter 4) of the UFOIRC spiral-bound edition.

[24.05] Thomas Olsen, “The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports” (1966) at pages 4_1 to 4_2 (in Chapter 4) of the UFOIRC spiral-bound edition.

[24.06] Thomas Olsen, “The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports” (1966) at pages 4_2 to 4_5 (in Chapter 4) of the UFOIRC spiral-bound edition.

[24.07] Thomas Olsen, “The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports” (1966) at page 4_5 (in Chapter 4) of the UFOIRC spiral-bound edition.

[24.08] Thomas Olsen, “The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports” (1966) at page 4_6 (in Chapter 4) of the UFOIRC spiral-bound edition.

[24.09] Thomas Olsen, “The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports” (1966) at page 4_7 (in Chapter 4) of the UFOIRC spiral-bound edition.

[24.10] Thomas Olsen, “The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports” (1966) at page 4_11 (in Chapter 4) of the UFOIRC spiral-bound edition.

[24.11] Thomas Olsen’s book is discussed at: Condon Report (“Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects”,  Edward U Condon (Director) and Daniel S Gillmor (Editor) (1969)) at page 32 (in Section 2 “Summary of the Study”, by Edward U Condon) of the uncorrected version submitted to the Air Force (with the same page numbering in the 3 volume paperbound edition distributed by the National Technical Information Service, US Department of Commerce) at page 23 of the Vision hardback edition (with the same page numbering in the Bantam paperback edition).  The first of these editions has the same page numbering as the edition available free online at the following links:

http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/contents.htm

http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/contents.html

[24.12]  MUFON-CES has a website at the link below, available as at June 2010:

http://www.mufon-ces.org/text/english/about.htm

“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

PART 26:         Quantitative criteria : Moravec's rating system

Mark Moravec has suggested that assigning “numerical weights” to the factors which are considered important when comparing UFO reports produces “a system whereby UFO reports can be objectively compared”.  He has suggested that “a good system is one that is more than just a logical exercise; that does not violently clash with our own subjective (but carefully considered) comparisons of cases; and is simple and practical to use”  (see Footnote 19.02).

When putting forward the “UFO Report Rating System” summarised below, Mark Moravec suggested that the individual factor weightings can be combined to give numerical totals and that “a point in the range of possible totals could be defined as the dividing line between UFO reports of ‘limited’ and ‘high’ merit” (see Footnote 26.02). 

Moravec’s involves 5 factors, each with values of 0 to 5. 

The first four factors (i.e. “Documentation” [“D”], “Time Lapse Before Investigation” [“T”], “Witness Credibility” [“W”] and “Physical Evidence” [“P”]) relate to “supporting evidence”.

The fifth factor (“Strangeness” ["S"]) emphasizes “the value of proximity and substantial effects associated with a UFO experience”.

Moravec suggested obtaining a total rating by adding the first 4 values and multiplying by the fifth (i.e. Strangeness) i.e. R = (D + T + W +P) S.

He commented that cases with a rating of less than 20 points could be considered “limited merit reports”, while cases with a rating equal to or exceeding 20 points are “high merit reports”.

The values to be assigned for each factor were:

“Documentation” ("D")

0 = Anecdote or unconfirmed media account

1 = Witness statement

2 = Report form completed by witness

3 = Brief witness interview by qualified investigator

4 = Detailed witness interview by qualified investigator

5 = Detailed on-site investigation by qualified investigator

“Time Lapse Before Investigation” ("T")

0 = More than 5 years, Not known or Not applicable

1 = 1-5 years

2 = Within a year

3 = Within a month

4 = Within a week

5 = Within 24 hours

“Witness Credibility” (W)

0 = Single witness with low or unknown credibility

1 = Multiple witnesses with low or unknown credibility

2 = Single witness with high credibility

3 = Multiple witnesses with high credibility

4 = Multiple independent witnesses known to each other

5 = Multiple independent witnesses not known to each other

“Physical Evidence” ("P")

0 = No physical evidence detected

1 = Transient physical effect not instrumentally recorded (physiological, electromagnetic etc)

2 = Transient physical effect instrumentally recorded/analysed (photograph, radar, radiation reading, etc)

3 = Durable physical effect not instrumentally recorded (unanalysed ground trace, artefact, etc)

