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

Originally posted by Mareterna
Excellant work! That's gunna be such valuable resource! What I find facinating is the fact that most of the sightting occur on the coastlines.. Does anybody have a hypothesis for why ufos who perfer the coastline over the rest of the country? Let me try and rack my brain for an answer...hmm

For (in my humble opinion) a comprehensive answer to your question, please refer to the post immediately above your own...

And thank you for the compliment... It is highly appreciated.

hmmmm

Well it seems most sitings are near areas with large air traffic hubs like DFW or LA. And there are but a few scant sitings in the Nevada area, and most of those are centered around the busy Las Vegas airport hub.
Which is strange in itself for UFO central.

So are you saying some of these sitings may just be mistaken for an airline flight?

Or maybe our visitors seem pretty interested in the sophisticated metropolitan areas? Maybe they can't figure out which one is the capital.
I know Washington DC wouldn't be my first choice. Museums, monument parks, slums and graveyards, most of which I doubt they would be interested in. They can find that in Egypt.

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
So are you saying some of these sitings may just be mistaken for an airline flight?

In a word, "no."

The methodology I defined in conducting this study was defined so as to mitigate such risks which might, if realized, reduce the intrinsic value of the data.

In other words, by selecting only reported sightings where the witness(es) were able to clearly observe and describe the shape of the object they saw, this mitigates the risk of misidentification of commercial aircraft.

Please read my first post on page 1 for more information on the methodolody defined and methods applied in the course of this study.

sdrumrunner, you young man wish to continue racking our mind's for the answer's your seeking..., and you already know. Okay my further thought, Its water! To avoid absolute discovery while idle, and save energy while doing so, I'd take a dip in our oceans and water ways and hang out for awhile and enjoy complete Silence with no threat! Yep, there is allot of space there to do so, while going unseen as well. Just my thought right now considering you continue to ask. Come on SDR.. your killing me here by wanting to know your indepth discovery... Give it up!


[edit on 7-2-2005 by jessemole]

Originally posted by jessemole
sdrumrunner, you young man wish to continue racking our mind's for the answer's your seeking..., and you already know.

...Come on SDR.. your killing me here by wanting to know your indepth discovery... Give it up!

Tell you what... I am so impressed with the high level of intelligence so often displayed by so many people on this forum, that I would like to give it another day or so... Off_the_street? Care to share an engineer's perspective?

As I said, it is really a rather simple and obvious conclusion. When put into words, I think pretty much everyone here will in response think, "Well, no sheeyat, Sherlock!" However, as said, within this conclusion exist several rather profound implications...

[edit on 7-2-2005 by sdrumrunner]

The more people in an area the more likely they'll see something incredible.

Originally posted by Vegemite
The more people in an area the more likely they'll see something incredible.

Yes. And the sky is blue. And water is wet...

As some of us apparently don't "catch on" as quickly as others, I have taken the liberty of re-posting an explanation which will help those willing to read it understand why the distribution of reprted UFO sightings is not just a simple funtion of population density:

Originally posted by sdrumrunner
While there does exist a strong correlation between population density and overall reported sighting distribution, there are some very prominent deviations which in and of themselves seem to nullify the hypothesis that the occurence of UFO sightings is purely a function of population density.

For example: Number of plotted sightings in and around Birmingham, AL, a metropolitan area of nearly 850,000 people? Zero

Number of plotted sightings in and around Birmingham, AL, a metropolitan area of nearly 340,000 people? Zero

But does this mean there are no lights or people living in Birmingham or Montgomery, AL? Of course not...

T

Please take note that together, these two metropolitan areas account for over 25% of the state's population, but account for 0% of the plotted sightings.

Yet Mobile, AL, which accounts for less than 5% of the state's population is home to 25% of the reported sightings in the state!

Or how deos one explain that the number of sightings in little 'ol Mobile (a city of less than 200,000 people) accounted for exactly as many sightings as St. Louis, a metropolitan region with a population of over 3 million people?

Anyway, these are but a couple of the examples which nullify the hypothesis that the distribution of reported UFO sightings is just a simple function of population density... as this is simply not the case as evidenced by the data.

Again, this is not conjecture or opinion, but rather an educated conclusion substantiated by the data.

Okay you have explained that the UFO maps marks of sightings is not Dependant on the population density.
Your example is of the state of Alabama, how a lower populated are accounts for a high percentage of UFO reports.
However significant that is, it is not something we can see on the map.

Are the findings you have not reviled found from you piloting the map or does it show up on the map it self?

Originally posted by Umbrax
Okay you have explained that the UFO maps marks of sightings is not Dependant on the population density.
Your example is of the state of Alabama, how a lower populated are accounts for a high percentage of UFO reports.
However significant that is, it is not something we can see on the map.


Are the findings you have not reviled found from you piloting the map or does it show up on the map it self?

Actually, to the contrary, the plots are (somewhat) dependent on population density (this is mentioned elsewhere in the thread).

However, it is not solely dependent on population density. This in and of itself is extremely significant.

Sorry if I sound redundant.

And yes, there is the conclusion of which I speak may be drawn from this map itself... In fact, it was this conclusion that led to me breaking down the components of this map for further study.

Okay -- I postulate the following:

1. There is a significant and strong correlation between the number of reported sightings and the number of people living within a given area (i.e., population density).

2. However, the number of reported sightings is not solely dependent on population density. In other words, it is not a bivariate relationship.

Anybody? Beuler?

Keep in mind, it doesn't show the UFO sightings that OCCURRED....it shows what was REPORTED... This is an important difference to note....