77 lines
3.8 KiB
Plaintext
77 lines
3.8 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: THE PARANET/HYNEK RATING SYSTEM FILE: UFO2191
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ParaNet/Hynek Rating System was developed in order to provide
|
|
investigators and other interested parties with a point of departure, a
|
|
thumbnail sketch of how "good" or how "important" a particular report is, and
|
|
how it relates to other reports in the database.
|
|
|
|
It is a simple system, based on a matrix first proposed by Dr. J. Allen Hynek
|
|
of Northwestern University, founder of the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS). The
|
|
rating plots the strangeness of a case against its overall credibility, or the
|
|
"probability" that the event happened basically as described.
|
|
|
|
The strangeness of a case, or the degree of its departure from known
|
|
principles, is assigned a rating of from 1 to 5. The higher the rating, the
|
|
greater the departure.
|
|
|
|
Rating Meaning Examples
|
|
------ -------- --------
|
|
S1 Explained or explainable Meteor; Venus; Airplane; Balloon
|
|
|
|
S2 Probably explainable with more High altitude nocturnal light,
|
|
data little observed course deviation
|
|
|
|
S3 Possibly explainable, but with Same nocturnal light, but sudden
|
|
elements of strangeness zig-zag, then return to course.
|
|
|
|
S4 Strange; does not conform to Disk-shaped object seen in
|
|
known principles daylight.
|
|
|
|
S5 Highly strange; indicative of Daylight disk seen close-up;
|
|
intelligent guidance anomalous motion; entities
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "P" factor, or probability rating, is much harder to gauge. Witness
|
|
credibility is only a part of the picture. Quantity and quality of supporting
|
|
evidence, such as independent witnesses, photographs, etc. must also be taken
|
|
into account. Basically the "P" factor is an overall estimation, or averaging
|
|
of these factors. It, too, is calibrated from 1 to 5 as follows:
|
|
|
|
Rating Meaning Examples
|
|
------ ------- --------
|
|
P1 Not credible or sound; hoax String found in photo; known UFO
|
|
hoaxer or "flake"
|
|
|
|
P2 Suspicious; probable hoax Prodigious photos by lone witness;
|
|
no evidence where there should be
|
|
|
|
P3 Somewhat credible or indeterminate lone witness, no supporting
|
|
evidence; low-quality photo
|
|
|
|
P4 Credible; Sound multiple independent witnesses;
|
|
high-quality analyzed photo
|
|
|
|
P5 Highly credible; leaving almost Witness of high repute and/or ex-
|
|
no doubt pertise; live TV; quality video
|
|
|
|
It is tempting to rate one in terms of the other; that is, a high strangeness
|
|
case is, by nature, hard to believe, and therefore one is tempted to give it a
|
|
low "P" rating. The scientific method demands, however, that the data itself
|
|
should dictate the rating, despite our propensity to mistrust stories of
|
|
90-degree turns and 3-foot-tall grey men.
|
|
|
|
Hynek pointed out that 90% of all reports should fall in the range closest to
|
|
the two axes. High strangeness cases DO usually turn out to be of low quality
|
|
or even hoaxes; multiple reports of bright night-time objects seen over
|
|
hundreds of miles most often turn out to be low-strangeness bolides or
|
|
re-entering rockets. Obviously, it is the S4/P4's and above that are of
|
|
concern to us. These are the cases we point to when we speak of the UFO
|
|
phenomenon in the strict sense. It is these that science must answer for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |