The third and final facet of ADI methodology includes another radical, but grounded idea involving experimentation in interacting with a UFO. Considering the many sightings where witnesses have interacted with UFOs as pilots or watchmen, having their gun fire evaded and electronic systems disabled, this is a reasonable approach. These are examples of interaction, and with a similar principle, can be replicated as an apparatus for experimentation as field instrumentation. Perhaps through mimicry, light signals, or RF transmissions we could begin to interact with a UFO. An example of an interaction apparatus might be of a satellite in orbit displaying a physical round red button with a tag that said “Press Me”. A camera would be observing the button, and a sensitive vibration sensor is positioned near the button to detect any physical movements of the button sliding up or down. If a UFO were to decide to engage in the experiment, the button would be depressed (something that could not happen in the emptiness of orbit without a physical effort) and we may or may not have footage. Although not an accurate example, it visually communicates the idea of an interaction apparatus in a field experiment.
Together with Attraction and Detection, the use of Interaction is the final step in our ADI methodology field study experiment, providing us with a testing area that takes us beyond standard data collection. While the attraction apparatus tests methods of drawing UFOs near, and the detection apparatus identifies and collects data from the UFO, the interaction apparatus then provides a figurative “hand shake” or signal of acknowledgement. If a response can be elicited, then other interactions can be attempted and studied. Further developments will only continue to improve on tested methodology.
Of course, the idea of a device created for a field experiment that can summon UFOs and then talk to them is a seemingly preposterous notion, but ADI methodology utilizes available technologies and techniques and uses them in unique combinations and in radical applications, with realistic expectations. An attraction apparatus may or may not yield sightings. An interaction apparatus might not be able to interact with or receive any response from a UFO. Experiments may not be presented ideal opportunities to be successful in producing data. If opportunities for study do appear, then a standard, pre-established process of study during the event must be committed to, and the experiment must be capable and functional. ADI experiments are composed of a number of small electronics housed together in a single unit, and then tested on a number of different platforms. Together, the instruments fulfill their individual tasks, and the three ADI units provide appropriate support to each other. The attraction unit provides an event to be studied, the detection unit tracks and draws data for the duration of the event, and the interaction unit adds time and changes in the behaviour of the craft, providing additional data for the detection unit. Together, all three ADI units compliment each other to the benefit of each unit. Theoretically, this is an ideal experiment.
The obvious problem with the ADI experiment is the design of the attraction and interaction apparatuses. Determining how a lighting fixture should be designed to attract a UFO is difficult. What would it look like and how would it function? As well, additional variables like altitude, location, and time of day are important to consider and experiment with. It should be expected that numerous design variations will be developed and tested.
So what experimentation is possible with ADI methodology? These can easily be separated into land, sky, and space experiments. There is also a potential for underwater experiments. Depending on the characteristics of the platform for testing, different goals can be accomplished. On land, towers can be erected and stations can be constructed. An ADI module can be tested quite a distance from the ground, the assumption being that visibility of the module (and therefore the detectability) is greater the higher the module is from the ground. A simple fibreglass pole tower, inexpensive and portable enough for a single person, can reach distances up to 50 feet off of the ground. If requiring a higher altitude, but wish to remain in a static location, a moored balloon can be used with an ADI testing module suspended below it. In the United States, the FAA allows moored balloons to fly to a height up to 500 feet. Remote control drones are limited to under 400 feet as well. Drones, with the ability to be piloted, can lift an ADI experiment high above the ground, and human input gives room for expansion of interaction capabilities. 500 feet is a suitable height for experimentation; many witnesses report UFOs around and under an altitude of 500 feet. If high altitude is essential, then a high altitude balloon equipped with a GPS can make a flight of long duration and cover a large distance. Altitudes can be reached of over 100,000 feet with large, well designed balloons, making it a suitable platform for experimentation. Even higher in altitude is the use of rockets and satellites, which can lift instrumentation into sub orbit, and even low earth orbit. Space provides an interesting environment to test in, separate from the dense atmosphere with high visibility.
From newspaper clipping to figurative beacons signalling passing UFOs, ufology needs to grow alongside technology to give us every possibility to understand this phenomenon. ADI methodology is inexpensive and straightforward. It is a suitable alternative to traditional post-event investigation. A small organization would have the means to experiment with it, and if successful, can be easily implemented for large scale uses. Perhaps we can discover a method to interact with the phenomenon, learn more from it, and understand the whys and hows of the UFO.
(The full post can be found as a PDF here for download)