Read Online Flying Saucer to the Center of Your Mind: Selected Writings of John A. Keel by John A. Keel - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: John A. Keel
Ads: Link
civilian UFO organizations have never made any progress because they have been concerned with trying to interpret the meaning of the objects, determining their source, and attacking the Air Force explanation. Proving the reliability of witness became more important to them than learning the details of what the witnesses actually experienced.
A few years ago, Dr. J. Allen Hynek devised a "Strangeness" index to compare witness reliability with the degree of strangeness in their report. Unfortunately, strangeness is totally subjective, like pain, and difficult – if not altogether impossible – to measure. What might seem incredibly strange to one inexperienced investigator might seem almost routine to a more experienced person. Reliability is also difficult to establish. The usual criterion is the person’s occupation. But the history of ufology has shown that a town drunk can have a real UFO experience as well as the town’s police chief. The drunk would automatically receive a very low rating on the reliability scale. The police chief might actually be a conniving, cantankerous, lying old reprobate, but his occupation would give him high rating.
Similarly, a person who has a long history of prophetic dreams and other psychic experiences might be known to the local gossips as a crackpot, and would rate low on the reliability scale. But extensive UFO studies have shown that this is also the kind person
most likely
to have a genuine low-level or landing sighting. Their psychic ability might also make them susceptible to receiving a telepathic message or undergoing something even stranger. So they would have a high strangeness quotient and a low reliability rating, thus negating their report and unfairly depriving the public of valuable information.
Witnesses should be judged only by experts trained in such matters: psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and experienced journalists. An experienced lawyer can be a much better UFO investigator than an astrophysicist, for example (whose training does not include dealing with – and judging – people). If nothing else, the past 30 years have taught us that technology is virtually useless in UFO investigation. Nevertheless many civilian investigators still load themselves down with Geiger counters and other expensive gadgets. It is true that excessive radiation has been found at a few UFO sites in the past 30 years, but so few that the odds for stumbling into such a situation are astronomical. Even then, Geiger counters can only indicate the presence of radiation. They cannot give an accurate and scientific measurement of the radiation.
Today, experienced investigators carry tape recorders for interviewing witnesses, and a few plastic bags for collecting samples of any substances that might be found at the UFO site. A compass, a star chart for locating the exact position of the brightest stars in the sky at the time of the sighting, and a pocket camera are the only other pieces of equipment you will really need. Elaborately outfitted expeditions lugging walkie-talkies, theodolites, flares, and firearms are a thing of the past.
Finally, what should you do with your UFO report once you have carefully interviewed the witnesses and painstakingly typed it all up? Make several copies and distribute them to more than one organization or investigative body. The national UFO organizations have a distressing habit of throwing the reports they receive into a file drawer and forgetting about them. Some organizations even demand exclusive rights to all reports they receive. You might as well flush your report down the toilet.
If the witnesses don’t want their names used, give their full names, addresses, etc., in your report but include a notation stating that they wish to remain anonymous. If they agree to having their names used, get the agreement in writing. If you take photographs, buy a pad of “model release” forms from a camera store and make sure everyone who appears
A few years ago, Dr. J. Allen Hynek devised a "Strangeness" index to compare witness reliability with the degree of strangeness in their report. Unfortunately, strangeness is totally subjective, like pain, and difficult – if not altogether impossible – to measure. What might seem incredibly strange to one inexperienced investigator might seem almost routine to a more experienced person. Reliability is also difficult to establish. The usual criterion is the person’s occupation. But the history of ufology has shown that a town drunk can have a real UFO experience as well as the town’s police chief. The drunk would automatically receive a very low rating on the reliability scale. The police chief might actually be a conniving, cantankerous, lying old reprobate, but his occupation would give him high rating.
Similarly, a person who has a long history of prophetic dreams and other psychic experiences might be known to the local gossips as a crackpot, and would rate low on the reliability scale. But extensive UFO studies have shown that this is also the kind person
most likely
to have a genuine low-level or landing sighting. Their psychic ability might also make them susceptible to receiving a telepathic message or undergoing something even stranger. So they would have a high strangeness quotient and a low reliability rating, thus negating their report and unfairly depriving the public of valuable information.
Witnesses should be judged only by experts trained in such matters: psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and experienced journalists. An experienced lawyer can be a much better UFO investigator than an astrophysicist, for example (whose training does not include dealing with – and judging – people). If nothing else, the past 30 years have taught us that technology is virtually useless in UFO investigation. Nevertheless many civilian investigators still load themselves down with Geiger counters and other expensive gadgets. It is true that excessive radiation has been found at a few UFO sites in the past 30 years, but so few that the odds for stumbling into such a situation are astronomical. Even then, Geiger counters can only indicate the presence of radiation. They cannot give an accurate and scientific measurement of the radiation.
Today, experienced investigators carry tape recorders for interviewing witnesses, and a few plastic bags for collecting samples of any substances that might be found at the UFO site. A compass, a star chart for locating the exact position of the brightest stars in the sky at the time of the sighting, and a pocket camera are the only other pieces of equipment you will really need. Elaborately outfitted expeditions lugging walkie-talkies, theodolites, flares, and firearms are a thing of the past.
Finally, what should you do with your UFO report once you have carefully interviewed the witnesses and painstakingly typed it all up? Make several copies and distribute them to more than one organization or investigative body. The national UFO organizations have a distressing habit of throwing the reports they receive into a file drawer and forgetting about them. Some organizations even demand exclusive rights to all reports they receive. You might as well flush your report down the toilet.
If the witnesses don’t want their names used, give their full names, addresses, etc., in your report but include a notation stating that they wish to remain anonymous. If they agree to having their names used, get the agreement in writing. If you take photographs, buy a pad of “model release” forms from a camera store and make sure everyone who appears
Similar Books
