Home
Alien t-shirts
Methodology in Ufology
A key factor to the credibility of ufology is how each case and sighting is investigated, how the informations are processed and how a UFO researcher works. UFOs are mostly related to fantasy, sci-fi and hoaxes because most do think there is no standard protocol employed to investigate UFOs.
By Michele Bugliaro Goggia - last modified: April 12, 2007 5:55 PM
A key factor to the credibility of ufology is how each case and sighting is investigated, how the informations are processed and how a UFO researcher works. UFOs are mostly related to fantasy, sci-fi and hoaxes because most do think there is no standard protocol employed to investigate UFOs. This is, sadly, often true. It's widely recognized that ufology is not a science yet, because of the many amateur investigators who seek money, fame and personal reward. If the ufologist has little or no knowledge of scientific protocols, any case is likely to become famous extraterrestrial UFO.
Ufology (and not UFOlogy, for God's sake) is the study of anomalous aerial phenomena and not the search of extraterrestrials. Prime aim of UFO research is to find patterns behind such anomalous phenomenon through the study of cases, statistics and every mean offered by science. Ufology is not the study of human generated reports, simply because the witness is one side of the UFO puzzle. The UFO phenomenon deserves to be observed and studied through experiences able to alter its variables. Trouble is, the UFO phenomenon itself does not present on demand. Quo vadis, then?
Evaluating the UFO phenomenon
It's now easy to understand how and why ufology needs a proper methodology. There are scientists who have published papers about UFOs. They use a methodology. In particular, an Official French department, once called GEPAN, later SEPRA, has developed and tested, between 1978 and 1979, an investigation protocol that just works.
The researcher (investigator, ufologist) is just one among other means available to an investigation, other instruments available being photography, radars, statistics, labs, eye-witnesses, optics, press, animal reactions. All these must coexist to find out the real origins of an aerial phenomenon. I believe claiming to find out flying saucers is not correct.
The center of every investigation is the stimulus, the phenomenon (I'm not talking about the object!). To achieve a professional result, four key elements gravitating around the stimulus must be understood case by case:
- psychosocial medium (social and cultural context, media behaviours)
- witnessing (deposition, recording)
- physical medium (traces on the ground, audio recordings, photos, weather and astronomical conditions, etc.)
- witness (physiological and psychological aspects)
The very first part is the investigation takes place in loco. Each conversation must be recorded on tape. The witness are separately interrogated, recreating in a faithful way the original conditions (same car, distance, parking, and so on). He or she then proceeds to the factual reconstruction: the witness tells many times the story (in order to confront each version), measuring the duration and the distances, without forgetting about the shape and the aspect of the phenomenon observed, the dimension related to the surrounding references (houses, trees...). Based on the indications of the witness, thanks to a special WILD theodolite ("SIMOVNI"), the investigators calculate the measures and the distances. The witness draws sketches of the phenomenon (one has even realized a wooden maquette). A successive positioning method uses two investigators who, in correspondence of the point in which the phenomenon has been observed in sky or on the ground, allow to measure the distance between the witness and the phenomenon and/or the dimension of the same phenomenon. If there are physical traces, samples have to be taken for further analysis in respected labs. Also, it's useful to figure out what has caused such effect, and how we could replicate it. There follows an encounter between witness and psychologist.
The color of the observed phenomenon covers equal importance: in order to avoid unclear descriptions, or worse wrong interpretations, the researcher shows the witness(es) a Pantone colour palette, to decide the closest colour of the phenomenon he or she has observed. With Pantone, every color is associated with a code and one ink. The witness chooses the colour, not the researcher.
The second phase stretches to collect and to study all collected datas: coherence of the witnesses, comparison of the phenomenon with other known phenomena: a table-memorandum, put together by astronomer Claude Poher in 1977, exists with the scope to help the investigator at recognizing the more common phenomena. The psychologist evaluates the characteristics of each observation. The most common causes of misunderstanding are car lights, airplanes, stars, laser beams, insects, Moon, Venus, balloons, meteors, clouds, satellites, etc.
Finally, once the reports of all the specialists have been collected, it is time to find an explanation. A photograph alone is not enough. If the phenomenon featured unknown physical characteristics, found also on the surrounding atmosphere, with a detailed and complete report, then we could speak about unidentified flying object. I assure to you that these cases exist. That means one single researcher is not enough. Furthermore, that means a researcher must know when to stop and pass it on to someone more prepared: the most stupid mistake for a ufologist would be to play the psychologist or the professor of chemistry. More likely, various external advisings (laboratories) and the collaboration of the police are demanded. These advisings are not free at all, the lab analysis cost a lot. You'll understand how difficult to support a decent research can be:
- funds and free time are required
- the bad reputation of ufologists discourages every serious lab
- witnesses may not be available to work with ufologists
There is one more thing. Researchers deal with persons, with humans and with their emotions. It can happen he or she is demanded a declaration for the medias (TV, newspaper, radio). Firstly and always protect and respect witnesses and their privacy. There are media sharks who are just after a weird story, there are bozos out there who are not to be trusted. The National Institute for Discovery Science writes, in a paper about an alleged "alien claw", a phrase I truly find deeply correct:
(a) always follow the scientific data, (b) resist the temptation to tie purported physical evidence with a nearby anomaly until the analysis is fully completed, (c) resist the impulse to publish (or publicize) during an ongoing investigation.
Truer words were never spoken. This article cover the basics, but others have extended the subject, such as Ballester-Guapp for the MUFON: from 1992, reports receive a numerical treatment.
external links
© Michele Bugliaro Goggia. All rights reserved. All content on the Ufopsi website, including texts and graphics, is property of Michele Bugliaro Goggia. Some content may be protected by other copyrights and other restrictions as well. Site designed for 1024x768 resolution.
