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.

**********************************************