Distribution (by Shape) of reported UFO sightings on NUFORC from Nov. 2003-Nov. 2004

Originally posted by lizzardsamok
sdrumrunner,

see that line of dots across florida thats were i got picked up, right in center, city named kissime , you know it as disneyworld area.

great map

[edit on 5-2-2005 by lizzardsamok]

Thank you sir, and in fact I know Kissimmee -- not well, mind you, but I did live on the central coast (somewhere between Cocoa and Vero) for a couple years...

In fact, another nice little surprise was to see they apparently prefer the Bee Line... Maybe less traffic...

Originally posted by Umbrax
Thanks for the hard work sdrumrunner I'm sure everyone here appreciates it.

I also noticed the lack of reporting in the center of the country aside from Colorado.
It would be interesting to see if there was an increase in sightings after the 'NWO' Denver Airport went up in the nineties.

Thx, Umbrax, and as mentioned, consider it my "gift" to the community here... the past few weeks posting here has been an overall wonderful experience, and for some time before, this site still provided a wealth of knowledge and leads for my own pursuit...

It's the least I can do for a site that seems so integral in the real-time dissemination of information in this day and age...

Regarding the timeframe, this map only covers from Nov. 1, 2003 through the first week of Nov. 2004...

I have in fact been studying the reported data from the year 2000 onwards, but only included the more restricted timeline for the plotting excercise to keep the effort to an acceptable level and to reflect only the most recent reports available (one year seemed to be provide a large enough statistical sampling to further explore the patterns of distribution)...

I am truly glad so many people have found this map to be of value. One person would have been gratifying... anything over that is a blessing.

Also Note the total lack of Triangle UFOs in New Mexico, home of Roswell. Many bases there, including the Rumored Dulce. Yet No Triangles reported? Thats REALLY peculiar, if they are indeed govornment test craft.

Thr triangle sightings interest me greatly. Especially after I read the book Night Seige, about the Hudson Valley sightings in 84.

Note NO sightings from South Dakota, which is full of military bases. Its sparsely populated, true, but it does have people there!

sdrumrunner

You should add one more for the Dallas area (Plano) for the cylinder, cigar variety.

I saw, I guess the same craft, twice on the same day in June. No clouds. Once at 9 AM and then again later in the day at about 3:30 PM.

It was a polished silver like a passenger jet, but no wings and flying sideways rather than longways.

It was very low over some Plano neighborhoods, and I only spotted it by accident. I thought it was a big plane moving across the sky in front of me several miles down the road. But then I thought, no its too low, and its moving sideways in the direction my car was going, and I seemed to be gaining on it at 35 mph in a residential area. I had to round a gentle curve, and some trees got between me and it, and when I finished rounding the curve it was gone. It was nowhere to be seen.

So later in the day, travelling South on 75 central expressway from Plano to Richardson, I looked up while driving, and there it was again. But high up, thousands of feet, and this time it was barely outpacing my car which was going 70 mph and still going sideways. No clouds, 3:30 PM. It seemed to be following the highway. It was a nice bright silver, and was very noticeable for anyone who may have happened to look up in that direction. It clearly was no plane.

But here's the coolest part. Usually the craft you always here about and even of this type, always rocket away at great speeds, but not this one.
And this may be why I lost sight of it the first time when my view of it was blocked by trees for several seconds. As it moved along, like a rolling pin, the bottom section began to disappear from end to end and work its way all around the cylinder. It took about 2 seconds to completely disappear.
I assume, it didn't go anywhere, and just simply decided to hide itself.
A "cloak" if you will.

If this is a capabilty of this type, and it tends to frequent the Dallas area, then I want to find a way to picture it through its cloak. If it hides, then it may hang around for days on end slowly moving over the city. If I had a camcorder, that could somehow see it or a shadow of it, I could get some cool shots of it from following it around all day, and especially when it dips low to the ground. Might could see some markings or something.

My theory revolves around human eye/brain perception. And our little ufo friends may exploit our ability to perceive beyond a specific point, so as to hide themselves. After seeing what I saw, I remembered a story on why some cats don't watch television, and that's because their brains are too fast. Basically, on old televisions they only see the raster line as it draws the screen and not the whole picture, but on more modern, flicker free computer monitors which refresh faster most cats can see the screen. In the case of the ufo, I believe it acelerated an image around itself bright enough and fast enough so my eyes could not see it even in the brightest daylight. You know its difficult to see the individual fan blades of a spinning fan, more so the faster it gets. But when you add a strobe light, and tune the flash just right, the fan blades look near motionless. The flash frequency has leveraged your brains ability to perceive the blades. Or like a high speed camera capturing all the details of the classic picture of the bullet and apple. I believe its possible to mechanically overcome this exploit. Sort of like the sunglasses on the move "They Live".

