From: Edoardo Russo <e.russo.nul> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:02:35 +0200 Archived: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:06:08 -0400 Subject: Re: Do Ufologists Use Sensible Protocol? >From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 01:53:16 +0100 >Subject: Do Ufologists Use Sensible Protocol? [was: Alternative Viewpoints] >can't help wondering how many investigators actually follow a sensible >protocal, maybe like this one: >1) Record a spontaneous complete description from witness. >2) Followed-up by witness describing what he/she meant by words >and phrases used in initial description, including example >comparisons of factors such as heights, colours, angular >`sizes', velocities etc. and of any `emotions' or `feelings' >experienced. >At no time during either description should the investigator >prompt the witness by even one word; prompting is known to >impair actual memory and to create false memories. Ciao Ray and All, You (and someone else) might find that hard to believe, but those (and more) are precisely the guidelines our field investigators are asked to follow, according to CISU field investigator's handbook (which has been adopted since 1984: http://tinyurl.com/6x6ohms: - never ask but very generic encouraging questions in the first part of the interview; - only ask questions in the second part, taking care not to use leading questions; - always voice-record the full interview, and later write it down, so that readers/analisers of your report are able to better understand how each data bit was gained from the witness; - include some specific chapters in each report: 1) investigation steps (who did what, when, where and why), 2) sighting reconstruction by the investigator, 3) comments, impressions and an evaluation of both witness and possible identifications, by the investigator. Such a procedure sometimes offered us otherwise impossible glimpses, eg. discovering from the tape-recorded transcription that some details were told by the witness but not considered by the investigator; or realizing the personal (negative) interaction between witness and investigator had an influence in dismissing the witness' reliability in the eye of the investigator. The real difficulty is persuading each investigator to follow those instructions, instead of merely going, asking standard questions, compiling a questionnaire and write an anecdotal article for some website or publication. Moreover, you cannot afford such a workload for each light in the sky (expecially when you get hundreds each year), though you'd better begin with them as an exercise, in order to be able to do your good homework on harder cases. That's my own 64-cents opinion, based on some 30+ years experience in a remote county of the empire. Edoardo Russo Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici CISU - Casella postale 82 - 10100 Torino tel 011.30.78.63 - fax 011.54.50.33 http://www.cisu.org Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp