isaackoi
Full Member
British Barrister
Posts: 104
|
Post by isaackoi on Sept 14, 2011 11:27:23 GMT -5
What attempts have been made to perform a statistical analysis of the cases held by MUFON (or at least those UFO reports which are summarised on MUFON's CMS database)? I have seen Keith Rowell's "Summary of MUFON UFO Reports for Oregon 2005 Through 2010" which does attempt such an analysis to some extent, at least in relation to Oregon (with some very limited comparative consideration of other states). www.oregonmufon.com/PDFs/OregonUFOs2005to2010Master.pdfFiler's Files has also included a table of the dispositions of MUFON's cases (about one third of the way down the webpage at the link below), credited to "MUFON CMS Closed Case Statistics by Kristen Winslet NJ State Section Director": www.nationalufocenter.com/artman/publish/article_314.phpI haven't yet seen the article/analysis from in which that table by Kristen Winslet was published, but presume it was in the MUFON Journal around the time of that issue of Filer's Files, i.e. January 2010. I know that Kristen Winslet was on MUFON's Star Team, so she may be on this forum (or some other MUFON member may be able to email her a link to this thread and/or my email address - isaackoi@gmail.com). I might attempt to contact Kristen via her Linkedin.com webpage or the aol email address which appears on a few webpages from a year or two ago. Is anyone aware of any other attempts to peform a statistical analysis of MUFON's Case Reports? I have obtained CUFOS's "UFOCAT" database (which is, I think, far larger than MUFON's CMS database) and Larry Hatch's *U* Database (which has a measure of quality control) properly lend themselves to statistical analysis more than MUFON's CMS database, but I'm interested in seeing what has been done (or that I can do myself) in the way of analysis of the data within MUFON's CMS database. All the best, Isaac
|
|
|
Post by mo on Sept 15, 2011 14:04:59 GMT -5
Funny you should inquire about this. Once the CMS2 is stream lined on the public side subscribers will soon be able to analyze the data using some cool tools that will be planned for construction once the 1st phase of the site is complete. Just in the planning stage but we would love to hear your input on what you would like to see for these advanced analysis tools for the CMS. We already have some really innovative ideas on how to apply the data both visually and analytically.
Would a export or share option be something you would like to see too? Maybe into a locked PDF file to prevent editing etc. We are up for any suggestions.
So many great things coming around the corner.
|
|
isaackoi
Full Member
British Barrister
Posts: 104
|
Post by isaackoi on Sept 18, 2011 13:33:33 GMT -5
Once the CMS2 is stream lined on the public side subscribers will soon be able to analyze the data using some cool tools that will be planned for construction once the 1st phase of the site is complete. That's good to hear. Do you have an approximate ETA for the new site and CMS2? I'm just wondering if we we talking days, weeks, months or years? I'm assuming months. I'm not so worried about the tools for analysis (since ideally I'd be doing the analysis in some other problems, e.g. in Excel). I'm more interested in the fields that will be stored and whether those fields will be made available to members / everyone / serious researchers etc. For example, at the moment I'm doing projects on the best UFO cases and one on "Astronomers and UFOs" - so I'd like to hear, for example, that CMS2 will include: (a) fields to hold the evaluation of the reportusing the Ballester-Olmos score adopted by MUFON (in addition to merely it disposition as unknown, IFO, insufficient data etc); (b) profession of the witness or any notable information regarding skills/hobbies etc. Access to the information (or at least the non-confidential fields) is, of course, the key starting point. Well, I'd love to be able to have all the fields (or all the fields that can be shared publically) in a format that can be loaded into a spreadsheet such as Excel - or a table in Word etc. I look forward to them. Good luck with your work. All the best, Isaac
|
|
|
Post by kristenannwinslet on Sept 24, 2011 16:15:42 GMT -5