4 = Durable physical effect instrumentally recorded/analysed

5 = Multiple durable physical effects instrumentally recorded/analysed

“Strangeness” ("S")

0 = Identified or Probable identified

1 = Possible identified or Not enough information

2 = Distant light or object (NL [Nocturnal Light] or DD [Daylight Disc]

3 = Distant light or object with substantial effects on witness/physical environment

4 = Close encounter (CE1, CE2 or CE3)

5 = Close encounter with substantial effects on witness/physical environment

Actual applications of Moravec’s proposals

Moravec has published the application of his rating system to “all the cases presented in PSIUFOCAT” (see Footnote 26.02).   The extract I have obtained of the relevant book  does not include the relevant evaluations.

I am not currently aware of any database or publication which has applied Moravec’s proposals.

FOOTNOTES 

[26.01] Mark Moravec’s article entitled “Evaluating UFO Reports” in the Journal of the Australian Centre for UFO Studies, Volume 2 number 1, February 1981 pages 13-15.

[26.02] Mark Moravec, “PSIUFO Phenomena : A Study of UFOs and the paranormal”, 1982, Appendix 1 : “Evaluation of Reports”

“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

PART 25:         Quantitative criteria : Figuet’s hardest cases

Michel Figuet prepared a paper for the “European Congress on AAP” in November 1988 entitled “Criteria for selecting the hardest cases and other recent works on French and Belgium sighting catalogues” (see Footnote 25.01).   That paper was presented to the “European Congress on AAP” by Jacques Scornaux, as Figuet did not speak English (see Footnote 25.06). 

Very similar papers by Figuet have been made available in French (see Footnote 25.02) and Italian (see Footnote 25.03). Incidentally, the Italian version of that paper includes some information and references that are omitted from the copy of the English version provided to me (although I understand that a more complete copy of the English version did exist – see Footnote 25.06).

Michel Figuet’s paper began by acknowledging that “at least some of the criticisms addressed to ufology” in previous years had been “well-founded” (see Footnote 25.04).   He suggested that “we can long afford the risk of working on valueless cases” because “it is of no use, and iti is like offering a present to debunkers, who will eagerly and easily destroy them”. 

He suggested that other methods for selecting the hardest cases were “not severe enough”. Consequently “an informal group of French and Belgian ufologist” found it necessary to “establish a new set of extremely strict criteria”. He acknowledged that this selection method would “surely” result in “a great many cases” being eliminated as “waste” or “noise” and that this may include some case being “unduly rejected”.  However, he considered that “it is better to wrongly exclude potentially hard cases than to wrongly include explainable cases. What really matters is that what will remain will be very solid”.

The suggested critera seek to isolate cases “even if their number is very small, that would testify with a high degree of certainty to the existence of at least one original phenomenon (whatever it may be) having a physical component.

The relevant criteria relate to the features of the phenomenon (B to D), the sighting conditions (E to J), the witnesses (K and L) and the investigation (M to Q).

The criteria were intended to be multiplied together, with the product being multiplied by 100 to obtain a total mark with a maximum of 100.

The highest mark for each criteria is 1, with lessor values being assigned in relation to some of the criteria if certain factors are present.

Factor A : Value = 1 if no explanation based on serious objective data can be proposed for the phenomenon.  Otherwise value = 0.

Factor B : Value = 1 if the phenomena is not a point phenomena (i.e. apparent size remained lower than the one of Jupiter of Venus during the whole sighting, except the value). Value = 0.9 if the phenomenon remains point-like but follows a complex trajectory. Otherwise, value = 0.

Factor C : Value = 1 if the phenomena’s angular coordinates change during the sighting, or where the movement consists in apparently nearer or moving away. Otherwise, value = 0.

Factor D : Value = 1 if the phenomenon does not have a steady movement (straight line or simple curve, even if broken with stops) or it it leaves the ground level or its close proximity or where the phenomenon has a sharp outline or does not consist only in light blobs.  Value = 0.7 if the phenomenon consists in light blobs having a sharp outline or arranged in an orderly fashion. Otherwise, value = 0.

Factor E : Value = 1 if the phenomena are not night-time phenomena or are lit, at least partially, during some part of the sighting. Value = 0.7 if the phenomenon is self-luminous.  Otherwise, value = 0.

