Discussion on UFO Attraction-Detection-Interaction Methodologies (Part One)

Active improvements of field experimentation methodologies yields new usable data, with insights into new developments. Typical research is done after a UFO sighting by the investigation and procurement of organized and verifiable evidence. Rarely ever can reliable, quantitative evidence be produced during the sightings. Being ready with equipment in preparation for a sighting is nearly unthinkable. A person could wait for a long time. Techniques for methodical study during a UFO sighting must be developed.

Using what we already know, the first methodology in field experimentation is detection. Detection of UFOs has been accomplished in numerous ways, so refinement of available technologies for such an application should be relatively easy. Secondly, an intriguing alternative to trying to predict a sighting is to attract a UFO. The goal of radical and creative experimentation should be the development of an apparatus that can appeal to or signal a UFO in a way that causes it to come near the apparatus. A third development that would aid the experiment is a method of interaction between the testing device and the UFO. The Attraction-Detection-Interaction approach combines three major functions provided by specific instrumentation to create a platform for field study. Current methodologies of investigation and research are proven and reliable, and must be used in conjunction with such alternative, less refined approaches.

Use of the Attraction-Detection-Interaction (ADI) relationship is a step towards progressive innovation in a field of study that needs to move forward. Such an experiment could produce new data and a new direction for research, or it could produce no data or sightings. Even if nothing is gained, the experiment shouldn’t be considered a failure, and would be the first in a series of continued improvements and developments. The importance of ADI experimentation is in it’s use of the best our modern technology has to offer and of what we know about UFOs. The detection and measuring of a UFO is in our ability, and development of attraction and interaction technologies will more likely come from deductive reasoning and “shots in the dark”, than expensive financed scientific developments. A capable development team is likely one that is strong in discussion and creativity, with the required technological knowledge. This document strongly defines and details the ADI relationship and the possible methodologies for application in field studies.


UFO attraction experimentation has been explored very little. Radio and light signals have been used out of curiosity, but relevant detailed literature is difficult to find on UFO response to attraction. It’s difficult to start dreaming of an apparatus that could attract a UFO. And that’s assuming a UFO would even respond to an effort of attraction. What exactly are we trying to attract? Presumably, a UFO (or it’s occupant) that is aware of it’s environment and can react and make choices. If a UFO is of a curious nature, it may be drawn to the location of a new and interesting signal. Using that reasoning, an experiment can be created and tested. To begin theorizing on what direction to take for that experiment, perhaps the best thing to do is to examine what we use for attraction here on Earth:

  • Strobe lights, high powered beacons
  • Sounds, beeper
  • Radio signals
  • Flares
  • Movement, hand signals, arm and flag waving

Typically, the act of attraction functions by providing a dramatic and visible stimulus that will noticeably stick out from it’s environment and draws the attention of the viewer. As we use here on Earth, high intensity devices that appeal to the senses, such as bright lights or loud sounds might also be employed in an attraction device suited for a UFO. Discussion will need to be had of variable frequencies, intensities, patterns, and designs to establish an initial combination of instruments for testing. A list of possible methods to employ for UFO attraction are:

  1. Lighting. Much like our own aircraft, UFOs display a variety of different lighting arrangements with a multitude of colours. A ring of small circumference lights, a larger single light on the bottom, and sometimes the entire hull of the craft is illuminated in a bright white or orange light. We can hypothesize that the UFO is at least aware of the visible spectrum (a conservative estimate) and continue to speculate that the UFO is able to manipulate the visible spectrum (again, pretty conservative given that the UFO is producing and changing it’s own illumination, apparently from within the craft). Furthermore, some pilot sighting reports have stated that as an aircraft would flash it’s landing lights, the UFO would flash back at the aircraft. Similar reports have been given by ground witnesses who direct laser pointers at UFOs, only to have the UFO glow brighter or flicker on and off. High powered strobes or lasers might provide an atmospheric penetrating beacon that is easily detected. Lasers, ultraviolet, and infrared lighting will be considered. Perhaps even mimicking the UFO’s lighting displays should be included in discussion. Many different angles should be addressed.
  2. Sound. Our hearing is probably the only other sense we rely on as much as sight, so it might reason that an auditory beacon might attract the attention of a UFO. Using subsonic, ultrasonic, or normal ranges, a beeper, hum, buzz, or whistle could be alternated while being emitted at a high decibel. It may be interesting to note, that if suspended at 500 feet from a balloon, there isn’t much to hear aside from the wind, so a sonic emitter of any kind would be quite a unique feature if that section of atmosphere was being audibly monitored or recorded by a UFO. Differences in frequencies, intensities, and modulation should be experimented with.
  3. Radio Signal. Use of a radio signal will carry information across a longer distance than any other method. The apparatus could simply transmit a one-way continuous signal, or transmit a signal with regular breaks to receive any signals back. This option is especially beneficial for satellites and high altitude balloons.
  4. Heat. Including a heating unit in an attraction device will provide visibility in the infrared spectrum. A noticeably large heat difference would be apparent in contrast to the apparatus’ surroundings. The heat signature can be accomplished with something as simple as a carbon hand warmer placed in a compartment of the attraction apparatus.
  5. Radioactivity. With UFOs frequently being seen in the proximity of nuclear power plants and missile launch facilities, the connection between UFOs and nuclear energy has been well discussed. It is worth experimenting with including radioactive samples (in small amounts) in attraction experiments, providing a trace radioactive signature that might increase it’s detectability. Discussion should take place to determine which types and amounts to experiment with.
  6. Magnetic Pulse. Due to the demonstrably electromagnetic nature of the UFO (shutting down of vehicles, buildings, and power grids), a strong magnetic resonator, effected in such a way to not disturb the rest of the attraction device instruments will provide another layer of detectability and visibility.