What attempts have been made to perform a statistical analysis of the cases held by MUFON (or at least those UFO reports which are summarised on MUFON's CMS database)? I have seen Keith Rowell's "Summary of MUFON UFO Reports for Oregon 2005 Through 2010" which does attempt such an analysis to some extent, at least in relation to Oregon (with some very limited comparative consideration of other states). www.oregonmufon.com/PDFs/OregonUFOs2005to2010Master.pdfFiler's Files has also included a table of the dispositions of MUFON's cases (about one third of the way down the webpage at the link below), credited to "MUFON CMS Closed Case Statistics by Kristen Winslet NJ State Section Director": www.nationalufocenter.com/artman/publish/article_314.phpI haven't yet seen the article/analysis from in which that table by Kristen Winslet was published, but presume it was in the MUFON Journal around the time of that issue of Filer's Files, i.e. January 2010. I know that Kristen Winslet was on MUFON's Star Team, so she may be on this forum (or some other MUFON member may be able to email her a link to this thread and/or my email address - isaackoi@gmail.com). I might attempt to contact Kristen via her Linkedin.com webpage or the aol email address which appears on a few webpages from a year or two ago. Is anyone aware of any other attempts to peform a statistical analysis of MUFON's Case Reports? I have obtained CUFOS's "UFOCAT" database (which is, I think, far larger than MUFON's CMS database) and Larry Hatch's *U* Database (which has a measure of quality control) properly lend themselves to statistical analysis more than MUFON's CMS database, but I'm interested in seeing what has been done (or that I can do myself) in the way of analysis of the data within MUFON's CMS database. All the best, Isaac
|
|
|
Post by kristenannwinslet on Sept 24, 2011 16:24:10 GMT -5
For a copy of the Statistical Analysis, please see: I have attached my analysis in the Box.net Section of my professional profile on LinkedIn. If you cannot acces the report there, please send me an e-mail and I will send you a copy of the report: kristenwinslet@verizon.net
|
|
isaackoi
Full Member
British Barrister
Posts: 104
|
Post by isaackoi on Sept 24, 2011 16:42:29 GMT -5
For a copy of the Statistical Analysis, please see: I have attached my analysis in the Box.net Section of my professional profile on LinkedIn. If you cannot acces the report there, please send me an e-mail and I will send you a copy of the report: kristenwinslet@verizon.net Many thanks Kristen. I couldn't access it on LinkedIn, so I've sent you an email. I look forward to reading your article. All the best, Isaac
|
|
|
Post by rutkows on Sept 26, 2011 14:09:00 GMT -5
Thanks, Kristen and Isaac for pointing out the forum to others and the invitation to join the discussion.
The analyses of the CMS Case data is interesting, but raises several questions. Since it's been highlighted in media that there has been "a large increase in UFO reports," my concern is that there doesn't seem to be empirical data to support the statement, at least not from what I'm reading. And Peter Davenport's database shows that there were far more reports in August 2010 than in 2011, so there seems to be some conflicting numbers around.
As for specific data sets, I was surprised to read that the CMS spreadsheet has only 7 (seven) cases in Canada in 2008, whereas that year Canada posted an all-time high for UFO reports, of more than 1000 cases! Furthermore, we identified more than 11 (eleven) per cent of the 1000+ Canadian cases had come from MUFON sources.
Am I reading the tables wrong?
|
|
|
Post by kristenannwinslet on Sept 26, 2011 16:27:52 GMT -5
Chris,
These are my comments to the MSNBC.com story where C. Clift mentions a high number of reports lately. My data covers up to 2009, from my analysis of the CMS. My numbers show a leveling out from 2008 & 2009, closed cases as I believe MUFON maxed out it's ability to close more cases than this.
Kristen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on MUFON’s Case Management System’s (CMS) Data for cases closed 2001 thru 2009, here are the number of events filed as occurring by year where cases were investigated and closed by MUFON Field Investigator’s: (NOTE: Cases closed as either IFO, UFO, Insufficient Data, Hoax or Natural Phenomenon) Closed Cases: Number of Sighting Events per year (1990 – 2009) 2009 = 3,396 2008 = 3,374 2007 = 1,596 2006 = 996 2005 = 590 2004 = 245 2003 = 350 2002 = 365 2001 = 309 2000 = 121 1999 = 68 1998 = 61 1997 = 80 1996 = 86 1995 = 62 1994 = 42 1993 = 37 1992 = 49 1991 = 30 1990 = 36 As the internet matured and people became more aware of MUFON’s existence, more and more cases were filed on their web site. You will note the leveling out of events in 2009, the last year of my database analysis while I was at MUFON.
There are about 1,657 cases with bad dates filed in the CMS as either BLANK or Mixed with the day or year listed as ‘00’, (not in these numbers listed above). Most of the cases closed from 1990 through 2001 were investigated as aged cases. (All these cases listed were investigated and closed from 2001 – 2009). It would be interesting to know the number of cases that occurred in 2010 to understand if the limit of MUFON’s ability to investigate and close cases and to understand the number of cases filed since the end of 2009 that have not been investigated.
Kristen Ann Winslet Former MUFON Field Investigator/STAR Team Member
|
|
|
Post by lawsinium on Sept 26, 2011 22:47:45 GMT -5
Hi Kristen,
This stat is quite impressive and if put on a graph would provide more founded analytical data. BUt it would be more realistic if the breakdowns can also be presented here. From these closed cases, how many are IFOs, UFOs, Hoaxes, insuff data and natural occurences?
We know that one of the hallmarks of science is to tranform data to equation or formula and another hallmark is that it is repeatable. Did field investigators recreate some of the UFO photos that were submitted? Can these recreations be shared to the public?
Thanks.
~joey
|
|
|
Post by mo on Sept 27, 2011 16:48:30 GMT -5
"That's good to hear. Do you have an approximate ETA for the new site and CMS2? I'm just wondering if we we talking days, weeks, months or years? I'm assuming months."
Months. CMS2 is out now but the Analytical tools are being planned as we speak.
We can provide a EML possible or a raw data feed. Some fields are private due to witness confidentiality agreements. But we will do our best to share what we can.
We could use some suggestions of what you guys would like to see int he analytical tools.
Also MUFON is always looking for skilled individuals and if you are a professional statistician or equivalent then we could use your help. We are looking for many with great math skills and some data-basing skills to help with some current projects including the analytical tools. Like i say all the time the best way to learn and understand what we are doing is to get involved.
Keep the suggestions coming.
|
|
|
Post by kristenannwinslet on Sept 27, 2011 17:45:52 GMT -5
Joey, Send me an e-mail and I'll reply back with a file that answers your question about disposition statistics, (w/colorful graphs) by geographic location none-the-less . . . Too bad NJ MUFON forced me out, they could have used my active participation with ongoing analytics at HQ. They did not like my case work findings . . . (Hoax, Indufficient Data, IFO, Natural Phenomenon). I was told not to use Hoax by my state director, (this means I would have to misrepresent my findings). You can't conclude it's unknown unless you have the evidence to support that finding just like any other finding. So much for science I guess. Anyway, if you would like the charts, send me a note or goto: to get the file for yourself, (bottom of profile). Best Regards, Kristen kristenwinslet@verizon.net
|
|
|
Post by lawsinium on Sept 27, 2011 22:03:28 GMT -5
Hi Kristen,
I agree with you that to have a credible research you need to place all the pertinent data , whether it off shoots the graph or not.
Well "cherry picking" is usually a flaw in any research, specially when the researcher has a hidden agenda.
I can see that you did a good job - a job scientifically done.
Thanks for your time.
joey
|
|
|
Post by rutkows on Sept 28, 2011 16:00:39 GMT -5
For those interested in seeing our data for Canada, almost 20 years of data and annual studies are available at: survey.canadianuforeport.com/I'm just in the process of doing some data entry. We had 383 reports in Canada during the first half of 2011 (Jan-June).
|
|
|
Post by lawsinium on Sept 29, 2011 9:56:58 GMT -5
Mo: I think kristen is a good candidate.
She has a background in both stat and higher math analysis.
|
|
|
Post by lawsinium on Sept 29, 2011 10:00:24 GMT -5
Thansk rutkows.
I check your site and found out that there are two spikes on your 2008 graph.
What are these things do you think?
BTW, do you happen to know if canada was influenced by other countries like europe and the US regarding ufo phenomena?
How did ufo originate from your place?
thanks
|
|