Are there any camera experts here on high speed film or camcorders?
There could be lots of ufos just hanging around all day, but cloaked, waiting to be seen on high speed film.

Now, why would they "de-cloak"? Good question, could be either a system protocol on their craft for whatever reason, or maybe they want to see who sees them. A tease really.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Also Note the total lack of Triangle UFOs in New Mexico, home of Roswell. Many bases there, including the Rumored Dulce. Yet No Triangles reported? Thats REALLY peculiar, if they are indeed govornment test craft.

Thr triangle sightings interest me greatly. Especially after I read the book Night Seige, about the Hudson Valley sightings in 84.

Note NO sightings from South Dakota, which is full of military bases. Its sparsely populated, true, but it does have people there!

Yep... a little peculiar, isn't it?

I'm personally of the opinion that there exists more than one variant of triangular craft (based solely on the Belgium wave and the wealth of NUFORC reports), and find it possible that one or more may be "ours," and one or more "theirs," though this is nothing other than pure speculation...

Re: the Hudson Valley sightings, one of my favorite DVD acquisitions on the subject is the Unsolved Mysteries UFO collection, a four DVD set with 5-6 episodes per disc. The production value is second-to-none (these aired originally on NBC), and their coverage is quite extensive. The Hudson Valley flap is covered on one of these discs.

Capt. Proton,

Thank you for sharing that -- sounds very fascinating and not unlike other accounts I have read on NUFORC.

You bring up some good points for discussion re: "cloaking." I can only vouch for my own experience(s) where I have in fact, on multiple occasions, photographed an anomolous object that I did not visually see while taking the picture (this is discussed in another thread in depth ).

Regarding the addition of your sighting to the map:

1. Did this sighting occur between Nov. 1, 2003 and Nov. 7-8, 2004?

2. Have you already reported the sighting to NUFORC (on or before Nov. 8, 2004)?

If the answer to these questions is "yes" and "no," respectively, then I will happily add your sighting to the map on the condition you first report it to NUFORC (as this maintains the integrity of the methodology I have adapted for this continuing study).

If your answeris "yes" to both questions, then I already have it on the map my friend.


[edit on 5-2-2005 by sdrumrunner]

Oh, I have no doubt that some triangles are govornment toys, based on the descriptions of witness reports (I go to NUFORC frequently to catch up and make comparisons, like when I was scanning the sightings for 9/11).

But there are those who believe all the black triangles are simply secret govornment craft, I say only a tiny number are. The govornment doesnt take its secret toys under development, fly them at treetop level over highly populated areas, and flaunt it where spies and enemies can photograph it and copy it.

I have the book, I havent watched any good UFO shows on TV cuz my roomate hogs the channel so he can watch Faux News.

But still, its a good map. And when one looks at it, one must keep in mind that only represnts ten percent of all UFO sightings, msot people simply do not report them, even if aliens landed on their lawn and joined em for a barbque!

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Oh, I have no doubt that some triangles are govornment toys, based on the descriptions of witness reports (I go to NUFORC frequently to catch up and make comparisons, like when I was scanning the sightings for 9/11).

Glad to know I'm not the only one with this regular habit!

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf...my roomate hogs the channel so he can watch Faux News.

If I find my dad watching it again the next time I visit, I'll have no choice but to schedule an intervention...

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf...And when one looks at [the map], one must keep in mind that only represnts ten percent of all UFO sightings, msot people simply do not report them, even if aliens landed on their lawn and joined em for a barbque!

This is a very important (and valid) statistic of which I think far too many people are unaware. I myself have only reported one of my sightings on NUFORC, as I was (and still am!) concerned that if I reported every event/sighting, it could arguably discredit or invalidate the one I did report...

sdrumrunner

Yes, this sighting was in June of 2004, and no I have not reported to NUFORC.

I haven't mentioned it before, because most of the guys on here want some pictures, which I also agree to some extent. I don't want to look like I'm making up fairy tales.

I would like to find a way that most ufo enthusiasts could catch them on video and do it with impunity as to flood the news with real good solid pictures. This should be within the capability of most people chasing these things, and would really turn the tide in the debate. The governments ufo debunking team would choke on the volume of footage to dismiss, and sooner or later, would have to fess up to something.

