Post by isaackoi on Sept 8, 2011 8:04:25 GMT -5
Presumably some of the readers of this part of the MUFON Forum are (or have been) MUFON field investigators.
They will be familiar with Jerold Johnson’s article in the MUFON training manual which set out details of “the evaluation procedure applied to reports at headquarters level prior to their being entered into the computer file” and stated that since 1992 “reports processed into the MUFON files have been given a numeric evaluation” based on this system
I have written about that evaluation system, and various issues relating to it, in a relatively long issue at the link below (so I will avoid cutting and pasting it all here):
www.isaackoi.com/best-ufo-cases/23-quantitative-criteria-ballestermufon-index.html
I wonder if any MUFON field investigators are able to add their views on the relevant issues?
In particular, I would appreciate any further input in relation to the points made in my item about the MUFON evaluation system regarding:
(1) The ease (or otherwise) of MUFON field investigators actually applying the MUFON evaluation system in practice. I'll quote part of the relevant section of my item below, for ease of reference:
Jacques Vallee has referred to the Ballester-Guasp proposals in the context of a criticism of the fact that other UFO researchers “have rarely bothered” to apply some way “of assigning credibility or ‘weight’ to an oberservation”. Jacques Vallee said that there was to a notable exception to his criticisms, i.e. the “quality index” proposed by Spanish researchers Vicente Juan Ballester-Olmos and Guasp, “but it is so detailed that I have found it difficult to apply in practice” (see Footnote 23.05). Vallee has suggested that it is “important to implement a system that is simple enough to be applied quickly and with enough mnemonic value that it does not require constant reference to a user’s manual or a set of tables”.
Jacques Vallee’s actual experience of the proposed system appears to be inconsistent with the assertion made in MUFON’s manual that “The system gives reproducible numbers when evaluated by different individuals, at different times, as long as they are following the standards as published. The method is relatively ‘quick and easy’ given a calculator and a few tables and definitions extracted from the publications and kept handy as notes”. It is notable that Vallee's remarks were made prior to the developed by Terry Groff of his online calculation tool and the apparent subsequent integration of that tool with MUFON's Case Management System.
(2) The ability to use MUFON's the proposed new system to obtain the relevant evaluations of MUFON cases to help efficiently identify the best cases held in MUFON's archives. In relation to the existing system, the relevant section of my item about the MUFON evaluation system included the following:
the method above was adopted and promoted by MUFON in the 1995 edition of MUFON’s training manual for its field investigators. Since the MUFON report forms at the time of the publication of that manual did not contain “specific blanks” for all the required data, the manual stated that “write-ins” were necessary. The relevant article in the MUFON training manual states that since 1992 “reports processed into the MUFON files have been given a numeric evaluation”
It is not clear whether the MUFON report forms were ever redesigned to contain the relevant “specific blanks”, nor how common it was (or is) for MUFON field investigators to “write-in” relevant information.
However, one of the volunteers that has contributed to MUFON's database systems has helpfully informed me that "a great number of cases that have been investigated do have this information available" and that it is part of the "final report text field" within MUFON's records. That volunteer commented that: "Unfortunately though it's difficult to do mass comparison across the entire DB to get a sense of the quality of all cases (or the cases that are missing this information) because the data hasn't been abstracted to its own numerical column" (see Footnote 23.10).
All the best,
Isaac
They will be familiar with Jerold Johnson’s article in the MUFON training manual which set out details of “the evaluation procedure applied to reports at headquarters level prior to their being entered into the computer file” and stated that since 1992 “reports processed into the MUFON files have been given a numeric evaluation” based on this system
I have written about that evaluation system, and various issues relating to it, in a relatively long issue at the link below (so I will avoid cutting and pasting it all here):
www.isaackoi.com/best-ufo-cases/23-quantitative-criteria-ballestermufon-index.html
I wonder if any MUFON field investigators are able to add their views on the relevant issues?
In particular, I would appreciate any further input in relation to the points made in my item about the MUFON evaluation system regarding:
(1) The ease (or otherwise) of MUFON field investigators actually applying the MUFON evaluation system in practice. I'll quote part of the relevant section of my item below, for ease of reference:
Jacques Vallee has referred to the Ballester-Guasp proposals in the context of a criticism of the fact that other UFO researchers “have rarely bothered” to apply some way “of assigning credibility or ‘weight’ to an oberservation”. Jacques Vallee said that there was to a notable exception to his criticisms, i.e. the “quality index” proposed by Spanish researchers Vicente Juan Ballester-Olmos and Guasp, “but it is so detailed that I have found it difficult to apply in practice” (see Footnote 23.05). Vallee has suggested that it is “important to implement a system that is simple enough to be applied quickly and with enough mnemonic value that it does not require constant reference to a user’s manual or a set of tables”.
Jacques Vallee’s actual experience of the proposed system appears to be inconsistent with the assertion made in MUFON’s manual that “The system gives reproducible numbers when evaluated by different individuals, at different times, as long as they are following the standards as published. The method is relatively ‘quick and easy’ given a calculator and a few tables and definitions extracted from the publications and kept handy as notes”. It is notable that Vallee's remarks were made prior to the developed by Terry Groff of his online calculation tool and the apparent subsequent integration of that tool with MUFON's Case Management System.
(2) The ability to use MUFON's the proposed new system to obtain the relevant evaluations of MUFON cases to help efficiently identify the best cases held in MUFON's archives. In relation to the existing system, the relevant section of my item about the MUFON evaluation system included the following:
the method above was adopted and promoted by MUFON in the 1995 edition of MUFON’s training manual for its field investigators. Since the MUFON report forms at the time of the publication of that manual did not contain “specific blanks” for all the required data, the manual stated that “write-ins” were necessary. The relevant article in the MUFON training manual states that since 1992 “reports processed into the MUFON files have been given a numeric evaluation”
It is not clear whether the MUFON report forms were ever redesigned to contain the relevant “specific blanks”, nor how common it was (or is) for MUFON field investigators to “write-in” relevant information.
However, one of the volunteers that has contributed to MUFON's database systems has helpfully informed me that "a great number of cases that have been investigated do have this information available" and that it is part of the "final report text field" within MUFON's records. That volunteer commented that: "Unfortunately though it's difficult to do mass comparison across the entire DB to get a sense of the quality of all cases (or the cases that are missing this information) because the data hasn't been abstracted to its own numerical column" (see Footnote 23.10).
All the best,
Isaac
