UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 16

Re: Off-Season UFOs - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <vanguard.nul>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:19:27 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:44:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Off-Season UFOs - Hebert


>From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:10:46 -0000
>Subject: Re: Off-Season UFOs

<snip>

Hi, Nick:

I'm wondering how the information yielded from your study could be
turned around and used to disguise tests of secret military projects
and/or psychological responses to unknown/novel stimuli.

>When running the UK Government's UFO project I asked a member of
>staff to do a study into the geographical spread of sightings. I
>gave her some outline maps of the UK and asked her to go through
>the files for the last three years, marking the locations. Here
>are some of the issues that arose:

>To give one example of how this can affect the
>data, we knew that a high proportion of UFO sightings were
>caused by misidentifications of aircraft or aircraft lights.
>Therefore, any meaningful analysis of the geographical spread of
>UFO sightings should take account of the location of
>flightpaths. There are many other things to factor in: the sites
>where weather balloons are launched, areas where airships fly,
>etc.

If someone wanted to test aircraft with various lighting
patterns, CC&D, stealth, etc., would this be a good location? If
there were any witnesses, photographs, video footage, could they
be dismissed, discredited or ignored by citing nearby
flightpaths, airports, launch facilities, etc.?

>The media can create a UFO wave. When a UFO story runs in a
>local newspaper, the article often ends with a request that
>other witnesses come forward. This creates a receptive
>environment for reports, and UFO witnesses who might otherwise
>have said nothing will feel more comfortable about speaking out,
>and will have an obvious outlet. There can be a domino effect
>here; a local newspaper might run a story and ask for other
>witnesses to get in touch; local radio or television may then
>pick up the story and make a similar request. Finally, even
>national newspapers or television channels may run the story.
>Before you know it, you have the next Warminster or Bonnybridge
>on your hands. Are such places really UFO hotspots, or are they
>just areas that have been portrayed as such? Once an area gets a
>reputation as a hotspot, ufologists go on skywatches there, and
>may direct reporters and documentary makers to these areas as
>opposed to others. Things are seen in these locations because
>this is where people are looking. It becomes a self-fulfilling
>prophesy.

How could the media and UFO "waves" be used in tests of secret
aircraft as well as psychological responses to novel stimuli?
Could these events be related to psyops?

Could UFO "hotspots" be used as testing grounds for man-made
UFOs? How could data related to UFO "hotspots" be used in
military strategies in peace time and in war?  Are there any
correlations between UFO "hotspots"? Are there patterns related
to UFO "hotspots" and UFO sightings in general?

What consistencies and descrepancies appear in relation to data
acquired from UFO "hotspots"?

>This point about the media is also important to bear in mind
>when looking at apparent peaks in UFO sightings at a particular
>time, as well as in a particular location. Media interest in a
>UFO story is likely to be short-lived, but the receptive
>environment for sighting reports that exists while the media
>spotlight is on can skew the figures for anyone trying to plot
>whether there are more sightings at a particular time of year.

If there was a need to deceive the general public about the
_real_ UFO sighting peaks and locations, could the media, UFO
organizations, etc. be used to create skewed data (aka
misinformation/disinformation)?

>UFO researchers can create UFO waves. A proactive researcher
>will smoke out reports that might otherwise not come to light,
>and act as a 'lightning conductor' for such data. In much the
>same way as applies in the point about the media, an apparent
>hotspot does not necessarily mean there are more sightings in a
>particular area. It may simply be that a more receptive
>environment has been created for people to make reports, and a
>higher proportion of UFO sightings will be reported in this area
>as opposed to another.

If someone wanted to establish a UFO 'hotspot' either to test
exotic aircraft or keep attention away from an important testing
area, how would one create an environment receptive to
deception?

What would be the best location? What types of civilian
populations are more likely to accept deception at face value
asking few questions?

Would one choose a location near water, mountains, military
bases, urban, rural? What factors determine an ideal location
for a 'receptive environment'?  Would one consider 'loop holes'
in aviation regulations in the selection of this environment?
 For example: if regulations restrict tests of experimental
aircraft over populated land regions but not over large bodies
of water, would it be possible to create a 'receptive
environment' just off shore or over lakes, etc.? To test human
psychological reactions to experimental aircraft and/or novel
stimuli, could this be done over a large city below a certain
altitude and/or paired with some other event/distraction
(plausible deniability)?

To make sure the event was reported by the media according to
plan, might certain personnel be "planted" at strategic
locations to ensure everything went down as a major or minor UFO
event? Would it make sense to test secret aircraft over or near
highways or areas where respected authorities like policemen,
firemen, etc. would be available as "credible witnesses" and
report seeing a "UFO"? (In the right place at the right time?)

How could "experts", "authorities", researchers, "credible
witnesses", general misinformation and belief systems be used to
keep people believing in certain directions - away from the
truth?

>We need to factor in data on population density. If more UFOs
>are seen in a particular area, might it not reflect the fact
>that there are more people there to see them? Indeed, the
>results of my MOD study produced maps that seemed to reflect
>this very point. More UFO reports came from in and around London
>than from anywhere else, and there were similar clusters around
>major conurbations.

If humans can use CC&D to make aircraft virtually invisible, why
are UFO's visible at all?

>There's an issue regarding how to score multiple witness
>sightings. Do we treat a UFO seen by a family of four as one
>report or four? What about sightings in broadly the same
>location at broadly the same time, but by witnesses not in
>precisely the same location?

If the creators of a UFO wanted it to be seen, where would they
go to be seen? On the flip side of this coin, where would they
go to keep from being seen?

>I no longer have access to the Ministry of Defence's UFO files,
>and I'm doing this from memory, so I may have missed out some
>important issues. But I hope this has at least highlighted some
>of the difficulties we faced when trying to do statistical
>analysis of UFO data. I'm sure ufologists ran into exactly the
>same problems, and I'd be interested in people's thoughts on
>this.

Thank you, Nick.

I was wondering...were you asked by your superiors to do this study or
was it just for your own personal information? Did you share the
results of your study with the MOD, file it - what happened to the
study?

Just wondering... ;>

Sincerely,

A. Hebert




[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com