So I recommend exploring some sort of high speed optical solution for this problem.

I have had one REALLY strange UFO sighting, a couple of what I consider "grey sightings" (not of Greys themselves, but sightings I was not sure if they were UFOs or a possible experiment at nearby Sandia Labs in Livermore, California. Im a very good observer, and thus, if something does not meet all my criteria of total weirdness, I throw it in the grey basket). I have never offically reported any UFO sightings to any orgs that catalogue them.

My mother has had one major sightings and a couple that puzzled her, she never reported them. I also have known neighbors with high qualifications who have seen and never reported. In fact, I know of no one who has ever reported a sighting. And thats just me.

Most people do not report them because they fear being tarred and feathered, or they simply do not know where to report such an event, if they are even supposed to.

I visit NUFORC alot, not only to check up on waves and flaps, but also to examine reports and see if I can figure out if a good explaination can be sought, or if theres an especially strange report.

I really wish they would form a public accessable database of UFO sightings world wide. The US picture itself is very curious. If we had a total global view of the phenomenon, we could really start making some better educated guesses!

Here we go

lots of UFOs around Baltimore. The Annapolis area has an unusual amount of triangles. While the Eastern Part of the state has little or no UFO activity

No ufo activity could also mean, no one was looking, didn't report, or could care less.

You won't ever get a highly accurate map, because in low population areas there are fewer people to see something and of those people, fewer still would report it, and fewer still of people who can't report it.

Plus, think of all the missed ufos over the ocean or ufos over large land masses inhabited by mostly animals and low tech cultures. This USA map would have to represent some sort of percentage sampling that might could be applied to the whole global picture.

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
sdrumrunner

Yes, this sighting was in June of 2004, and no I have not reported to NUFORC.

I haven't mentioned it before, because most of the guys on here want some pictures, which I also agree to some extent. I don't want to look like I'm making up fairy tales.

Please do in fact report it to NUFORC, as you can do so anonymously via their web-based report form...

Let me know once it has been added, and I will add your sighting to the map immediately thereafter. This would be much appreciated, as I have a particular partiality for the cigar-shaped craft (though I have no idea why, considering I have only photographed one of these)...

As to your other statement, sadly, I can understand your concerns, as I'm sure many can... Hence, the reason (at least in part, I'm sure) that only 10% of sightings ever get reported...

Just wanted to say good work. Actually, amazing work. I find it typical that some people try to hyper-deunk hard work cough*second post*cough.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I really wish they would form a public accessable database of UFO sightings world wide. The US picture itself is very curious. If we had a total global view of the phenomenon, we could really start making some better educated guesses!

Actually (as I'm sure you're aware) there are quite a few international (i.e., non-U.S., Canadian, or the U.K.) reports on NUFORC as well (though these number few and far between wehn compared to the reports filed from the aforementioned countries) -- personally, I think it's just a matter of making the English-speaking internet world aware of its existence.

Originally posted by Simulacra
Just wanted to say good work. Actually, amazing work.

Thx Simulacra... I sincerely appreciate the, well... appreciation.

So when can we look forward to a similar map of the UK? I for one would love to see it...

I hope the mods don't mind me taking the time to thank everyone individually when possible, as my gratitude is sincere...

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
You won't ever get a highly accurate map, because in low population areas there are fewer people to see something and of those people, fewer still would report it, and fewer still of people who can't report it.

Careful now, because in regards to accuracy, the map is in fact highly accurate. The plotted location of each included sighting is accurate to within approximately .25 square miles.

If by "accurate" you mean to say it is not possible to extrapolate accurate information from the existing set of data, I also must disagree.

You see, this subset of data represents 60% of the reported sightings over the specified time frame. Now, if one accepts the historical average of 10% -- that only 10% of actual sightings go reported -- then this particular subset of data would still represent approx. 6% of the total population of sightings -- statistically, this is more than sufficient to constitute a valid statistical sampling of the data given the estimated population size. This is not conjecture.

And given that this subset of data represents (in general) more qualified reports, the intrinsic value of the actual data used to construct this map is greater than if it had been randomly chosen from the overall population.

This USA map would have to represent some sort of percentage sampling that might could be applied to the whole global picture.

This would be true if they in fact occurred with equal random frequency across the world. This is not a safe assumption, as the degree with which they occur in any given place is dependent on multivariate relationships (i.e., non-random factors).

In other words, you cannot assume that UFOs appear with the same frequency in New Guinea as they do in New Mexico -- this is an unsafe assumption.