High Strangeness: Chewed Out! -- Part 3 or Stifling a Yawn

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Chewed Out! -- Part 3 or Stifling a Yawn

Boy, readers sure are worked up over my posts about being bored with my most recent UFO cases here, here and here. I appreciate the sentiments behind the comments being posted both criticizing and supporting my bout with UFO boredom, but it's a little bewildering, to be honest.

Over the two and a half years that I've been writing High Strangeness, I've been supporting of and sensitive to the UFO witnesses I interview at least 95% of the time, and I generally only gripe about the witnesses who make the UFO report about themselves (like the guy and his terrifying wife who insisted that alien greys were planning to kill him in 48 hours because he gave up on his dream of being a musician after he and wife fought about it) or those who seem to have never heard of Occam's razor (like the guy who saw two glowing red "eyes" in his alley one night, reflected in his kitchen window, and was absolutely certain they couldn't have been the taillights of his neighbor's car).

The recent witness about whom I commented in the blog post that started this whole kerfuffle had reported seeing what J. Allen Hynek would describe as "nocturnal meandering lights." The witness reported seeing unusual lights that moved from one part of the sky to another before he lost sight of them. The witness had further reported that the lights were completely silent, and when we talked about that he started to list several rescue helicopters by name that the silent lights didn't sound like, but whose sounds he could identify instantly.

Whatever that guy saw, it wasn't this.
Now, it should be self-evident that a silent object doesn't sound like anything, except, of course, another silent object. What I was objecting to was being kept on the phone for several extra minutes so the witness could impress me with his voluminous knowledge of rescue helicopters, which, as I think anyone can readily see, has absolutely bupkis to do with the UFO report. These are extra minutes of my life, not yours, and I object to having them wasted.

Ultimately, each case report I file gets automatically rated for credibility on the Ballaster-Guasp Evaluation tool, and this particular case came up at a rating of... well, I can't tell you now because the MUFON Case Management System is crashing as I write this and I can't look up anything. But I do remember that the credibility index on this particular case was shockingly low, among the lowest of any case I've investigated.

But in my view this does not necessarily mean that the case is any less likely to be authentic than another with a higher BGE score (I have problems with this evaluation tool and I have written about it before here). This case got a low credibility rating because there was so little data to work with, and because there was only the one witness, and because the object just moved from point A to point B and didn't do anything "anomalous" in between. A case like this is guaranteed to get a low BGE rating, because there is so little data to work with, and because the investigation generally lasts less than 30 minutes. Why? Because there's just not that much to talk about besides what the witness already described when reporting the sighting in the first place, and I'm not going to keep someone on the phone longer than I have to just to boost the credibility rating. Because that would be a waste of everybody's time, it would render the credibility rating meaningless, and we would all be stifling yawns...

So, to the person who had a strange UFO experience in Wisconsin and is using one entry in my blog as a reason not to report the incident, I say go ahead and report it, because you will probably feel better for having done so, and because, as Chief Investigator for Wisconsin, I can see to it that another investigator gets the case. Just be sure to talk for >30 minutes!

No comments: