86 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
86 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
|
SUBJECT: "HANGING" ON A WORD FILE: UFO1585
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Mutual UFO Network
|
||
|
|
Dan Wright's Newsletter June 5, 1989
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
THE INVESTIGATOR'S EDGE
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Anyone who has hung around the subject for awhile is bound to hear those
|
||
|
|
familiar words and phrases which ought to raise an eyebrow of doubt:
|
||
|
|
"silent", "in an instant", "paralyzed", "glowing", "blinding" and (my personal
|
||
|
|
favorite) "disappeared". Let's examine these usages that are indicative of
|
||
|
|
how excited witnesses tell their stories on first recounting.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- "Silent". Was the object in question genuinely without any sound? If the
|
||
|
|
witness had been a few feet directly underneath it on a still night in the
|
||
|
|
hinterland, would not even a decibel of sound have noted?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
In writing up the investigative summary, one must be very careful to
|
||
|
|
distinguish between (what are probably rare) incidents wherein, considering
|
||
|
|
all the physical factors, the vehicle was genuinely silent in terms of human
|
||
|
|
audio perception, as compared to cases in which the witness, for whatever
|
||
|
|
reason, was unable to detect the actual sound generated by metallic parts.
|
||
|
|
Most often, sheer distance was the culprit. Elements in the environment -
|
||
|
|
especially wind, both as it rustles vegetation and crosses the percipient's
|
||
|
|
ears - can easily wipe out a low sound. Therefore, unless the circumstances
|
||
|
|
make it obvious that an anomalous object was really silent, the correct
|
||
|
|
assumption is that "the witness(es) did not perceive any sound in connection
|
||
|
|
with the object."
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- "In an instant". How long is an instant, anyway? Presumably, it splits a
|
||
|
|
second, but how far? A common meteor may be said to have passed beyond the
|
||
|
|
witness' view in an instant, yet we can roughly gauge its actual speed. "In
|
||
|
|
no time," the vehicle was out of sight - which might be said of an F-16 on a
|
||
|
|
fly-over low to the ground. Obviously, though, some time was involved, and a
|
||
|
|
measurement using a stopwatch can be taken. If the moment in question cannot
|
||
|
|
be so depicted, it may be fairer to convey in the write-up that the object
|
||
|
|
departed at a speed apparently beyond conventional abilities and/or with no
|
||
|
|
sense of acceleration.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- "Paralyzed (with fear)". Was the witness genuinely immobilized from an
|
||
|
|
external force? Alternately, was (s)he *psychologically* "captivated",
|
||
|
|
"mesmerized", or "transfixed" due to the unexpected nature of the event? This
|
||
|
|
area of close-encounter research still evokes debate, largely because of
|
||
|
|
imprecise questioning by the investigator of the witness' actual state of mind
|
||
|
|
during the event.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-"Glowing". As with Rudolph's nose, when we read this term we assume a light
|
||
|
|
source that is internal to the object in question. If the twilight sun was
|
||
|
|
reflecting off the object, the proper word is "glinting". If the term
|
||
|
|
"glowing" is used, it forces the physicist and engineer to consider specific
|
||
|
|
possibilities. Be careful with this one.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- "Blinding". Gosh, was the witness unable to perceive his/her surroundings
|
||
|
|
after the incident? As an example, humans cannot look at the midday sun for
|
||
|
|
more than a second or so without spots before our eyes and tears forming.
|
||
|
|
Furthermore, substantial physiological damage would be done to the cornea in a
|
||
|
|
matter of several seconds. Thus, that serves as a benchmark. Precisely how
|
||
|
|
long was the witness able to look directly at the source, and what were the
|
||
|
|
aftereffects\/ Most often, "blinding" can be downgraded to "brilliant" or
|
||
|
|
just "bright".
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- "Disappeared". Commonly coined, it is remarked, "Then, all of a sudden it
|
||
|
|
just 'disappeared' (from view)". So, what precisely happened? Did the object
|
||
|
|
molecularly dematerialize? Well, okay, we have plenty of cases through the
|
||
|
|
years that suggest this - although one might argue a progression into the
|
||
|
|
ultra-violet or infra-red spectrum of electromagnetism. More likely in a
|
||
|
|
given instance, however, the witness intended simply to say that the object
|
||
|
|
simply moved beyond the horizon or otherwise out of view.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Proper investigating being a learned ability, with lots of pained discoveries
|
||
|
|
along the way, it is understandable that these kinds of superlatives have gone
|
||
|
|
unchallenged in previous cases. If we are to make sense of our data, though,
|
||
|
|
extreme care must be taken before underscoring the witness statement on those
|
||
|
|
tentative points. That's a major reason why detailed questioning must follow
|
||
|
|
the initial witness account. And the investigator's summary must address
|
||
|
|
these factors, clarifying the intended meaning with sober rationale.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**********************************************
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**********************************************
|
||
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
||
|
|
**********************************************
|