What Are UFOs?
A Bayesian assessment of the public record
Most unusual aerial reports can have ordinary explanations without resolving every strong case. The paper evaluates a mixed public record rather than assuming one cause for all sightings.
The argument
It separates eyewitness accounts, sensor records, missing raw data, institutional claims, and conventional explanations. A recent conventional analysis of PR-135 illustrates why an initially intriguing case can deserve a downward update.
How to read this assessment
The working 32% allocation concerns some nonhuman contribution to the ensemble, not 32% of individual sightings. It is a subjective assessment, and an unresolved case alone does not identify extraterrestrial technology.
A question worth pursuing
What calibrated, independently inspectable evidence would distinguish the competing explanations?
Cite and share
This page provides an editorial introduction. Consult the paper for its complete evidence, assumptions, sources, and collaboration disclosures. Downloads preserve the edition retrieved on October 18, 2026.