“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

 

PART 15. Qualitative criteria: Introduction

 

Although quite a few lists of “best cases” have been presented by various ufologists and groups, surprisingly few of the relevant ufologists have explained (on a case-by-case basis) why they selected the relevant cases.

 

Indeed, few of those lists are accompanied by even the briefest of explanations of the criteria (if any) upon which selections were made.

 

However, several UFO groups and researchres have provided _qualitative_ lists of factors which they have suggested should be present. For example, the most common factors mentioned are:

(1) Multiple witnesses.
(2) Profession of the witnesses (e.g. favouring
scientists/astronomers/pilots).
(3) Incompatibility of description with mundane causes of sightings
(Hynek's strangeness factor).
(4) One or more forms of physical evidence.
(5) The depth of investigation of the sighting.

Less commonly mentioned are a number of factors which I personally find quite useful, including:
(1) the angular size of the object.
(2) The duration of the sighting (the longer the better).

 

“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

 

PART 17:  Qualitative criteria: Multiple witnesses

 

Several of the lists of qualitiative criteria suggested by various UFO researchers (see PART 15: Qualitative criteria: Introduction) prominently include multiple witnesses as being a significant factor adding to the weight to be given to a UFO sighting. Philip Klass has commented that “Many UFO investigators automatically conclude that a report from multiple witnesses is more reliable than one from a single witness” (see Footnote 17.01).

 

On the other hand, ufo skeptic Robert Sheaffer has stated that “a multiple-witness UFO sighting gives no guarantee of greater reliability. In fact, the opposite may be true” (see Footnote 17.04 and Footnote 17.05).

 

What does the data show?

 

One of the few detailed studies of the effects of mulitiple witnesses upon sightings of UFOs was performed by Allan Hendry and reported  in his book “The UFO Handbook” (1979).  It includes a relatively detailed comparison of reports which remain unidentified after his investigation (i.e. UFO cases) and ones which are identified during that investigation (i.e. IFO cases).

 

In a list of recommended things to do when a sighting is made, Hendry includes “Get additional witnesses – even if you have to scream for them. The gulf between the ‘single-witness case’ and a ‘multiple-witness case’ in UFOlogy is great. One additional witness is worth a dozen photographs!” (see Footnote 17.02).   Similarly, he also comments “There is little question that, given a choice, multiple-witness cases are to be desired; logic dictates that a plurality of witnesses stand less chance of having misperceived, fantasized, or hoaxed a given UFO sighting than a single witness, a situation well recognised in a court of law” (see Footnote 17.07).

 

However, those comments by Allan Hendry as to what “logic dictates” appear somewhat inconsistent with his comments on the actual data regarding multiple-witness cases in his study. 

 

For example, later in the same book:

 

1. Hendry indicates that the number of UFO cases (within his sample) with more than one witness was 63%, which may be considered surprisingly higher.  Even more surprising, however, is the fact that Hendry states that the number of IFO cases with more than one witness was 75% (sometimes with as many as ten or more witnesses). 

In the light of this fact, Hendry commented that it was odd that the percentage of IFO cases with multiple witnesses was larger than the percentage of UFO cases with multiple witnesses, and asks “If IFOs are solely the product of misperception, why doesn’t the presence of additional witnesses lessen the number of reported IFOs, relative to the reported UFOs?” (see Footnote 17.06).

 

2. Hendry states that “The presence of multiple witnesses did _not_ serve to dampen misjudgments about IFO sources … it is not surprising that ‘groupthink’ results during the excitement of a sighting” (see Footnote 17.08).

 

3. Hendry accepts that “Some pretty embarrssing IFO sightings were backed up a number of witnesses”.  Hendry also summarises several multiple-witness sightings, including two which he resolved as having been caused by the moon. He commented that “whole groups of adults, even policemen, have stared at stars flashing colours for hours without anyone in the group successfully persuading others that it _was_ only a star” (see Footnote 17.09).

 

The problems noted by Hendry in relation to “group-think” when witnesses are in the same location are supported by a scientific article referred to by ufo skeptic Robert Sheaffer. Robert Sheaffer has referred to an article by Dr Robert Buckhout.  He notes that Buckhout states that “a large body of research results demonstrate that an observer can be persuaded to conform to the majority opinion even when the majority is completely wrong” and that “group descriptions were more complete than the individual reports but gave rise to significantly more errors of commission: an assortment of incorrect and stereotyped details” (see Footnote 17.03, Footnote 17.04 and Footnote 17.05).

