This article proposes some ground rules for getting to any truth contained in reports of UFO sightings and other paranormal activities. I would be interested to know what other people think about them.
- Because people tend to exaggerate about every day events we should assume that ALL UFO reports are exaggerated to the same extent. This means that the reported events should be wound back a notch with the most bizarre elements deleted or figures like times and distances reduced. An example of exaggeration from everyday life are hotel reviews, which can often be exaggerated to be far better or worse than the actual experience. To get to the truth most review web sites recommend ignoring the very good and very bad reviews. In large scale UFO sightings we should ignore the reports at either extreme.
- What is seen is always slightly ahead of current technology - airships in the 19th century, disc shaped craft in the 1950's and triangular craft in the 1990's. Sightings outside the current trend should be considered to be more accurate as people tend to interpret what they have actually seen to fit the current fashion for sightings. Anyone going against this is likely to be giving a more accurate, less polluted report.
- Where there are two witnesses who saw the event together there is a real risk of conflation, or the merging of the two reports. Of the two witnesses one may have a dominant personality and the second persons report may be altered to fit with that of the dominant party. In these cases the lowest common denominator of the two reports should be taken as closest to the actual event.
These are just some thoughts about bringing some sanity to the interpretation of reported sightings. I should say that I am a sceptic when it comes to UFO's. I have an open mind, but I do wonder why the more bizarre a claim the greater the credibility it seems to be given. If we are to get at the truth then we need to find the core of the event from within the unconscious deception.
