UFO SIGHTING SCORE (USS) Version 0.95 (English)

Citation preview

UFO SIGHTING SCORE (USS) Version 0.95

ANUGERAH SENTOT SUDONO 2022

LIST OF CONTENTS Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3 factors ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Formulas ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Strangeness Score .................................................................................................................................. 5 Strangeness Level ............................................................................................................................... 5 Sample case ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Strangeness Probability ..................................................................................................................... 7 Sample case ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Total number of Strangeness ........................................................................................................... 10 Strangeness Quantity Factor ............................................................................................................ 10 Calculation of Strangeness Score ..................................................................................................... 11 Witnesss Score...................................................................................................................................... 12 Witness Level .................................................................................................................................... 12 Sample case ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Witness Probability .......................................................................................................................... 17 Sample case ...................................................................................................................................... 18 Total number of Witnesses .............................................................................................................. 20 Witness Quantity Factor .................................................................................................................. 20 Calculation of Witness Score ........................................................................................................... 21 Evidence Score...................................................................................................................................... 24 Evidence Level .................................................................................................................................. 24 Sample case ...................................................................................................................................... 26 Evidence Probability......................................................................................................................... 27 Sample case ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Total number of Evidence ................................................................................................................ 28 Evidence Quantity Factor ................................................................................................................. 28 Calculation of Evidence Score .......................................................................................................... 28 UFO Sighting Score Calculation ............................................................................................................ 29

2

Background

The author observes that there are often differences of opinion between some UFO observers regarding whether a phenomenon can be classified as a UFO or not. The author also sees that until now there is no simple method to quantitatively evaluate a UFO sighting. GEIPAN (Groupe d'Études et d'Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés) or a group formed by the French government to study UFOs already has a method for analyzing UFOs, but the authors consider that the method is still too complex and does not meet the expectations of the authors. The author also sees the tendency of UFO observers to only focus on evidence, such as photos or videos. Yet with advances in technology, the originality of evidence or (Evidence) can sometimes be questioned for its authenticity. Then the author has also seen that there are some UFO observers who try to kill the witness character (Witness Character Assassination) so they can ignore the story of their testimony. Rarely does the author see UFO observers who focus on the level of strangeness of a UFO phenomenon.

Factors A UFO phenomenon according to the author personally should be analyzed from 3 factors: 1. Strangeness Level 2. Witness 3. Evidence The three factors mentioned above should also be given weight. In this case the authors think that the level of oddity factor should have greater weighting than other factors. 3

Then from each factor must also be taken into account 3 things: a) Impact b) Likelihood (Probability) c) Quantity

Formulas The author formulates a formula below that accommodates the three factors mentioned above. The formulation of the formula that the author wrote here is version 0.95: USS =((2 x S) + W + E)/4

Information : •

USS : UFO Sighting Score

•

S : Strangeness Score

•

W : Witness Score

•

E : Evidence Score (Value of Evidence)

The minimum value for USS, S, W and E is 0 and the maximum value for USS, S, W and E is 100% (1.00). The values for USS, S, W and E can be grouped into 3 levels as follows: •

Low: 0-32%

•

Middle (Intermediate): 33-65%

•

High : 66-100%

4

Strangeness Score The Strangeness Score is calculated from the total number of times the Strangeness Level and Strangeness Probability (for each oddity), multiplied by the Strangeness Quantity Factor, then divided by the Total number of Strangeness.

S=∑𝒏𝒊=𝟏(𝑺𝑳 × 𝑺𝑷) ×SQF/TS Information : •

S (Strangeness Score) : Strangeness Value

•

SL (Strangeness Level): Strangeness Level

•

SP (Strangeness Probability): Possible Oddities

•

SQF (Strangeness Quantity Factor): The Amount of Strangeness Factor

•

TS (Total number of Strangeness) : The Total Number of Strangeness

• i: The number for each oddity • n: The last number of oddities Strangeness Level The following is a Strangeness Level List compiled by the author: 1. Bright or Pulsating Light &/or Changing Color :Objects that emit bright light, or light that pulses or changes color 5

2. Changing, Split, Merging Shapes :Objects that can change shape, break into multiple objects, or merge objects together 3. Giant Very Large Objects (>100 meters):Very large objects (>100 meters) 4. Strange Biological Effects :If there are strange biological effects on the surrounding environment, for example being unable to move limbs, effects of burns, effects of pain due to radiation, and so on. 5. Strange Physical Effects :If there are strange physical effects on the surrounding environment, for example a rotating magnetic compass, the shutdown of electronic devices, the shutdown of machines, and so on 6. Positive Lift :Maneuverability (which is not simple) to move in the air without any known components of control and air propulsion, for example no fins (rudder, tail), wings (wings), propellers (rotor), jet engines, rocket engines and so on. 7. Trans-Medium Travel :The ability to be able to maneuver both in the water, in the air, and outside the earth. 8. Low Observability :The ability to disappear from existing telemetry (measurement) sensors such as optical (visual), thermal (heat), sonar (sound) and radar (electro magnet) 9. Hypersonic Velocities Without Signatures :The ability to reach speeds above Mach 5 (5 times the speed of sound) without any traces of energy such as sonic booms or smoke. 10. Sudden and instantaneous acceleration: The ability to accelerate suddenly, for example reaching Mach 5 (5 times the speed of sound) or more in just 1-2 seconds. It

6

also includes the ability to drastically and suddenly change direction at high speed, for example changing course 90 degrees at Mach 5 or more. In addition, the author also includes numbers so that the Strangeness Level values can be sorted and used in the calculation of the UFO Sighting Score Formula.

Sample case Based on the Strangeness Level List above, the 2004 Tic Tac UFO case has 5 oddities: •

SL1: Sudden and instantaneous acceleration = 1.00

•

SL2: Hypersonic Velocities Without Signatures = 1.00

•

SL3: Low Observability = 0.95

•

SL4: Trans-Medium Travel = 0.85

•

sl5: Positive Lift = 0.85

Strangeness Probability To calculate the Strangeness Probability of each oddity we use the following formula: SP = DOS × SWD Information :

7

•

DOS (Directness Of Source): Proximity Source

•

SOD (Similarity With Description): Similarity With Description

Where DOS (Directness Of Source) is the proximity of the source or witness as follows: •

Direct: Witness (Source/Witness) who gave direct testimony

•

Witness Not Direct: Witness (Source/Witness) who provided information that a witness had seen something but did not want to testify in person.

•

Reference Not Direct: Witness (Source/Witness) who provides information but based on recorded or written reference sources.

Explanation of SOD (Similarity Of Description) is as follows: •

high: Description is the same as testimony and the object seen is the object in question.

•

Average: The description is similar to the testimony and the object seen is most likely the object in question.

•

Low: The description is somewhat similar to the testimony and the object seen is probably the object in question.

Meanwhile, to see the relationship between Level (Level) and Score (Value) for DOS and SOD, we can see from the following tables:

8

Sample case We can calculate the Strangeness Probability as follows: •

SP1: Sudden and instantaneous acceleration •

DOS = 1.0

•

SWD = 0.65

•

Note: Because there is still a possibility that the unidentified objects detected by the AN/SPY-1 radar on the cruiser USS Princeton (CG-59) are not the same as the Tic Tac UFOs seen by the F/A-18 and E-2C Hawkeye aircraft.

•

•

SP1 = DOS × SWD = 1.0 × 0.65 = 0.65

SP2: Hypersonic Velocities Without Signatures •

DOS = 1.0

•

SWD = 0.65

•

Note: Because there is still a possibility that the unidentified objects detected by the AN/SPY-1 radar on the cruiser USS Princeton (CG-59) are not the same as the Tic Tac UFOs seen by the F/A-18 and E-2C Hawkeye aircraft.

•

•

•

SP2 = DOS × SWD = 1.0 × 0.65 = 0.65

SP3: Low Observability •

DOS = 1.0

•

SWD = 1.0

•

SP3 = DOS × SWD = 1.0 × 1.0 = 1.0

SP4: Trans-Medium Travel

9

•

DOS = 0.65

•

Information : Because the information came from Witness Not Direct, namely the Sonar Operator of the USS Louisville submarine (SSN-724) a friend of Gary Voorhis on the USS Princeton cruiser (CG-59).

•

SWD = 0.65 Note: Because there is still a possibility that the unidentified objects detected by the AN/SPY-1 radar on the cruiser USS Princeton (CG-59) are not the same as the Tic Tac UFOs seen by the F/A-18 and E-2C Hawkeye aircraft.

•

•

SP4= DOS × SWD = 0.65 × 0.65 = 0.4225

SP5: Positive Lift •

DOS = 1.0

•

SWD = 1.0

•

SP5= DOS × SWD = 1.0 × 1.0 = 1.0

Total number of Strangeness The total number of strangeness is 5 (five): •

TS = 5

Strangeness Quantity Factor To determine the Strangeness Quantity Factor, it can be seen from the TS (Total number of Strangeness) value, which is 5. This means that the Strangeness Quantity Factor has a value of 1.0 as shown in the table below:

10

Calculation of Strangeness Score

S=∑𝒏𝒊=𝟏(𝑺𝑳 × 𝑺𝑷) ×SQF/TS •

SL1= 1.00

•

SL2= 1.00

•

SL3= 0.95

•

SL4= 0.85

•

sl5= 0.85

•

SP1= 0.65

•

SP2= 0.65

•

SP3= 1.00

•

SP4= 0.4225

•

SP5= 1.00

•

TS= 5

•

SQF= 1.00

S= ((SL1 SP1 ) + (SL2 SP2 ) + (SL3 SP3 ) + (SL4 SP4 ) + (SL5 SP5 ))×××××× SQF/TS S= ((1.00 0.65 ) +×(1.00 0.65 ) + (0.95 1.0 ) + (0.85 0.4225 ) + (0.85 1.00 ))××××× 1.00/5 S=(0.65 + 0.65 + 0.95 +0.359125 + 0.85)× 1.00/5 S=0.691825 (69.18%) Based on the Strangeness Level Table below, a Strangeness Score of 66.76% has reached a High Level.

11

Witnesss Score The Witness Score or Witness Value is calculated from the total multiplied by the Witness Level and Witness Probability (for each witness), multiplied by the Witness Quantity Factor, then divided by the Total number of Witnesses.

W=∑𝒏𝒊=𝟏(𝑾𝑳 × 𝑾𝑷) ×WQF / TW Information : •

W (Witness Score) : Witness Value

•

WL (Witness Level): Witness Level

•

WP (Witness Probability): Likely witnesses

•

WQF (Witness Quantity Factor): Witness Number Factor

•

TW (Total number of Witnesses): Total number of Witnesses

• i: Number for each witness • n: The last number of the witness Witness Level The division of levels of the Witness Level compiled by the author is: 12

1. Not really related to the Testimony: Profession unrelated to testimony. For example, the profession of a person whose level of knowledge, expertise and experience is not related to his testimony. 2. Mildly related to the Testimony

: Professions related to testimony. For example,

the profession of a person whose level of knowledge, expertise and experience is somewhat related tohis testimony. Professions in this category are equipped with the ability to use theory and expertise to analyze these sightings. For example professions related to physics, meteorology, aerodynamics, astronomy and so on if the testimony is about the appearance of unknown flying objects in the sky. In this context, the teaching profession in the fields mentioned above is included in this category. 3. Highly related to the Testimony

: A profession that is closely related to

testimony. For example, the profession of a person whose level of knowledge, expertise and experience is closely related tohis testimony. Professions in this category are complemented by the ability to use skills and experience to analyze these sightings. An example is a profession related to aviation or airplanes if the witness is about the sighting of an unidentified flying object in the sky. In this context the profession of Civil Aircraft Pilot or Military Aircraft Pilot is included in this category. In addition, the authors also include numbers so that they can sort the Witness Level values and so that they can be used in calculating the UFO Sighting Score Formula.

13

Sample case The following is a list of witnesses to the 2004 Tic Tac UFO incident along with their Witness Level values: •

•

•

•

•

•

•

WL1 : Cdr. Dave Fravor (FAST EAGLE 01 Pilot) •

WL1 = 1.0

•

Description : Due to the testimony related to visually visible unidentified flying objects

WL2 : Lt. Anonymous (FAST EAGLE 01 WSO) •

WL2 = 1.0

•

Description : Due to the testimony related to visually visible unidentified flying objects

WL3 : Lt. Alex Dietrich (FAST EAGLE 02 Pilot) •

WL3 = 1.0

•

Description : Due to the testimony related to visually visible unidentified flying objects

WL4 : Lt. Cdr. Jim Slaight (FAST EAGLE 02 WSO) •

WL4 = 1.0

•

Description : Due to the testimony related to visually visible unidentified flying objects

WL5 : Lt. Anonymous (F/A-18F+FLIR Pilot) •

WL5 = 1.0

•

Description : Due to testimony regarding an unidentified flying object seen on FLIR.

WL6 : Lt. Chad Underwood (F/A-18F+FLIR WSO) •

WL6 = 1.0

•

Description : Due to testimony regarding an unidentified flying object seen on FLIR.

WL7 : Lt. Col. Douglas Kurth(F/A-18C Pilot) •

WL7 = 1.0

14

•

Note : Due to testimony related to the mission to investigate an unidentified flying object detected on the radar of the AN/SPY-1 cruiser USS Princeton (CG-59).

•

WL8 : AT2 Patrick Hughes (Aviation Technician) •

WL8 = 0.6

•

Note: Because the person concerned is only the ground crew and not the air crew.

•

WL9 : Anonymous aka "Roger" (E-2C Air Control Officer) •

WL9 = 0.8

•

Explanation : Because the person concerned is an air crew and visually saw a Tic Tac UFO in the air.

•

WL10 : Anonymous (E-2C Pilot) •

WL10 = 1.0

•

Explanation : Because the person concerned is a pilot and visually saw the UFO Tic Tac in the air.

•

WL11 : Anonymous (E-2C Copilot) •

WL11 = 1.0

•

Explanation : Because the person concerned is the co-pilot and visually saw the UFO Tic Tac in the air.

•

WL12 : Anonymous (E-2C Combat Information Center Officer) •

WL12 = 0.8

•

Explanation : Because the person concerned is an air crew and visually saw a Tic Tac UFO in the air.

•

WL13 : Anonymous (E-2C Radar Operator) •

WL13 = 0.8 15

•

Explanation : Because the person concerned is an air crew and visually saw a Tic Tac UFO in the air.

•

WL14 : Omar Lara (Fuel Systems Operator) •

WL14 = 1.0

•

Note: Because the person concerned is only the ground crew and not the air crew.

•

WL15 : OSCS Kevin Day(Air Intercept Supervisor/Fire Control Technician) •

WL15 = 1.0

•

Description : Because the person concerned has expertise and experience in radar and testimony related to the sighting of an unidentified object on radar.

•

WL16 : FC3 Gary Voorhis (Fire Controlman) •

WL16 = 1.0

•

Description : Because the person concerned has expertise and experience in radar and testimony related to the sighting of an unidentified object on radar.

•

WL17 : SKSN Jason Turner (Supply) •

•

WL18 : CT03 Karson Kammerzell (Cryptologic Technician) •

•

WL19= 0.6

WL20 : MA Sean Cahill (Master-At-Arms) •

•

WL18= 0.6

WL19 : AD1(AW) Ryan Weigelt •

•

WL17 = 0.6

WL19= 0.6

WL21 : Lt Elders aka "Poison" (Air Controller)

16

•

WL20 = 1.0

•

Description : Because the person concerned has expertise and experience in radar and testimony related to the sighting of an unidentified object on radar.

•

WL22 : Anonymous (Submarine Sonar Operator) •

WL21 = 1.0

•

Description : Because the person concerned has expertise and experience in sonar and testimony related to the sighting of an unidentified object on sonar.

Witness Probability The following is a list of Witness Probability Levels compiled by the author: •

Testified Direct Witness: Witness who saw firsthand (and the story he gave from the side of logic, connection, sequence and description describes exactly the phenomenon that happened) and has given direct testimony

•

Non-Testified Direct Witness: Witness who has seen first hand (and the story he gave in terms of logic, connection, sequence and description describes exactly the phenomena that occur) but has not given direct testimony

•

Testified Non-Direct Witness: Witnesses who have testified directly but did not see them directly but received information from witnesses who saw them directly or from recorded or written references. Or Witness who testified directly but the object he saw was only similar or somewhat similar to the object in question. Or this could also be Witness who testified directly but got the information through telepathic communication.

•

Non-Testified Non-Direct Witness: Witnesses who have not testified directly, did not see them directly but got information from witnesses who saw them directly or from recorded or written references. Or Witness who did not testify directly, but the object she saw was only similar or somewhat similar to the object in question. Or it could also be Witness who did not testify directly and got her information by way of telepathic communication.

17

To calculate the Witness Probability Level Score we can use the table below:

Sample case The following is a list of witnesses in the 2004 Tic Tac UFO incident along with their Witness Probability values: •

WP1 : Cdr. Dave Fravor (FAST EAGLE 01 Pilot) •

•

WP2 : Lt. Anonymous (FAST EAGLE 01 WSO) •

•

WP4 = 0.8

WP5 : Lt. Anonymous (F/A-18F+FLIR Pilot) •

•

WP3 = 1.0

WP4 : Lt. Cdr. Jim Slaight (FAST EAGLE 02 WSO) •

•

WP2 = 0.8

WP3 : Lt. Alex Dietrich (FAST EAGLE 02 Pilot) •

•

WP1 = 1.0

WP5 = 0.8

WP6 : Lt. Chad Underwood (F/A-18F+FLIR WSO) •

WP6 = 1.0

•

Description : Due to testimony regarding an unidentified flying object seen on FLIR. 18

•

WP7 : Lt. Col. Douglas Kurth(F/A-18C Pilot) •

•

WL8 : AT2 Patrick Hughes (Aviation Technician) •

•

WP16 = 1.0

WP17 : SKSN Jason Turner (Supply) •

•

WP15 = 1.0

WP16 : FC3 Gary Voorhis (Fire Controlman) •

•

WP14 = 0.6

WP15 : OSCS Kevin Day(Air Intercept Supervisor/Fire Control Technician) •

•

WP13 = 0.8

WP14 : Omar Lara (Fuel Systems Operator) •

•

WP12 = 0.8

WP13 : Anonymous (E-2C Radar Operator) •

•

WP11 = 0.8

WP12 : Anonymous (E-2C Combat Information Center Officer) •

•

WP10 = 0.8

WP11 : Anonymous (E-2C Copilot) •

•

WP9 = 0.8

WP10 : Anonymous (E-2C Pilot) •

•

WL8 = 0.6

WP9 : Anonymous aka "Roger" (E-2C Air Control Officer) •

•

WP7 = 1.0

WP17 = 0.6

WP18 : CT03 Karson Kammerzell (Cryptologic Technician)

19

• •

WP19 : AD1(AW) Ryan Weigelt •

•

WP19 = 0.6

WP21 : Lt Elders aka "Poison" (Air Controller) •

•

WP19 = 0.6

WP20 : MA Sean Cahill (Master-At-Arms) •

•

WP18= 0.6

WL20 = 0.8

WP22 : Anonymous (Submarine Sonar Operator) •

WP21 = 0.8

Total number of Witnesses The total number of witnesses or the total number of witnesses is 22 (twenty two): •

TW = 22

Witness Quantity Factor To determine the Witness Quantity Factor, it can be seen from the TW (Total number of Witness) value, which is 21. This means that the Witness Quantity Factor has a value of 1.0 as shown in the table below:

20

Calculation of Witness Score

W=∑𝒏𝒊=𝟏(𝑾𝑳 × 𝑾𝑷) ×WQF / TW Where : •

WL1 = 1.0

•

WL2 = 1.0

•

WL3 = 1.0

•

WL4 = 1.0

•

WL5 = 1.0

•

WL6 = 1.0

•

WL7 = 1.0

•

WL8 = 0.6

•

WL9 = 0.8

•

WL10 = 1.0

•

WL11 = 1.0

•

WL12 = 0.8

•

WL13 = 0.8

•

WL14 = 1.0

•

WL15 = 1.0

•

WL16 = 1.0

•

WL17 = 0.6

•

WL18 = 0.6

•

WL19 = 0.6

21

•

WL20 = 0.6

•

WL21 = 1.0

•

WL22 = 1.0

•

WP1 = 1.0

•

WP2 = 0.8

•

WP3 = 1.0

•

WP4 = 0.8

•

WP5 = 0.8

•

WP6 = 1.0

•

WP7 = 1.0

•

WL8 = 0.6

•

WP9 = 0.8

•

WP10 = 0.8

•

WP11 = 0.8

•

WP12 = 0.8

•

WP13 = 0.8

•

WP14 = 0.6

•

WP15 = 1.0

•

WP16 = 1.0

•

WP17 = 0.6

•

WP18 = 0.6

•

WP19 = 0.6

•

WP20 = 0.6

22

•

WL21 = 0.8

•

WP22 = 0.8

•

TW = 21

•

WQF = 1.0

W= (( WL1×WP1 ) +(WL2×WP2 ) +(WL3×WP3 ) +(WL4×WP4 ) +(WL5×WP5 ) +(WL6×WP6 ) +(WL7×WP7 ) +(WL8×WP8 ) +(WL9×WP9 ) +(WL10×WP10 ) +(WL11×WP11 ) +(WL12×WP12 ) +(WL13×WP13 ) +(WL14×WP14 ) +(WL15×WP15 ) +(WL16×WP16 ) +(WL17×WP17 ) +(WL18×WP18 ) +(WL19×WP19 ) +(WL20×WP20 ) +(WL21×WP21 ) +(WL22×WP22)) ×WQF / TW

W= (( 1×1 ) +( 1×0.8 ) +( 1×1 ) +( 1×0.8 ) +( 1×0.8 ) +( 1×1 ) + ( 1×1 ) +( 0.6×0.6 ) +( 0.8×0.8 ) +( 1×0.8 ) +( 1×0.8 ) +( 0.8×0.8 ) + ( 0.8×0.8 ) +( 1×0.6 ) +( 1×1 ) +( 1×1 ) +( 0.6×0.6 ) +( 0.6×0.6 ) + ( 0.6×0.6 ) +( 0.6×0.6 ) +( 1×0.8 ) +( 1×0.8)) ×1.0/ 22

W= (( 1 +0.8+1+0.8 +0.8 +1+1+0.36+0.64+0.8+0.8+0.64+ 0.64+0.6 +1+1+0.36+0.36+0.36+0.36+0.8+0.8 ) ×1.0/ 22

W= 0.7236363636363636 (72.36%) Based on the Witness Score Table below, a Witness Score of 72.36% has reached a High Level.

23

Evidence Score The Evidence Score is calculated from the total number of times the Evidence Level and Evidence Probability (for each piece of evidence), multiplied by the Evidence Quantity Factor, then divided by the Total number of Evidence.

E=∑𝒏𝒊=𝟏(𝑬𝑳 × 𝑬𝑷) ×EQF / TE Information : •

E (Evidence Score): Evidence Value

•

EL (Evidence Level) : Level of Evidence

•

EP (Evidence Probability) : Probability of Evidence

•

EQF (Evidence Quantity Factor): Factor Amount of Evidence

•

TE (Total number of Evidence): Total Number of Evidence

• i: The number for each evidence • n: The last number of evidence Evidence Level The division of levels of Evidence Level compiled by the author is:

24

1. Low Quality Photos :Low quality photos 2. Low Quality Videos :Low quality videos 3. Medium Quality Photo :Medium quality photo 4. Medium Quality Videos :Medium quality videos 5. High Quality Photo/ Low Quality Infrared Sensor Record :High quality photos / Low quality heat sensor footage 6. High Quality Video / Low Quality Radar Sensor Record :High quality video / Low quality Radar Recording 7. High Quality Infra Red Sensor Record / Low Quality Radioactive Sensor Record :High quality heat sensor recordings / Low quality radioactive sensor recordings 8. High Quality Radar Records / High Quality Sonar Records :High quality Radar recording 9. High Quality Radioactive Sensor Record :High quality radioactive sensor recordings 10. Alien Physical Materials / Alien Biological Materials :Alien Physical Material / Alien Biological Material In addition, the authors also include numbers so that they can sort the Evidence Level values and so that they can be used in calculating the UFO Sighting Score Formula.

25

Sample case The following is a list of evidence in the 2004 Tic Tac UFO incident along with its Evidence Level value: •

EL1 : Low quality FLIR (F/A-18F) recording •

•

EL2 : High quality FLIR (F/A-18F) recording •

•

EL2 = 0.7 (High Quality Heat Sensor Record)

EL3 : RADAR Recording (AN/SPY-1 USS Princeton CG-59) •

•

EL1 = 0.5 (Low Quality Heat Sensor Record)

EL3 = 0.8 (High Quality EM Sensor Records)

EL4 : SONAR Recording (AN/BQQ-10 A-RCI USS Louisville SS-724) •

EL3 = 0.80

26

Evidence Probability The following is a list of Evidence Probability Levels compiled by the author: •

Public Direct Evidence: Evidence that is publicly available or directly accessible to the investigative team

•

Non-Public Direct Evidence :Evidence that is not/has not been publicly accessible but there are witnesses who have seen it in person

•

Non-Public Non-Direct Evidence :Evidence that is not/has not been publicly accessible and the information is only obtained from recorded or written references.

Sample case The following is a list of evidence in the 2004 Tic Tac UFO incident along with its Evidence Probability value: •

EP1 : Low quality FLIR (F/A-18F) recording •

•

EP2 : High quality FLIR (F/A-18F) recording •

•

EP1 = 1.00

EP2 = 0.80

EP3 : RADAR Recording (AN/SPY-1 USS Princeton CG-59) •

EP3 = 0.80 27

•

EP4 : SONAR Recording (AN/BQQ-10 A-RCI USS Louisville SS-724) •

EP3 = 0.80

Total number of Evidence The total number of Evidence or the Total Number of Evidence is 4 (four): •

TE = 4

Evidence Quantity Factor To determine the Evidence Quantity Factor, it can be seen from the TE value (Total number of Evidence, which is 3. This means that the Witness Quantity Factor has a value of 0.65 as shown in the table below:

Calculation of Evidence Score

E=∑𝒏𝒊=𝟏(𝑬𝑳 × 𝑬𝑷) ×EQF / TE Where : •

EL1 = 0.5

•

EL2 = 0.7

•

EL3 = 0.8 28

•

EL4 = 0.8

•

EP1 = 1.00

•

EP2 = 0.80

•

EP3 = 0.80

•

EP4 = 0.80

•

TE = 3

•

EQF = 0.65

E= ((EL1× EP1) +(EL2× EP2) +(EL3× EP3) +(EL4× EP4) ×EQF / TE

E= ((0.5× 1.00) +(0.7× 0.80) +(0.8× 0.80) +(0.8× 0.80)) ×0.65/4 E= ( 0.5+0.56+0.64+0.64) ×0.65/4 E=0.38025 (38.03%)

Based on the Evidence Score Table or Table of Evidence Values below, the Evidence Score value of 38.03% is in the Average Level or Middle Level category.

UFO Sighting Score Calculation Calculation of USS (UFO Sighting Score version 0.95) uses the formula below: USS =((2 x S) + W + E)/4 29

Where : •

S= 0.6918

•

W= 0.7236

•

E= 0.38035

USS =((2 x 0.6918) + 0.7236 + 0.38025)/ 4 USS=0.6218625 (62.19%) Based on the UFO Sighting Score Table below, the UFO Sighting Score value of 62.19% is in the Average Level or Middle Level category.

So, from the results of the calculation of the UFO Sighting Score for the 2004 UFO Tic Tac case, we get: •

Strangenesshas a value of 69.18% and is included in the High or High category.

•

witnesshas a value of 72.36% and is included in the High or High category.

•

evidencehas a value of 38.03% and is included in the Average or Medium category

•

UFO SIGHTING SCORE has a value of 62.19% and is included in the Middle or Middle category.

30

The high scores of Strangeness and Witness in the 2004 Tic Tac UFO case are indeed very interesting. There are 5 Strangenesses and 22 Witnesses in this 2004 Tic Tac UFO case. And it is indeed possible that this case has contributed to expediting the UFO Disclosure process. However, the value of Evidence in this case is in the medium category, this is because 3 pieces of evidence were not disclosed to the public, namely: 1. High quality FLIR (F/A-18F) recording 2. High quality RADAR (AN/SPY-1 USS Princeton CG-59) footage 3. High quality SONAR recording (AN/BQQ-10 A-RCI USS Lousville SSN-724) And indeed, because the value of Evidence was at a moderate level when the evidence for the 2004 UFO Tic Tac case was posted on the Internet discussion forum “Above Top Secret”, most people did not believe in this case. This was mainly because at that time not many witnesses had appeared to the public. The results of the UFO Sighting score which are in the middle category indicate that the possibility of public trust in this case is only 50/50 or half measures. However, because the 31

2004 Tic Tac UFO case has received recognition from both the US Navy and the US Department of Defense, public confidence in this case may now be in the High category.

32