As discussed in PART 16 : Qualitative criteria: Credible witnesses, J Allen Hynek has stated that, while examining the cases in Project Blue Book, he and his colleagues kept careful records of the occupations of witnesses. He presented the following table (see Footnote 17.11), which includes some comparison between the percentage of misidentification by multiple witnesses relative to single witnesses in various groups:

 

Occupation % of Misidentification

Military pilot

(single witness) 88%

(multiple witness) 76%

 

Commercial pilot

(single witness) 89%

(multiple witness) 79%

 

Radar technicians

(multiple witness) 78%

 

Technical person

(single witness) 65%

(multiple witness) 50%

 

Other

(multiple witness) 83%

 

From that table, it appears that the analysis the Project Blue Book cases referred to by Hynek indicated (contrary to the results of Hendry’s study) that multiple witnesses _are_ better than single witnesses.

 

This inconsistency between the two studies (among others) is difficult to explain in the absence of more details regarding the methodology adopted in each study and/or the results of further studies for comparison. 

 

Thus, it seems that the available evidence does not support giving a premium to multiple witness UFO cases – particularly where the witnesses are in the same location and the excited misjudgments of one witness may contaminate the perception or identification of others.

 

What about multiple _independent_ witnesses at different locations?  Well, Hendry’s study included “very few events” where the witnesses were not part of “one close group” so his data does not appear to justify any firm view one way or another (see Footnote 17.10).  However, it is difficult to disagree with Hendry’s opinion that reports from witnesses “totally unaware that others have seen it too” has the following benefits:

 

1. “The existence of the target is underscored”.

 

2. “The prospect that the target was the invention of a unified group (deliberate or not) is minimized”

 

3. “Comparison of the observations can be made without concern over ‘internal contamination’ within one group of witnesses”

 

4.“The distance of the UFO can be triangulated and thus, the size estimated”.

 

In the absence of any significant data on multiple _independent_ witnesses, Hendry comment that “it goes without saying that the presence of independent witnesses to a single event if one of the most valuable assets UFOlogists currently possess” is not justified by the results of his own study.

 

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

[17.01] Philip J Klass, “UFOs Explained” (1974) at page 12 (in Chapter 1) of the Random House hardback edition, at page 14 of Random House paperback edition.

 

[17.02] Allan Hendry, “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 22 (in Chapter 1) of the Sphere softback edition.

 

[17.03] Robert Buckhout, “Eyewitness Testimony”, Scientific American, December 1974, page 23.

 

[17.04] Robert Sheaffer, “The UFO Verdict” (1980) at page 106 (in Chapter 10) of the Prometheus softback edition.

 

[17.05] Robert Sheaffer, “UFO Sightings: The Evidence” (1998) at page 146 (in Chapter 9) of the Prometheus hardback edition.

 

[17.06] Allan Hendry,  “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 89 (in Chapter 8) of the Sphere softback edition.

 

[17.07] Allan Hendry, “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 191 (in Chapter 14) of the Sphere softback edition.

 

[17.08] Allan Hendry, “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 191 (in Chapter 14) of the Sphere softback edition.

 

[17.09] Allan Hendry, “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 192 (in Chapter 14) of the Sphere softback edition.

 

[17.10] Allan Hendry, “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 194 (in Chapter 14) of the Sphere softback edition.

 

[17.11] J Allen Hynek, "The Hynek UFO Report" (1977) at page 261 (in Chapter 11) of the Barnes & Noble hardback reprint (1997) at page 271 of the Dell paperback edition (with the same page numbering in the Sphere paperback edition).

 

“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

 

PART 16 : Qualitative criteria: Credible witnesses

 

Reports from eye-witnesses play a very important role in relation to UFO reports. Indeed, it is common for there to be only a report from an eye-witness, with no other material being available.  How much weight is to be given to such testimony?  Who are the most reliable witnesses?

 

UFO skeptic Robert Sheaffer has voiced the following opinions in relation to “reliable” witnesses (see Footnote 16.02 and Footnote 16.03):

 

“In evaluating a UFO sighting, the question invariably comes up of whether the witness is reliable.  This reflects the commonsense assumption that human testimony falls more or less into two clear categories: reliable, or otherwise.  If a witness is reliable, the assumption goes, his testimony fairly accurately depicts actual events.  The testimony of an unreliable witness is held to be probably tainted by fantasy and exaggeration.  Yet how distinct are these categories?

 

Many judge a person’s presumed reliability as a witness in much the same way as we estimate his socioecomic status. College education and respectable careers are a strong plus for reliability, especially in the case of doctors, scientists, and pilots.  The testimony of unskilled and uneducated individuals is not found to be so convincing.  Our assignment of ‘reliability’ to various persons’ testimonies generally reflects society’s hierachies. However, the notion that social status does in some way ensure accurate observation and reporting seems to rest on little more than conjecture.

 

Just how reliable is ‘reliable’? When we have obtained a firsthand narrative from an apparently credible source, can the facts of the case be considered reasonably well established? A quick glance at the inconsistency of courtroom testimony bids us to be cautious: in thousands of trials, whether for a traffic accident or for murder, there are as many different accounts as there are eyewitnesses.”

 

Witness testimony has been discussed by Robert Hall (see Footnote 16.01) : “Our legal system is based largely on the assumption that, under certain conditions, we can accept human testimony as factual. Many people, including attorneys and judges, as well as behavioural scientists, have rather clear-cut criteria for assessing the credibility of testimony: the witness’s reputation in his community, previous familiarity with the events and persons involved in the testimony, apparent motives for prevarication or distortion, and internal characteristics of the testimony such as consistency, recency, verifiable detail, and so forth.  Also, testimony is more credible with multiple witnesses, especially independent ones, and with multiple channels of observation (e.g. both visual and auditory; both unaided observation and observation through instruments)”.

 

The (non-exhaustive) factors listed by Robert Hall used as criteria for assessing the credibility of testimony give an indication of the ideal depth of investigation of witness testimony.  While the evidence of witnesses may be subjected to this sort of scrutiny in a court of law, it is rarely tested to this degree in the context of UFO reports. Often, such detailed data is not available (at least without considerable expense and inconvenience) to researchers.

 

Ufologist Hilary Evans has observed : “Ideally, no doubt, we would not accept a single UFO report until we had obtained a comprehensive profile of the witness – his psychological make-up, his socio-cultural background, his economic status and so forth, to which we would add an assessment of the social factors prevailing at the time – the level of UFO activity as reported in the media, current attitudes and the like. Since, however, this state of perfection can be attained only in a minute fraction of cases, the question arises, to what extent should any witness’ statement be accepted?” (see Footnote 16.04).

 

Given the limited time and resources available to ufologists, it is important to ask : Are there quick and easy ways to identify the most reliable UFO witnesses?

 

Some UFO researchers clearly consider that there is one factor that is particularly important – the profession of the UFO witness.

 

This is a belief that is sometimes expressed, and on other occasions is simply implied (e.g. by researchers that dedicate their time and energy to investigating and collating cases involving members of a particular profession, e.g. policemen, pilots, members of the military etc).

 

 

In the relatively limited number of articles setting out criteria for assessing the weight of UFO reports, the profession or qualifications of a witness regularly feature.

 

Some sceptics have questioned the weight given by some ufologists to sightings by members of certain professions. For example, librarian and UFO researcher John Rimmer has written:

 

“The ‘myth of the credible witness’ refers to the fact that some ufologists believe that there are people who, because of the job or their training, are unlikely to be mistaken no matter what they report. Typically these are policemen, airline pilots, astronomers, servicemen, librarians (oops, sorry, that one seemed to just slip in), and the assumption is that their reports are more reliable than that of any old Joe Soap because they are a (small fanfare) ‘credible witness’” (see Footnote 16.05).

 

Of course, few ufologists would argue that the members of any profession never make mistakes when making UFO reports.  The issue is whether member of certain professions are less likely to make mistakes and their reports therefore deserve particular attention.

 

So, are the members of certain professions better UFO witnesses?

“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

 

PART 18:  Qualitative criteria: Miscellaneous other criteria

 

Below are some notes I have made on points I considered interesting on miscellaneous other qualititative criteria relevant to the weight to be given to a UFO report.

 

 1. Prior interest of witness in UFOs

 

A study by Allan Hendry, reported in his book “The UFO Handbook” (1979), includes a relatively detailed comparison of reports which remain unidentified after his investigation (i.e. UFO cases) and ones which are identified during that investigation (i.e. IFO cases).

 

Allan Hendry indicates that he asked each witness whether they had exhibited a prior interest in the UFO subject before their sighting.

 

Since some ufo sceptics highlight risks of misidentification, hoaxes and/or delusions arising from prior interest, I would have expected a more of the mistaken/IFO reports to be from individuals with a prior interest in UFOs than the

 

I was rather surprised to find that, according to Hendry’s figures, the results in relation to UFO witnesses were virtually identical to the results for IFO witnesses.

 

66 percent of UFO witnesses indicated a prior interest in UFOs, with 65 percent of IFO witnesses giving a similar indication.  Similarly, 53 percent of IFO witnesses (within Hendry’s sample) stated that had read UFO books and magazines prior to their sighting – exactly the same percentage as for UFO witnesses within the same sample (see Footnote 18.01).

 

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

[Footnote 18.01]  Allan Hendry, “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at pages 89-90 (in Chapter 8) of the Sphere softback edition.