A More Accurate Representation, Without the Chaff

Greetings. UFO sighting reports have been collected for decades, with some flaps, waves, and patterns having been discerned from the available information. 

However, are the flaps, waves, and patterns that have been discerned by UFO investigators accurate? Let's take a different look at the available information....

Are UFO investigators drawing conclusions from the raw information? It seems so. In my humble opinion, UFO investigators should be drawing conclusions only from those cases that have been properly investigatived, and only those that have either remained unexplained, or have anomalous characteristics. 

UFO researchers often make statements like "This is a UFO hotspot," or "Hundreds of cases have been reported in the area," or the dreaded "There were thousands of cases that year." All those statements can be misleading, especially if legitimate and scientifically minded investigations have not been conducted. Take the "thousands of cases" statement. The term "thousands of cases" suggests a high level of anomalous activity, but how many of those cases have been thoroughly examined? How many of those cases are robust and unexplained? Just throwing a blanket over the situation is not good science, not at all. Such a blanket statement is inaccurate, especially in the face of the historical fact that the majority of UFO sighting reports are never investigated. Just blindly accepting them as valid is sloppy and not an investigative standard to aspire to. Not at all.

Ask any UFO historian or field investigator with an ounce of professional integrity, and they will tell you that the vast majority of UFO reports end up being explained by mundane phenomena; birds, drones, bugs on windshields, weather activity, atmospheric phenomena, etc.... Taking that to its logical conclusion, it makes absolutely no sense to throw blanket statements around about the perceived prevalence of anomalous or extraterrestrial activity. Declaring that "hundreds of cases have been reported in the area" is not a scientific statement, it is a sloppy, unfounded opinion, and nothing more. If every single UFO sighting report had been thoroughly investigated, then the aforementioned statement would carry some weight, but that is seldom the case. Despite this, well-known UFO investigators, celebrities, and personalities continue to make such unscientific assertions. 

Extraterrestrial visitation may well have occurred. Anomalous events may well have transpired. However, the need for proper investigative standards remains imperative, unsupported opinions should take a back seat.

Thank you for your time and consideration.