A point to ponder would be the difference between attraction instrumentation designed for long distance visibility (a laser) or a wide area of local visibility (a loud beeper). Where the laser, if orientated correctly, would be visible for miles into the atmosphere from one direction, the beeper would be detectable from closer range in all directions. Attraction in ADI methodology is the exploration of technologies that can attract a UFO and draw it closer for study. Without an attraction module, the remaining detection and interaction equipment is optimistic in wait of an event. Attraction experimentation will fill the wait time at UFO monitoring stations and turn patient equipment into experiments on initiating sightings for study.



(The full post can be found as a PDF here for download)


The Obstacles of Ufology

The general reaction to serious discussion of UFOs is attributed to different belief systems. The first, is disbelief. UFOs are not real, and any reports that have been made are the result of misidentification, delusion, hysteria, or dishonesty. The second belief is skepticism, demanding irrefutable evidence to justify such a bold claim as UFOs. The third belief is neutrality, not resigning to one side or the other, just requiring a personal experience in order to have any opinion. The fourth is positive belief that they do exist, without a thorough knowledge of the evidence, by reasoning that the universe is incredibly large and unknown or that thousands of witnesses couldn’t all be mistaken. Discussion can often be speculative, emotional, and unproductive. Other times, great collaboration and effort is made to further understand the phenomenon, and numerous investigators and organizations have made significant strides in this field.

Belief is a word used by most people when expressing their opinions of the topic, requiring faith for their confidence. How did such a physical phenomenon become a part of a belief system? Through the decades of the 1900’s and now the 2000’s, the perception and culture surrounding UFOs changed from an originally serious concern into something mystical and distasteful. With genuine, original reports came advantageous profiteers and jokesters, dutiful citizens misidentifying ordinary objects, and eager media outlets looking to share their exciting angle of an intriguing phenomenon. Often, the most extraordinary (and frequently false) tales were provided to the public, and genuine reports were less discussed. With so much apparent fiction to be had, it would be hard to believe any of it could be true. Beyond that, efforts from officials (especially in the US) to debunk and discredit all sightings provided a reliable platform to stand against believers. However, much work done to discredit sightings is sloppy, biased, and unsatisfactory. The effects of such developments has created a shroud of distrust that prevent people from taking part in the discussion altogether.

Such a tremendously obstructive stigma is one of the major obstacles of ufology. Charles Fort, considered the first ufologist, was aware of the natural social configuration that makes people scoff at stories of saucers. Charles Fort had observed that “it is not the conventional or respectable thing upon this earth to believe in visitors from other worlds, most of us could watch them a week and declare that they were something else, and likely enough make things disagreeable for anybody who thought otherwise.” Fort pioneered the 1910’s and 20’s, and now 100 years later, we display the same hesitance, ever inherent in our need to scientifically catalogue everything.

Because of the perception of the phenomenon, an assumption is that we don’t know anything about UFOs, so there isn’t anything to learn about them. So often fiction is mixed in with genuine reports in the media, that the public is unaware of what the real phenomenon is, making them susceptible to accept anything cleverly written as fact, if they accept it at all. However, there is a definite and observable description of the phenomenon that is to be learned. If the public were given the opportunity to learn about the history and workings of UFOs, there would be not just an improvement in social attitude, but an educative chapter for people to learn from.

The physical and behavioural nature of the phenomenon presents many other obstacles. UFO sightings are unpredictable, at least currently a pattern has yet to be deduced. Sightings are often brief, usually seconds or a few minutes. In that time, witnesses are so taken aback by what they are seeing that a camera is not an immediate thought, or they don’t want to leave during the sighting to get a camera that might be indoors. Taking a picture of a UFO is difficult if it is flying fast, because of the minimum reaction time, and because fast moving objects are difficult to capture with quality. When photographs are taken, they are usually of ordinary things. Misidentifications make up the bulk of unprocessed sighting reports, and separating genuine sightings from misidentifications is a delicate and tedious undertaking for experienced investigators. Intentional fakes and hoaxes are even more frustrating, and pollutes good data. Fortunately, reliable precision scientific instrumentation provides physical analysis of UFOs on multiple layers, and much has been learned without a wealth of authentic photographs.

Reporting coverage and frequency needs to be improved globally. Because the assumption is that UFOs don’t exist, those who have genuine sightings are usually hesitant to report them, and often are unaware of reporting centres. When reports are made to police and military, they are less likely to end up in the hands of researchers looking to make use of such information. UFO reporting centres are important hubs of information for researchers. Often, reporting centres have their own investigators, and rely heavily on the public to make the report. More training can be provided to investigators, and appropriate fields tools should always be on hand to yield the maximum amount of data. Fast deployment of investigators is key. But the real difficulty is getting the public to report their sightings, promptly and unashamedly.

UFO behaviour is not something we could have predicted. Their comings and goings and brief appearances are as peculiar as they are seemingly unmotivated. Their interactions with nearby pilots and their performances on radar screens are baffling. How do we understand something possibly alien with a human frame of reference? With some difficulty. Jacques Vallee wrote, “We know that there is an unknown phenomenon being manifested. It appears to center on a technological device, a machine that is capable of transporting occupants. The behavior of both the machine and the occupants appears to be consistent with the idea that we are faced with an alien form of life. However, their behavior is not consistent either with what you would expect from space visitors, or with what we know about physics. That’s the dilemma.”. One of the obstacles of interpreting data and speculating the specifics of UFOs is preventing a human bias. If we can’t accept certain information because it seems unreasonable rather than it being untrue, then a full understanding cannot be reached. All aspects of the phenomenon are to be thoroughly considered and evaluated before disregarding, no matter the strangeness.

Often a sighting goes without physical evidence, with only the testimony and reputation of the witness (or witnesses) as merit. This, generally, is enough to warrant serious consideration of the sighting for investigation. After all, in a court of law, we rely on reputable eyewitnesses and place high value on their testimonies to further understand a case. Great effort is used to procure additional evidence or documentation or witnesses, and even greater effort to ensure all data is verifiable and will stand up to severe skeptic scrutiny. The public, having been burned too many times previously by “facts” shared by enthusiastic publishers, remains ever doubtful, even in the presence of the most refined ufological reports, leaving the majority ignorant of just how significant the evidence is. Not only the public, but trusted officials seem to be uninterested in what the data represents. It seems the researchers are the the only ones encouraging themselves and are curious for answers. Is the evidence for UFOs only relevant if we are able to summon one on demand? Absolutely not, and any possibility of interaction with the phenomenon will only result from the slow accumulation and development of concrete data.

Dedicated stations to detect and monitor UFO activity have been proposed and experimented with. Funding is often the limiting factor in developing UFO specific observing and monitoring platforms. To further refine existing technologies for such an application requires an understanding of the measurable aspects of a UFO. Experimentation is prudent to determine different and out of the box angles for testing and analysis. In such a field of research, trying different and radical ideas might take us farther than conventional, conservative methods of experimentation. If we are interacting with a non-terrestrial object, then our predictions of what methods might be effective are probably unfounded. Everything must be considered. Our current understanding of the UFO phenomenon may be limited for large-scale scientific applications, but technology and our knowledge base has grown significantly since the mid 1900s, and we are in a better position now than ever to accomplish our goals.

Even more obstacles are present in ufology, from government friction, growing mythology, and interference of investigations. But despite the obstacles, the cases and evidence from UFOs allow the field to stand on it’s own, because they are validly representative of the UFO’s peculiar and spectacular reality, and of it’s un-explainability in any context. Serious researchers and investigators yield serious data from serious sightings. With thorough dedication, a foundation of facts and understanding is being created to bring ourselves closer to the detailed picture we’ve been seeking.



(This post can be found as a PDF here for download)

Data Collection Systems and their Applications in the Field

UFO sightings are rare. Reported UFO sightings are even rarer. Researchers and scientists struggle to piece together vague and incomplete information from testimonial evidence and small case files. A significant portion of research involves reading through old documentation from decades ago. Investigation is different. The more accurate data we can collect, the more information we have to understand the bigger picture. Typical UFO investigation occurs in the field, after the event. Occasionally a sighting of significant duration is responded to (a UFO seen on radar, and a fighter jet is sent to investigate) where observation time is increased, and additional information is gleaned. The more we can observe and record, the more data we can submit to analysis. What kinds of studies can be done to produce more data?

In over 65 years of Ufology research and investigation, we’ve determined that we can collect lots of information on UFOs when they are present, if we have the adequate tools. Magnetism, gravitation, radioactivity, audibility, and luminosity are effects of the UFO that can be measured. Fluctuations in magnetism, luminosity, and radioactivity can be measured for analysis and detection of a possible nearby UFO, where field units can be alerted to quickly investigate. Tools like radar, cameras, infrared filters, and microphones provide excellent data for analysis.

Problems presented in the past have been overcome today, with smaller and cheaper electronics. What was difficult over a decade ago is now an easy feat. Small electronic circuit components are capable of reliable in-field usage. Weather resistance, battery life, and camera quality are no longer limiting factors of electronic devices. Simple and inexpensive devices can be created and applied in the field for data collection of elusive UFOs.

By combining some key instruments, suitable field equipment can be created specifically for the task at hand. From detection to data collection, on any terrain, a suitable “smart” system can be designed and employed.

Cell-sensors in large arrays have miles of coverage, at lower cost, with higher maintenance. A small contained unit would contain 2 cameras, a magnetometer, a photometer, and a microphone. A storage device and computer store and process all data. One camera is a night time time-lapse that will make 15 minute long exposure photos for 8 hours, from 9 am to 5 pm. This long exposure camera will photograph all visibly lit sky bound objects, and typical stars, meteors, and planes will be identifiable. The second camera and microphone will turn on and record when the magnetometer and photometer are triggered. Data from all sensors will be recorded to storage device. The smaller, lightweight devices are weather resistant, and shock resistant. Perfect for rough terrain, rural and off the path. At relatively low costs, large numbers of cell-sensors can be deployed over a large area of land, 10 square miles for example.

Networked Survey Stations with a range of instruments, detect, record, and collect data, live. The same principles of detecting changes in magnetism, gravitation, radioactivity, and luminosity are maintained in a larger scale. Better cameras are available, to ensure better quality evidence if possible. Networked to the internet, all information gathered will be available through a public feed. They are closer to town, within range of utilities, and are automated.

Long-range detection fence could provide a physical detection range up to half a mile using dual monitoring stations to create a laser fence.. Although it sounds reminiscent of Star Wars, it’s a simple solution to large area detection. A monitoring station with the standard detection and monitoring instruments, and photography/spectrography equipment, would be equipped with lasers and receivers, in a tight “net”. The use of a laser aligned perfectly, if it’s line of sight is undisturbed, could travel half a mile to another monitoring station receiving that laser, and others (as well as sending back its own lasers).

Dual monitoring stations provide redundancy, cross-checking and comparison, and can be placed anywhere they are both in view of each other. Any physical objects passing between the two stations would be detected in the changes of intensity of the laser being received. Once triggered, the collection of different cameras will take as many pictures as possible. Use of dual, infrared, and high speed cameras capture movement on a variety of wavelengths and circumstances.

Balloons provide another platform for testing. High altitude balloons can be fitted with lightweight sounding instruments, and then tracked with telescopes along the balloon’s flight path. Tethered balloons with instruments can be used for detection and data collection. Again, just a combination of the specific suite of sensors turns the balloon into a high altitude platform for testing and study. Tethered balloon “stations” can place sensors at an altitude higher than that of a tower, while keeping them aloft longer than a drone. Stability is less than that of a drone, but the balloon can be kept at an altitude dependent on weather and wind conditions, and a defined small radius of movement.

The increasing availability of cheap consumer drones provides another higher altitude experimentation platform. Regular “atmospheric sounding” tests carried out on a drone could yield similarly relevant results. Additional platforms can be tested, such as rocketry. Generally, the biggest challenge is determining what data to test for, which instruments are best to use, and getting them up into the air.



(This post can be found as a PDF here for download)