Factor F : Value = 1 if the sighting duaration is more than 30 seconds.  Value = 0.9 if there are physical effects (with a duration of at least 10 seconds). Otherwise, value = 0.

Factor G : Value = 1 where the sighting duration is less than 15 minutes or if the sighting duration is longer but the behaviour of the phenomenon is not constant or repetitive during the whole sighting. Otherwise, value = 0.

Factor H : Value = 1 where there is a landmark in the environment making it possible to know the angular coordinates of the phenomenon or its exact position on the ground. Otherwise, value = 0.

Factor I : Value = 1 where the witnesses are not all in a continually moving vehicle. Value = 0.9 where the witnesses are all in a ship. Value = 0.5 where the witnesses are all in a continually moving vehicle but the phenomenon is close and diurnal. Otherwise, value = 0.

Factor J : Value = 1 where there is an obstacle present during the whole sighting that is likely to distort the phenomenon’s image or to limit perception of it. Value = 0.9 where the phenomenon occurs during the daytime and the only obstacle is a window. Otherwise, value = 0.

Factor K : Value = 1 if there are two or more witnesses (at least one of them being more than 18 years old) who have no physical or mental disability impairing their perceptive powers or their capacity to testify. Value = 0.7 if there are not two or more witnesses, but there are physical effects. Otherwise, value = 0.

Factor L : Value = 1 where the witnesses constitute at least two independent groups (each group may consist in only one witness) who give reasonably similar descriptions.  Value = 0.7 if the witnesses are not independent (e.g. form a single group) but give similar descriptions. Otherwise, value = 0.

Factor M : Value = 1 where the first field investigation was performed less than one year after the sighting. Value = 0.9 if the first investigation was performed between one and three years after the sighting.  Otherwise, value = 0.

Factor N : Value = 1 where the investigation report includes all the following (otherwise value = 0):

1, The precise date and time (to within 30 minutes)

2. The precise place of the sighting

3. The weather conditions

4. Age, sex and occupation of the witnesses

5. The way the sighting began and ended

6. Some data enabling assessment of the witnesses’ reliability.

Factor O : Value = 1 where the witnesses were interviewed separately.  (Witnesses who are not acquainted with each other are considered to have been interviewed separately if the way they were interviewed is not known).  Value = 0.7 if the witnesses were not interviewed separately.

Factor P : Value = 1 where the investigation was performed at the place of the sighting, in the presence of the witnesses and under the same environmental conditions (light and, as far as possible, weather).  Value = 0.7 if the investigation was performed at the place of the sighting and in the presence of the witnesses, but under different light conditions. Otherwise, value = 0.

Factor Q : Value = 1 where the investigator’s name and address are known, as well as his/her possible membership of a private group.  Otherwise, value = 0.

The Italian version of the paper includes a section that includes the following comments: “Ideally, the score of cases should be made by people who have access to the original investigation report or, better still, by the same investigator. But as we know, alas, the world of ufology is far from ideal ... Often the investigators are no longer active, or the group in possession of the report was lost, or reports are not available to researchers rivals, or are lost, or perhaps never existed ... Thus, for many cases a score accurately is impossible.”

It may be that the criteria are too idealist for the real world of ufology, where records of investigation are all too often incomplete or (even more commonly) not readily accessible to other researchers.

The relevant factors were generated following discussion between a small group of ufologists, including Claude Maugé, Thierry Pinvidic, Jacques Scornaux, Franck Boitte and Denis Breysse (see Footnote 25.05).

Several members of that group of ufologists (Claude Maugé, Jacques Scornaux and Denis Breysse) have been kind enough to supply me with some further information and reflections upon the above criteria.

Claude Mauge has commented to me that many of the values used by various authors in such schemes to assess the importance/credibility of UFO reports “are based more on good sense than on ‘scientific’ data” (see Footnote 25.07). He said:  “For instance, Figuet’s criteria state that the ‘best’ cases must have a duration of more than 30 seconds. Why? Because when a little team (in which I was) discussed about that matter, such a minimal duration seemed to us necessary so that the witness had perceived enough data. But the reading of psychological literature convinced me later that we had badly overestimated that duration: in most cases, 10 seconds are enough for the brain to record many, many facts”.

Denis Breysse mentioned that the minutes of the group’s discussions about the relevant criteria “fill more than one hundred pages…” (see Footnote 25.05). He said that:

“The criteria were discussed extensively on several occasions and the final version was fixed in February 1984.

Our basic ideas were :

-     to define criteria which are external to the source (without postulating any idea about its nature),

-     to eliminate all main sources of confusions/misperceptions,

-     to give some weight to each criterion (which would allow to select more or less hard cases, depending on the chosen threshold on the final ranking”.

He also commented that “perhaps some discussion can also be fruitful more than 20 years later” and that if “some courageous ufologist” wants to select the ‘best’ of their files, “these criteria will probably be a good basis” (see Footnote 25.05).

Denis Breysse has also noted that one researcher has argued against such criteria, “since the best criterion is (according to him) the truthfulness of the witness, that the investigator can guarantee!”.  I have not read the relevant article (see Footnote 25.08), but would be interested to know how an investigator is supposed to be able to determine with any confidence that a witness is being truthful and, probably even more importantly, accurate (both in terms of recollection and the original perception).

Another of the relevant group of ufologists, Jacques Scornaux, also kindly provided some information to me in 2007 about the above proposal (see Footnote 25.06).  He made the following comments:

“Our criteria obviously lacked reliability indexes for witnesses and investigators ! But estimating the witness' reliability and the investigator's objectivity is inevitably somewhat... subjective ! And is moreover psychologically and "politically" difficult : a poor investigator (or a poor witness) can be a good friend, and there are already so many disputes and conflicts within ufology... So I confess I somewhat lost interest in these criteria. They are at least to be complemented.”

Actual applications of Figuet’s criteria

The Italian version of the paper by Miguel Figuet putting forward his proposed criteria contains a section applying the scoring system to at least a few sightings (see Footnote 25.03).  It mentions that Jacques Scornaux applied the criteria to some cases significant sightings and published them in his magazine and that “at least one case achieved the maximum score of 100. This is a classic of IR2 Vins sur Caramy (April 14, 1957) … [see Footnote 25.11]”. That section of the paper stated that “some other cases have received a score of 70”, mentioning the Valensole incident, the Lezay incident (May 1, 1975) [see Footnote 25.09], and the case of Villiers en Morvan (August 21, 1968) [see Footnote 25.10].

Jacques Scornaux has expressed some concerns about the actual score achieved by certain cases as a result of applying Figuet’s system (see Footnote 25.06).  Jacques Scornaux has stated that he must “confess the fact that, among the tested cases, the Vins-sur-Caramy CE2 was the only one to obtain a maximum score left me rather uncomfortable with the criteria”. He said that “Vins looks like a perfect case, except that it was investigated by the late Jimmy Guieu, who was not, to say the least, a model of rigorous and objective investigator. So can we be assured that every apparently unexplainable detail of this case has been exactly reported, without exaggeration?”.  He also commented that “Perhaps still worse, the Dr X case had the honourable score of 70. The problem is that it is now known this case is a hoax...”.

Given that Figuet himself kept a database of certain UFO reports in France (FRANCAT), I was interested in learning whether Figuet applied his criteria to that database and whether there had been any analysis of any such application.  Unfortunately, one member of the group of ufologists that developed these criteria, Denis Breysse, has told me that he is “not aware of any extensive application of these criteria to the FRANCAT cases” (see Footnote 25.05).   Another member of that group, Jacques Scornaux, provided some further information (see Footnote 25.06): “To my knowledge, there were not many applications of these criteria and, to answer Isaac's question, I know of no catalogue or database routinely applying ths kind of scores. I can confirm that it was not even systematically applied by Figuet to FRANCAT, his French CE catalogue. As, after his death, SCEAU association made a detailed inventory of Figuet's archives, I am able to assure that we found no trace of such a score on FRANCAT index cards”.

Jacques Scornaux has also provided some further observations on the absence of any wider adoption of Figuet’s criteria: “Why were these selection criteria not more widely applied ? Well, it would be useful to have the opinon of other members of the team who developed them (and comprised, as Denys rightly remembers, Denys himself, Franck Boitte, Michel Figuet, Claude Maugé, Thierry Pinvidic and me). One of the reasons is probably that the core members of the team (Denys, Claude, Thierry and me), who all lived in Paris and met at least once a month for ufological debates and brainstorming, disbanded soon after as Denys, Claude and Thierry successively had to leave Paris because of their job, and it was before the Internet era... Michel fell ill and died prematurely” (see Footnote 25.06).

