how its possible?

originally posted by: Assemble
a reply to: james1947

database
/ˈdeɪtəbeɪs/Submit
noun
a structured set of data held in a computer, especially one that is accessible in various ways.
"a database covering nine million workers"

looks like a database to me, guess not everyone can afford thousands of $$$ to make it acceptable enough to you?

The tools required to transform those "hacks" are FREE from Microsoft...

And, I'm sure that they appear as a database to the inexperienced...

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

why do you want to build such a database anyways?
by removing everthing from a case and leaving only the basics, you take out the charm of the case

Actually, "such a database" would remove nothing, and, make everything more accessible...easier to search, easier to correlate.

there is no charm in flat text!

a reply to: james1947

Yeah, i'm inexperienced, and I would call it a database.

I'm not sure what you mean by database, maybe the search parameters are more involved, but, the link that was provided, is to me, a million times better and more organized than a bunches of paper stuffed in a drawer or on a desk.

originally posted by: Assemble
a reply to: james1947

Yeah, i'm inexperienced, and I would call it a database.

I'm not sure what you mean by database, maybe the search parameters are more involved, but, the link that was provided, is to me, a million times better and more organized than a bunches of paper stuffed in a drawer or on a desk.

And I would call it; a pain in the ass and virtually unusable!

But that's just me...I'm only a software and data professional...so what would I know!

a reply to: james1947

I'm not calling into question your credentials (I don't care), but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the database is useless, without explaining why.

But, each to their own.

originally posted by: Assemble
a reply to: james1947

I'm not calling into question your credentials (I don't care), but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the database is useless, without explaining why.

But, each to their own.

Actually, I did explain "why"...

But:
1. difficult to search for specific data
2. unable to correlate different data, and data types
3. no use of "typed data"
4. difficult to mine

Basically anything I might want to do with the data is made significantly more difficult due to lack of database "engine".

I'm thinking that you probably can't relate to the data and the problems of working with data when it is not properly "packaged"...that is probably more like my curse...being a "data" guy does make some thing a little less easy...

a reply to: james1947

sorry but that would need money, hard work and public crowdsourcing
several things wich are scarce in modern ufology

a reply to: james1947

Yeah I don't see what the hassle is. No doubt what you propose is far better, so I was curious to know.

For myself, I don't have a problem clicking on a couple of pages and keeping notes of the stuff I want to know, like I can do on the webpage ufologie.patrickgross.org... Maybe catalogue would be better.

I suppose what i'm saying is, before we had computers, people made do OK with a pile of books, called a library. Sure it might seem quaint and obsolete now, but it still works fine and produced/produces great results.

So for me, it's not a huge hassle to read through it. It's kinda like people who use their cars so much, and for so long, forget that it's still possible to walk 15 minutes to reach a local shop

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

sorry but that would need money, hard work and public crowdsourcing
several things wich are scarce in modern ufology

No actually, the tools, and the database engine are FREE!

You need only put in the work to transcribe the data...and learn to use better tools for your task.

originally posted by: Assemble
a reply to: james1947

Yeah I don't see what the hassle is. No doubt what you propose is far better, so I was curious to know.

For myself, I don't have a problem clicking on a couple of pages and keeping notes of the stuff I want to know, like I can do on the webpage ufologie.patrickgross.org... Maybe catalogue would be better.

I suppose what i'm saying is, before we had computers, people made do OK with a pile of books, called a library. Sure it might seem quaint and obsolete now, but it still works fine and produced/produces great results.

So for me, it's not a huge hassle to read through it. It's kinda like people who use their cars so much, and for so long, forget that it's still possible to walk 15 minutes to reach a local shop

Well this is going to sound a bit crazy, but, the bulk of what we now know, has been learned since 1970, and the invention of the microprocessor...that one little almost insignificant device is responsible for the building of today's knowledge base, and allows us to be able to use that knowledge with better efficiency. And, yes, I remember the days of no computers...building a computer without one was a serious pain...

