Are we talking about the literal definition of UFO: a visual stimulus the observer was unable to identify, or are we talking about ‘real’ UFOs, the believer’s definition that at least some UFOs represent alien craft in our atmosphere?

The above quoted excerpt suggests ‘real’ UFO is the definition in play. Nobody denies there are literally defined UFOs.

I think Jimminy Cricket’s point was exactly that Phil (and now yourself) are saying amateur astronomers don’t see (report?) UFOs, without offering any corroborating evidence.

Ironically, Chris Rutkowski (yes, the guy mentioned by Phil) summarised this topic for the newsletter of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada way back (1981 I think), citing in particular the survey of Gert Herb:

“Mr. Herb sent a questionnaire to 8,526 amateurs in the Astronomical League, the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers (ALPO) and the International Occultation Timing Association (IOTA). The AAVSO was also asked to participate, but it declined. A total of only
1,805 individuals responded to the survey. Of that group, 67% felt that UFO’s “certainly, probably or possibly exist”. Asked whether they had ever seen an object which they could not identify, despite their efforts to do so, 427 of the 1,805 answered to the affirmative. That is 23.7% of the responding group, and 5.2% of the entire sample polled.

Mr. Herb also asked the amateurs about their observing experience, in terms of whether they kept a regular observing log, followed a structured observing program, worked in conjunction with a group like IOTA or ALPO, and their length of active amateur observing. On this basis, he selected 261 “senior” amateurs whom he felt possessed higher-than-average abilities. These were considered as being most familiar with objects in the night sky. Of the 261 selected, 74 had seen objects which “resisted most exhaustive efforts of identification.”

While most sightings were of point- or slightly-extended sources, 24 were of objects observed “at short enough distance as to leave no doubt in the observer’s mind that something strange was reported.” Sixty-six were observed through a telescope, and forty objects were observed through binoculars.”

While I lean towards the points Phil raises being correct, I think I would have a hard time convincing anyone without some hard data.

“Greg– I reread what I wrote, and I see your point. I wasn’t trying to lump him in with that comment, so I went back and edited to the post to make my point more clear. ”

Phil, thanks for the clarification. My extended point though was that you seem to have assumed a lot about Chris Rutkowski, and have passed these (misinformed) thoughts on to the greater public via this blog. You say that “I don’t think Rutkowski knows very many amateurs astronomers”. Considering the fact that Chris was extensively involved in the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada for many years – even heading up one of its local chapters, also a past winner of the RASC’s Simon Newcomb award for science writing and education – I think you’ll find that you are quite simply wrong on this particular point.

Further, you say “I can dismiss the entire argument about professional astronomers, because I never talked about them in my article.” From my understanding, wasn’t Rutkowski discussing your Bad Astronomy book (the linked article is from 2002)? Or has he sent you a recent email? Or perhaps you printed the exact same thing in ‘Bad Astronomy’, but it still might be pertinent to point out how he has misinterpreted the particular passage from the book by quoting it?

Phil also wrote:

“Incidentally, I have researched this, and the overwhelming majority of pilot reports are objects like meteors and Venus. Even the report that started the craze — Kenneth Arnold in 1947 — is now understood to have most likely been a fireball breaking up.”

Firstly, the *only* time I have seen the Arnold report being explained by a fireball is by Phil Klass around 10 years ago, which almost immediately sunk like a lead balloon in an elevator. What sources are you using to assert that this explanation is “now understood” to be the most likely answer? It’s certainly news to me, and I would say to most people.

Secondly, regardless of the ‘misunderstanding’ of your point about amateur astronomers, you’re tilting at windmills with a number of the accompanying arguments. When you claim “the majority of UFOs reported are not flying saucers, but misidentified mundane objects”, you have the full agreement of nearly every ufologist I know, and have had for the better part of 50 years I would imagine. Which brings me to my final point. When you point out that “the ‘UFOologists’ can’t seem to understand it”, who do you mean? Guys like Martin Shough, David Clarke and Chris Rutkowski, who are fascinated by the topic but bring hard science and skepticism to bear on it? I would submit you are committing the ‘sin’ of generalising, and tarring the whole field based on the frauds and charlatans out there.

There is a lot of interesting research being done on the topic of UFOs which has no “believer in ETs” basis, and which may one day provide advances in science (ball lightning, plasmas, electromagnetic effects on the brain etc). I think it would be unscientific to throw the baby out with the grubby bathwater by continuing to slander the field in general based on the actions of one portion of the community.

Quite apart from the above issues though, props to you for the great work you do in educating the public about science and astronomy.