A few notes from day one of the MUFON conference, which involved the field investigation workshop. MUFON has done a great job of updating their field work procedures. They have put together a (relatively) new field investigator manual over the last few years, and yesterday saw a really good set of training materials on how to do investigation work, how to use the MUFON sighting and investigation database, etc.
What was missing was the thing that I most wanted to see, and that was the concluding workshop on working with UFO abductees. Budd Hopkins, the dean of abduction researchers (at least in my book) was to be the presenter. Unfortunately, Budd's health has not been that great recently, so they replaced his presentation with one by Marc D'antonio on astronomy topics for field investigators, including using satellite trackers, star/sky chart programs, etc.
One thing I noted this time, as in previous MUFON conferences is the two threads of thought - one being the focus on abduction, the implications of the UFO phenomenon and realted topics. The other is on the need for scientific rigor and skeptical inquiry. Much of the FI workshop focused on the latter topic - skeptical inquiry. The first one or two presenters actually (I thought) were a bit too conservative on that topic. One talk was on differentiating hoaxes, natural phenomena, etc., and did a good job of providing the latest in some of the UFO-like things out there - and there are a lot of them (mostly new RC hovering toys, etc.).
I thought that the first talk missed the distinction between identifying what could be a prosaic explanation for a UFO sighting, and what in fact, a UFO-->IFO actually was. It used the Mexicali UFO sightings in 2008 as an example, and plotted the geometry and the physics of the sighting, a ball of light seen from the town by multiple witnesses. They interviewed a host of people in the town who had seen the object and developed a pretty solid profile of what had been seen, when and by whom.
They then developed a hypothesis that it was actually power line corona seen from some distance away. In my view, the hypothesis was potentially quite sound. However, they never actually established that this was in fact the case - only that it could be the explanation. Thus, I believe that they never actually established the explanation, only a hypothesis for the explanation.
In my view this is one of the big dilemas of skeptical inquiry. It is quite possible to establish potential prosaic explanations for many sightings (but believe me, not all of them). However, to prove that that particular sighting was actually due to that explanation is nearly impossible to prove. Thus, at least in the more complex cases, the UFO never actually becomes an IFO, just a potential IFO. Most debunkers seem to ignore this distinction, and field investigators (some times including myself) have occasionally missed it as well.
UFO research seems to tread the limits of science. It is studying an apparently-intelligent phenomenon and in the process, seeking to separate the wheat from the chaff of sighting reports. As a result, many potential explanations for UFO sightings are found. However the difference is between hypothesis and scientific knowledge are vital to note. A hypothesis may be consistent with the data, but it is not yet proven that it is actually true. And in my view, this is where many of the IFO explanations of sightings stand today.
The other thread of thought is primarily that of abduction research. It is (arguably) much softer science (a loose term in itself), often dealing with social and statistical material. The picture is much fuzzier here than in the field investigation of UFO sightings, and often the ambiguity is downright frustrating. One talk was on several of the recent studies of experiencers - statistics comparing the mental makeup of experiencers with random controls from the general population. The results were fascinating.
Experiencers were no more fantasy prone than anyone else. However, they had far higher openness for parapsychological and paranormal events, more universal spiritual views and had also had more difficult life histories than the general population.
A lot more work needs to be done on this and it will probably provide a lot of work for statisticians. The data involved needs to be massive in order to develop an accurate profile of the CE4 phenomenon. But I believe we need to connect the dots on this mystery - it is probably one of the biggest mysteries and, according to some one of the biggest concerns, that humanity faces.
Just exactly how many experiencers are there? How do they relate to other phenomena such as the Indigo children, paranormal and parapsychologial experiences, etc...? The questions are legion and we have only scratched the surface of them.
Fortunately, it appears that a new wave of abduction research appears to be taking shape. So in the next few years, I believe some definitive data will begin to emerge on the (para)psychological mechanics of the phenomenon. It is a refreshing burst of new energy in the field, and I believe it is long overdue...