But, today we have these things we call computers and electronic databases that allow us to process vastly more information is vastly less time...which is why we (mankind) are learning faster than any other time in history.

These computers and electronic databases are what made it possible for me to compile a new analysis of Betty Hill's "map" and determine that there IS a match to the real world. The tools allowed me to use real astrometrics to build a 3D representation of stars within 33 parsec, and eliminate the possibility of Human error.

By the way, I live in the country, not in town; so the only stores that I can "walk" to are a lumber yard, and an auto parts store...I would probably need my truck if I went for lumber, and I'd be stuck walking if I needed any auto parts.

Basically what I'm saying is that your "paper database" is fine for non-serious research, but, if you truly do wish to do serious research, you will need the modern tools, and a modern database.

ETA: I forgot to mention that a modern database and engine will provide vastly better data validation.

a reply to: james1947

and patrick gross did exactly that!
go figure

UFOs Northwest and NUFORC are two of my favorite U.F.O. databases.

I even have my own 1976 foo fighter sighting posted on NUFORC.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

and patrick gross did exactly that!
go figure

No...sorry. All Mr. Gross has done is transcribe from one text based file to another.
No improvements in data typing, searching, relational content, mining, ...

Go checkout Microsoft's SQL Server, or Oracle's MySql...and the associated tools; that is what I'm talking about...both are FREE as well as their tools and management systems.

a reply to: james1947

Yeah you're a bit too obsessed with criticizing his programming skills rather than looking at the data for me, but, each to their own.

originally posted by: Assemble
a reply to: james1947

Yeah you're a bit too obsessed with criticizing his programming skills rather than looking at the data for me, but, each to their own.

Wasn't aware I was criticizing anyone's "programming" skills...I was assuming those skills to be lite to non-existant anyway, and was trying to explain the differences in tools. It appears that my 50 years experience is getting in the way...

And, WHAT data am I supposed to be looking at for you ?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...

I'm still looking for anything (please) that can go to the validation of Vallee's hypothesis.

And, of course, in the lack of such validation, I have to wonder how anyone can accept his work in this area as anything other than fiction.

It would be good if any of y'all could do anything that goes to such validation.

a reply to: james1947

Yeah it's not so much your 50 years experience as your arrogant approach to all this.

If you're the genius, why not fix it yourself instead of vaguely criticizing a bunch of other people who are doing their best with what they've got.

originally posted by: Assemble
a reply to: james1947

Yeah it's not so much your 50 years experience as your arrogant approach to all this.

If you're the genius, why not fix it yourself instead of vaguely criticizing a bunch of other people who are doing their best with what they've got.

Arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

Sorry man...NO exaggeration here! But, I guess I can't expect you to believe it.

And, you want me to "fix" it? Who's paying...you? There are few who could even begin to afford it...I've already done a thumbnail cost of such a project...I doubt the US Government could afford it.

The data (available data) for the UFO phenomenon is (I think deliberately) so messed up, fragmented, corrupted that it would take a major project, and probably more than a couple of years...

And, I will complain to folk like you who might have a bit of time to collect the required tools and skills...the tools are FREE and the required skills are easy to learn...If One is so interested in truth, then a bit of work isn't too much to ask. And, before you get on my case for not having done anything I will refer you to wolfmagick.com...

Way more than I've seen anyone around here do...sorry.

a reply to: james1947

No idea who's paying, I just thought you'd be up for it since you suggested that the rest of us find all the stuff on google for free because it's there already. Knock yourself out buster.

And, you want me to "fix" it? Who's paying...you? There are few who could even begin to afford it...I've already done a thumbnail cost of such a project...I doubt the US Government could afford it.

Oh OK then so it makes sense to criticize the rest of us who are doing the best with what we have. Sure the US government can't afford it, but some people on a website should have it done already!

a reply to: james1947

A poorly constructed database, if unable to accommodate those 4 basic necessities.

Then again i suppose garbage in, garbage out applies, as any poor-quality input will produce faulty sup par output.

Especially where databases are concerned.