Article: This 11-point scale helps spot UFO reports worth investigating

[Gary C]

Toward that end, we have proposed a rating scale meant to help citizens and scientists alike assess the reliability of UAP reports based on the type and quality of evidence. This won't solve most cases (more than half of the sightings reviewed by the U.S. government's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) lack sufficient data for rigorous analysis). But it might help us reduce the number of "false alarms."

We start from the premise that most UAP reports stem from misunderstandings — people seeing unfamiliar objects in the sky that, if investigated fully, would have an ordinary explanation. These objects range from balloons and drones (which together accounted for 91% of sightings between 1996 and 2024 that could be resolved by the AARO) to meteors, flocking birds, and even rare atmospheric phenomena such as "sprites" and "elves."

The article - https://bigthinkmedia.substack.com/p/a-new-scale-for-spotting-ufo-reports

The original paper - https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/11/10/326?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#B8-universe-11-00326

FWIW Metabunk is mentioned first among groups the authors feel are doing good work in this area.

 

[JMartJr]

I'd fold some of those together for simplicity. NOTE: My assumption is that the ultimate goal here is to establish if there is a new phenomenon and, if so, to establish what it is.

JM0 -- Things that have been identified, same as their category 0.
JMI -- Cases with no supporting evidence, only witness tetimony
JMII -- Cases with evidence from one platform
JMIII -- Cases with evidence from multiple platforms
JMIV -- Cases with physical artefacts
JMV -- Cases that combine IV with II or III

A case being in Category JM0 seems to imply that some research has been done, to identify the UAP, it would be where cases from the other categories go when "solved."

Category JMI is anecdotes, and may or may not be accurate, but in any casee cannot ever establish that a phenomenon exists or what it is. It's functionally going to be treated like Category 0, but not rubbing a witnesses face in it. Cool stories, don't waste research time/money.

Category JMII cases are most/all of the military short video clips leaked and released over the past few years, plus similar form other sources. The history to date seems to show they are of no value, and research effort there are unlikely to bear fruit, though it is fun to "solve" them.

Category JMIII cases are "rare as hen's teeth," especially if one is scrupulous about estalishing that the multiple platforms/channels were dealing with the same pehnomenon. Often this has not been established. But something might be learned from them, to the extent there are any.

Categories JMIV and JMV are even rarer, especially if screened for claimed "artefacts" that are not in any way unusual or indicative of something anomalous. But if there is any "paydirt," this is where it would most likely be.

My system of categorization has the disadvantage in that a team of deicated researchers would not have a lot to do, as the cases worthy of potential study (JMIII-V) are very rare. It has the advantage of not wasting the time and talents (and money) dedicated such an effort, they could spend all their time on the few cases that might actually prove something (unless, of course, there is nothing to be proved.) An additional advantage is cutting printing cost to some extent with a shorter list of categories, one that is not needlessly over-split.

While there is nothing to be proved about a potential exciting new phenomenon in studying cases in Categories JM0-II, there is value in time and effort spent debunking such (solving them), in terms of fighting the spread of bunk --but there is at least one group with a very good track record of dealing with such cases, withhout the need for spending tax dollars, I'd let them handle it.