Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Sep -> Re: UFO sighting with John Velez

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 02:23:01 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:30:37 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO sighting with John Velez

John's response to my last post, and some of the other items which
have been exchanged on the subject seem to me to be signs that
this is getting out of hand.

I certainly have no intent of providing offense to John, and, frankly,
if it hadn't been for some of his flames directed at
researchers engaged in historical pursuits, I had really intended
to hang back and not comment specifically on his sighting.

Why?

First, because I am a researcher, rather than an investigator. That's
personal preference and allocation of time, though I have done a
small amount of investigation.

Second, because I was afraid that this is what would result when
trying to deal with someone's sighting on the Internet, especially when
it is clear that a fair amount of interpretation has already been
assigned to this sighting by the witness. Flames and counterflames.

I'd like to return to the way in which, in my view, an investigation is
carried out, because I think in the case of both John, and earlier,
Jose, this led to a good deal of misunderstanding and unnecessary
anger.

(I'd also like to point out that these procedures are even more
rigorously followed when I see something odd. Interest in UFOs
by a witness is a factor that I consider makes it much more difficult
to be sure of uncontaminated data. To have a UFO investigator
who sees something can be even more fraught with peril, and to
BE both witness and unbiased investigator is almost impossible -
thus, procedures, carefully followed, as a safeguard).

1) Assume that the sighting is of a normal object. This is typically a
safe bet. 70-90% of all sightings are probably normal objects seen
under abnormal conditions or otherwise misinterpreted.

2) Conjecture possible normal causes and establish conditions of
proof and disproof for those hypotheses. Even unlikely hypotheses
must be considered. I refer you to the case of Coral Lorenzen's
cloud cigar, which turned out to be an unusual contrail.

3) Check everything possible and extract every bit of data. Give
little or no weight to apparent size or distance unsupported by
triangulation. Use any angular measurements possible to bolster
or destroy a hypothesis. Call every resource to determine if
an aircraft, balloon, or other mundane occurrence may be
responsible for the sighting. If there are other witnesses, in
other locations, no matter how close, use them to help derive
triangulation, with a healthy respect for sources of error.

4) Be aggressive with 1-3 above until the data literally forces you
to support the case as an unknown. Even when the case is classed
unknown, be cautious if little or no strangeness is present, or if
the durations are very short or very long. Also be cautious when
there are many similar sightings or many photos in one area
over one period of time or produced by one witness.

5) If the sighting survives 1-4, then assess its quality. Does it
contribute something important to the study of UFOs? This is very
unlikely for NL or distant DD cases, except in the few cases
where reliable triangulations can be used to document energy
output (NL) or size (NL/DD) or where instrumentation (i.e.
filters, magnetic field measurment equipment, radiation counters)
show something unusual, or where the manuvers and a known
distance allow assessment of acceleration/speed. Large angular size NL
cases which do not show anomalous trajectories, accelerations or
luminous structure are also not particularly useful. What are needed
are cases which show features of structure, luminosity, manuvering,
or physical effects. These are the most important cases and require
the most intense focus. Unfortunately, they are also the least
common, even among unknowns.

Now, it's true I suggested that the witnesses carry out some
computations to evaluate the balloon hypothesis. Why was that?
Was it just to offend them, or to cast aspersions on their perceptions or
evaluation of same? No. It was simply because they are the only
ones who can do this. Angular size, elevation, and azimuth
from each of the witnesses have not been made available (unless
I've missed that also). Without them, one cannot do the calculations.
But, presumably, the witnesses may still be capable of estimating
these if they have not yet done so.

John, what I'm after are carefully and aggressively filtered unknowns
with details sufficient to supply some level of scientific information.
But, as I mentioned a fair amount of time before, I can't go to the
site to investigate the case. All I can do is make suggestions. And
it seems to me we are still in phase 2-3, but I suspect you think
we are at or past 5. Obviously, this will lead to conflict.

I don't think there's much more I can offer than this.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman
- Original digital art, writing, and UFO research -
Author of SF novels available at...
http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront
------