I note that the additional material in the Italian version of the paper refers to a further catalogue which was being developed in France by Gilles Munsch and Eric Maillot (apparently continuing a job begun by François Diolez).  It is not clear to me whether that catalogue applied Figuet’s criteria. Jacques Scornaux has mentioned that he would have to contact Munsch and Maillot about what this project became after Figuet's death (see Footnote 25.06).

FOOTNOTES

[25.01] Michel Figuet, “Criteria for selecting the hardest cases and other recent works on french and belgium sighting catalogues”, European Congress on AAP, Bruxelles 11-19/11/1988.  

[25.02] Michel Figuet, "Catalogue Francat des rencontres rapprochées en France (Listing 800-1982) (1)", in "Lumières dans la nuit" 255/256, 1985.

[25.03]  Michel Figuet, “Ufo Forum”, n. 8 (October 1997). Available online at:

http://www.arpnet.it/ufo/f8figuet.htm

[25.04] The Italian version of Michel Figuet’s paper includes references in relation to this point which do not appear to have been included in the English version of that paper.  The material cited by Michel Figuet includes the following articles in English : (a) Claude Mauge, “Questioning the ‘real’ Phenomenon, Magonia No 13^th, 1983;  (b) Michel Monnerie, The Case for Skepticism, in Hilary Evans e J. Evans and JohnSpencer, UFOs: 1947-1987 , Fortean Tomes 1987; Spencer’s book “UFOs: 1947-1987”, Fortean Tomes 1987- Michel Monnerie, The case for skepticism ,; (c) - Jacques Scornaux, The rising and limits of a doubt , Magonia n.Jacques Scornaux, The Rising and limits of a doubt, Magonia No 15, 1984; 15, 1984.

[25.05] Email from Denis Breysse to Isaac Koi, 8^th December 2006.

[25.06] Email from Jacques Scornaux to Isaac Koi, 1^st January 2007

[25.07] Email from Claude Mauge to Isaac Koi, 29^th May 2007.

[25.08] TO BE OBTAINED AND TRANSLATED - D. De Tarragon, LDLN 271-72 (P. 4).

[25.09] NOT OBTAINED - Blay, Bosch, Dupuy and Chasseigne, LDLN No 148, 1975; M. 148, 1975

[25.10] NOT OBTAINED - Joël Mesnard and Rene Fouéré, Phénomènes spatiaux No 18, 1968; Fernand Lagarde e il gruppo LDLN, Mystérieuses Soucoupes Volantes , Albatros 1973; M. 18, 1968.5Joël Mesnard e René Fouéré, Phénomènes Spatiaux ,

“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

PART 27:         Quantitative criteria : Koi's ICES Ratings

Isaac Koi has adapted Hynek's Strangeness and Probability Ratings (discussed in PART 20: Quantitative criteria : Hynek – Strangeness and Probability) as set out below.

The "ICES Rating" is obtained by multiplying four factors (I, C, E and S) together:

1. I = IMPACT RATING

2. C = CREDIBILITY RATING

3. E = EXPERT RATING

4. S = STRANGENESS RATING

Each of these ratings has a potential score  of up to 14, so that they can be illustrated by playing cards.  The highest ratings are represented by the "picture cards", i.e.:

a Jack represents a rating of 11,

a Queen represents a rating of 12,

a King represents a rating of 13,

an Ace represents a rating of 14,

1. I = IMPACT RATING

[Description of this rating to be inserted]

[Description of this rating to be inserted]

[Description of this rating to be inserted] 

2. C = CREDIBILITY RATING

[Description of this rating to be inserted] 

[Description of this rating to be inserted]

[Description of this rating to be inserted]

3. E = EXPERT RATING

[Description of this rating to be inserted] 

[Description of this rating to be inserted]

[Description of this rating to be inserted]

4. S = STRANGENESS RATING

[Description of this rating to be inserted] 

[Description of this rating to be inserted]

[Description of this rating to be inserted]

[Sample ratings to be inserted]

The first two factors (at least) of the ICES Ratings can also be applied to researchers and books:

(a) The impact rating : [insert discussion]

(a) The credibility rating : [insert discussion]

In relation to some researchers it is tempting also to state a (fairly high) strangeness rating, but this is probably impolitic...