1976 - Science Paper 2 Trevor Whitaker INVESTIGATION

Magazine Overview

This document is BUFORA Science Paper 2, titled "Investigation Procedures," presented by Trevor Whitaker at the first National Research and Investigations Conference in Stoke on Trent, England, in May 1975. It was published in May 1976 and priced at 30 pence for members and 50 pence for non-members.

Key Themes and Content

Prioritization and Classification of Sightings The paper begins by emphasizing the importance of prioritizing investigations, referencing Dr. Kuettner's suggestion that focusing on low-priority investigations wastes time. It adopts Allan Hynek's classification of UFO sightings, which includes nocturnal lights, daytime sightings, radar/visual reports, and three types of close encounters (sightings only, effects on the ground/witness, and occupants). The author suggests that significant progress in ufology might come from studying case histories, particularly focusing on the more significant categories.

The 'Generation Gap' and Witness Psychology Whitaker notes a "generation gap" in ufology, making it difficult to cater to all interests. He highlights that most witnesses do not expect to see unusual phenomena, leading to potential misinterpretations. The core argument is that investigators are not truly investigating UFOs but rather the witnesses themselves. Therefore, speed in contacting witnesses is paramount, as their impressions can become distorted quickly. Delays of 24 hours can halve the value of a sighting, and beyond seven days, the story becomes significantly enmeshed and distorted.

Dealing with Official Bodies and the Press The paper advises that official bodies like the police, armed forces, air traffic control, meteorological offices, and coastguards can be contacted, but enquiries must be made quickly, within a few days. Newspapers and reporters can also be helpful, especially if the subject is topical. The author recounts using small news items to solicit witnesses for a possible landing case. However, he notes that delays can make it difficult to obtain information from the press, as they primarily keep cuttings and old copies.

Investigation Methodology

#### Speed and Initial Contact
It is crucial to contact witnesses immediately. If direct contact is not possible, witnesses should be asked to write down everything they remember as soon as possible and make drawings. This helps minimize later distortions. If a visit is necessary, it's ideal to arrange it for a short return, allowing the witness to write their account at their own speed.

#### Approach to Witnesses
Investigators must establish themselves as serious and credible. Identity cards can help. When discussing the event, it's important to talk in general terms first, then gently probe for discrepancies without emphasizing them. Leading questions should be avoided, as they can influence the witness's perception and memory. The author cautions against using UFO shape charts in field kits, fearing it might lead witnesses to fit their observations into pre-defined categories.

#### Apparent Size Estimation
Estimating the apparent size of an object is discussed. The investigator should complete the specific questions on the sighting form. A method suggested is comparing the object's size to an object held at arm's length, or using analogies like the angular size of a chimney seen in the distance or an old halfpenny at arm's length.

#### Use of Tape Recorders and Site Visits
Tape recorders should be introduced only after establishing rapport and getting most of the story, to avoid making the witness artificial. Visiting the site without the witness, at a similar time of day as the sighting, is recommended to identify potential repeat sightings or misidentifications (e.g., aircraft). Comparing photographs taken with the same camera can help establish angular sizes.

Follow-Up Procedures

The follow-up is considered the most important part of an investigation. This includes finding other witnesses, mapping the area, studying the witness's story, and checking with other bodies for relevant information such as aircraft movements or weather conditions. For close encounter cases, the follow-up should be as detailed as a murder investigation, potentially involving specialists. The research department should be kept informed.

Physical Evidence

When investigating sites, it is vital not to destroy potential evidence. If possible, photograph, sketch, and measure any holes or marks in the ground. Collect samples of damaged grass or soil, sealing them in polythene bags if moist. Other equipment may also be used for readings.

Co-operation Between Groups

Whitaker strongly advocates for co-operation between UFO research groups, supporting BUFORA's umbrella approach. He believes this prevents witnesses from becoming overwhelmed by multiple inquiries from different organizations. The Northern UFO Network is cited as a successful example of such co-operation.

Handling Witness Reactions

Witnesses may face skepticism and leg-pulling from acquaintances. They might also receive unsolicited publications that could deter them from cooperating with organizations like BUFORA.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this paper are the critical importance of speed and thoroughness in UFO investigations, the psychological aspects of witness testimony, the need for systematic data collection and analysis, and the value of co-operation among research groups. The editorial stance is one of advocating for a scientific, methodical, and diligent approach to ufology, emphasizing evidence-based investigation and careful handling of witnesses.