P roject C apella DOCU M A T ICA RESEA RCH, L L C Report no.001 to Bigelow A erospace A dvanced Space Studies, L L C (BA A SS) Project CA PEL L A : T owards the development of a data warehouse in support of research on unusual aerial phenomena and related anomalies _ A A P Person 5 1 San Francisco, California D ecem ber 10,2008 A A P Person 5 CAPELLA Data Warehouse page 1 o Project CA PEL L A : T owards the development of a data warehouse in support of research on unusual aerial phenomena and related anomalies M P Person 5 D ocumatica R esearch, LLC How this report is organized T his report consists of the present overview proposal and three appendices (two of which summarize previously-published work). T ogether, these four documents describe a consistent methodology for the capture, processing and retrieval of parameters characterizing unusual aerial phenomena and related anomalies. T he appendices address three specific implementation areas, describing the technical choices we have made in each area and the reasons for these choices: - A . Classification methodology and reliability measures for reported sightings - B. M odeling of information categories, including high-strangeness data elements - C. D ata S tructures and S oftware Platforms in support of A erial Phenomena R esearch G iven the tools described hereafter, some of which have already been implemented and tested in prototype form in the course of prior research, we examine several scenarios for the long­ term acquisition, exploitation and maintenance of a comprehensive data warehousing system that could serve the needs of a geographically diverse research community with a wide variety of information needs. Historical Background A s we undertake this work we are building on a series of projects developed by many groups around the world, whose experiences contain important lessons. Over the last half century many researchers, both professional and amateurs, have undertaken to build catalogues (either on paper or in computer readable form) or data bases about the range of phenomena that interest us. • A s early as 1953, the U . S . A ir Force entrusted the Battelle M emorial Institute with the task of analyzing the reports that Project “Blue Book” had accumulated. Battelle used punched cards for this work, developed a coding system, and produced extensive statistics presented in Blue Book “R eport 14.” U nfortunately this work was not pursued and the cards were not kept. • Following the Battelle study the A ir Force never built a computer catalogue of Project Blue Book files, but the author and his wife compiled their own version of it using A A P Person 5 CAPELLA Data Warehouse page 2 1843(a)(2) punched cards following a data scheme that had been first used in France in 1962 and expanded at the U niversity of T exas and at Northwestern U niversity in the period 1963-1967, T his catalogue served as the source of a series of statistical studies that were published in several works • Our database, which included all unidentified cases from Project Blue Book, was turned over to the Condon study al the U niversity of Colorado in 1968 and eventually formed the basis for the catalogue (now known as U FOCA T ) directed by 1843(a)(2) ^. jjyj catalogue ^ been greatly expanded and is now maintained by the CU FOS organization 1843(a)(2) interference cases, andl 1843(a)(2) separately developed a catalogue of vehicle compiled all known cases of physical traces. • In 1968 the author compiled and published the M agonia catalogue, a list of over 700 close encounter cases (landings) reported between 1868 and 1968, • Other groups, such as M U FON, have started to compile their own computer files, and A A P Person 8 assembled a catalogue of physiological effects. In the 1980s an independent researcher 1843(a)(2) U NICA T in collaboration with 1843(a)(2) developed a catalogue called S everal independent projects have been implemented around the world since that time • In the U nited S tates 1843(a)(2) |a private researcher working alone, developed a popular scheme to be run on PC platforms under D OS . His catalogue eventually reached almost 20,000 entries. • In France the G EPA N (now G EiPA N) group under the CNES , implemented an A CCES S database available to a “College of Experts” under password access control on the Internet. T he system maintains the full text of over 3,000 official reports to the French G endarmerie, in the form of scanned images. It is embedded in an online collaboration system that gives experts access to maps, G oogle Earth views, photographs and videos. Note that both the G EiPA N database and U FOCA T treat every report of a given case as a separate entry (if five witnesses in separate locations report sighting the same object, there are five entries in the file), while other catalogues, like the Hatch catalogue, give a single entry per sighting. A lso in France a database of pilot sightings has been built by 1843(a)(2) 1843(a)(2) ]fhe file uses EX CEL and a set of special codes to facilitate retrieval. Every case has been scrupulously re-analyzed and transcribed. A larger set of pilot data, as A A P Person 5 CAPELLA Data Warehouse page 3 well as specific investigation files, are maintained by the NA R CA P group under 1843(a)(2) .1843(a)(2) In recent years, easy access to personal computers and the Internet has made it much easier for interested groups to start their own files. T here are at least 30 active catalogue at various points of development, with obvious overlap and widely-varying standards. S pecial catalogues exist for material trace analysis, abduction claims, ancient sightings, and also for particular countries or regions. S everal groups are active through closed Internet conferences and have begun to develop and exchange information through wikis in various languages. Furthermore, the range of available data sources has been expanded as countries like the U .K . and S pain followed the example of the U .S . Project Blue Book in releasing their declassified files, although not in an organized, structured computer-readable format. Lack of data validation and lack of standards has impeded progress among the researchers responsible for these databases. It is natural for people who have recently become aware of the field to launch into their own implementation of a file of selected cases in the hope of rapidly “solving” some of the problems raised by this puzzling phenomenon, U nfortunately, they rarely have the financial wherewithal or professional staff necessary to conduct field investigations or even elementary checks on the validity of the information they collect. A s time goes on, unfortunately, this reinventing of the wheel fails to generate new results. Every group has implemented its own way of indexing, which makes it impractical, if not impossible, to exchange data Furthermore, these groups have often used software techniques that were overly complex and hindered research and ease of access instead of promoting it: T hese catalogues rely on ambitious coding systems that demand large editing and updating efforts. A s the implementers get older and are constrained by family or professional requirements they tend to move on and lose interest, and the files get abandoned for lack of trained staff to maintain the overall structure. 1. Implementation requirements T he new system to be developed needs (1) to support a family of catalogues of observations of unusual aerial phenomena whose nature or behavior suggest the presence of an unrecognized threat, (2) to be up and running within a short time, (3) to extend the search for such data to as many relevant regions of the world as possible to find out what knowledgeable researchers or authorities in those regions possess about such phenomena and (4) to allow sophisticated analyses and datamining to improve our own understanding of the extent, structure, and frequency of such events, as well as their potential correlation to known physical, environmental, biological or socio-political factors. T he project should avoid the major pitfalls identified above. It should not require any special hardware or network scheme. It has to serve a closed community of physicists and analysts A A P Person 5 CAPELLA Data Warehouse page 4 with the need to test certain theories (and counter-theories) about the nature of the phenomena involved. T herefore the work cannot be limited to data acquisition, indexing and storage but extends to the essential tasks of dynamic data validation and of providing the ability for users in the project environment to apply their own interactive screens against the data. T he project should also be of service in contacting experts in other countries to validate certain findings from our teams and “drill down” deeper into certain hypotheses, archives or interesting sites around the world. T herefore it should be accessible anywhere through the Internet (under password protection when applicable). T he software should make it easy to convert existing data into a single standard structure, to search for specific natural language expressions or keywords, to sort according to specific criteria and to support statistical tables and graphs. T he system also must empower a community of researchers to propose and test their own hypotheses. S uch testing is not possible today: A lthough many interesting theories have been advanced, they are limited by the poor selection of physical and social data available to us. T he phenomenon is so diverse that any theory of it can be proven, provided one is free to select the “right” observations - and ignore the rest! T his is not good science, but in the absence of reliable data bases this selection bias is unavoidable T he large, scientifically- based effort that is contemplated here cannot afford to repeat the mistakes that, unfortunately, characterize the field. In summary, in order to accomplish all this, the system has to be portable, frugal, easily implemented on various computer platforms, without the need for a dedicated system team for maintenance or special programming. 2. Recommended platform(s) and structure G iven the variety of data sources we do not believe it is practical to design a single, massive chronological catalogue for sightings of unidentified phenomena Nor is it practical to merge existing databases together since every one of them has its own social, demographic and cultural bias, and serves its own community and type of research (e.g., on pilot cases, on trace analysis, on vehicle interference, etc.) Instead we propose a data warehousing system that supersedes the individual databases, using a standard structure and coding system over the set of files. In contrast to the patchwork of databases mentioned above, we propose to assemble a small specialized team and to train its members in data acquisition, data validation and quality control, using only standard, commercially-available software for storage and analysis as first step to reach rapid implementation. W e believe that this can be accomplished using a standard M icrosoft package such as EX CEL, which is widely available (even on A pple computers) and benefits from a large M P Person 5 CAPELLA Data Warehouse page 5 population already trained in its use A lthough EX CEL is not a database system, it has some advantages over A CCESS or other software in our case because it makes it very easy to find, sort, replace and tabulate significant amounts of data among a set of flat files. W e have mentioned above that many private efforts in this field have suffered from over- ambitious schemes and coding systems that were too complex. T hey also contain an ■-----------■— — --------------:-------------— DATA W AREHOUSE Figure 1 : D ata W arehouse concept embedded bias as a consequence of the beliefs of those compiling the data, usually under the (unstated) assumption that all cases involve spacecraft from extraterrestrial origin, to the exclusion of any other hypothesis In the three appendices below we propose a series of simple conventions that minimize such bias and can be applied widely across the various datasets. It should be noted that the total number of available cases that have given rise to sighting reports is estimated to number only about 100,000 Even if we double or triple this number, A A P Person 5 CAPELLA Data Warehouse page 6 the resulting file is a small one by the standards of modem databases, and it does not require a sophisticated software system for editing and searching. T his framework, in our estimation, will be useful in supporting the various projects contemplated by BA A S S over the first two years. W hen the size and quality of the available files reaches maturity, the project may wish to revisit the implementation scheme and extend it through a more sophisticated collaboration system that would integrate instant messaging and electronic mail as part of its structure. A nother useful extension of CA PELLA would be the implementation of an artificial intelligence screening program (using a rules-based engine) that would simplify the work of the analysts and prioritize assignments to field investigation teams. However, such undertakings are not needed at the beginning and would only distract the staff from the immediate practical objectives of the project. It would require the addition of computer resources and personnel that are not needed in the initial stages 3. Priorities in data capture T he most direct way to test the proposed system is to implement it using already-available data such as the NID S catalogue, developed in the 1990s b^A A P Person 7 | ----- A A P Person | | and their colleagues in Las V egas. A ppendix C contains an example of such implementation S ince the original data is still available, converting it into the proposed format could be a straightforward way to train the new staff and test the system A nother effort that could be started immediately involves the capture of new information in raw form. For instance the project could decide that, starting on January 1“, 2009, all cases coming to the knowledge of BA A S S would be recorded in the new format by a staff person dedicated to this task T his person (a data analyst) would continue to maintain paper files and folders (to keep newspaper articles, photographs etc.) but would also enter the highlights of the case into a CA PELLA file. T hese two efforts assume that a basic computer facility will be in place at BA A S S . It is expected that it will use the same secure servers already installed for other user groups, and would take advantage of network-attached storage for back-up, etc. thus minimizing initial expense. T he data project itself does not require an elevated system of security as long as access can be controlled by the database administrator In connection with the building of the full data warehouse, a separate effort needs to be initiated towards an extensive literature review, with books and reports available in the major languages. Internet links to selected remote experts need to be in place to facilitate quality assurance, consistency of data and access to photographs, videos and other items of interest. A A P Person ..58....... Zap Person 5 CAPELLA Data Warehouse page 7 4. A ccess to Foreign and Private Catalogues A part from capturing new data and converting the existing NID S files, there is a need for integrating as many of the available catalogues as possible under the CA PELLA framework. S ome of these files are publicly available, or are likely to be made available by authors interested in collaborating with BA A S S , but other catalogues are jealously guarded or covered by intellectual property agreements restricting their use. In such cases it will be necessary to review the legal rules governing access and data conversion. T hese catalogues usually contain information obtained from published sources and cannot claim ownership of each case, only its representation in a computer format. T o the extent that the same information can be converted by BA A SS into a new format, and is not used in any commercial operation, any claims restricting the use of such data is debatable. T his question should be examined on a case-by-case basis with the owners of the catalogues A major decision to be made by BA A S S concerns the external visibility of the CA PELLA effort. W hile it is entirely conceivable to keep it as an in-house effort, if only to prevent leaks of private information such as the names of witnesses or the conclusions reached by BA A S S about certain cases, one can also argue for releasing the data structure used by CA PELLA and inviting other groups to use it in their own work. (S imilarly our system of codification and reliability indicators was published in several languages years ago, and the model in six layers has also been widely reviewed and translated). It would be aservice to the A A P Person 5 . . ' ■' ■■ A A P Person 58.. field in general to publish our standards and to stimulate others to bring data to the surface in a format that was easily usable by everyone. In connection with this phase of the work we would undertake two trips to present the project and its methods to knowledgeable researchers with their own databases in W estern Europe, with initial emphasis on France, S witzerland, S pain and Italy where such catalogues are known to exist. T his could later be extended to S candinavia, G ermany, R ussia and the U .K . and (in a later stage) to other continents. W e would expect the CA PELLA project to facilitate access to and serious discussion with responsible managers at the level of industry and foreign governments 5. Personnel In the above presentation we have identified three important roles, namely: (i) A database administrator whose job is to decide which catalogues need to be integrated into the data warehousing structure, to maintain the consistency of the information, to insure the security and integrity of the files, to verify that regular backups are properly executed and kept, and to make the information easily accessible by the user community, including over the Internet. T his person also needs to be in charge of access priorities, permissions and passwords. He or she will be expected to have a sound background in data processing with knowledge of networking standards and notions of programming, but he or she does not need to be a A A P Person 5 CAPELLA Data Warehouse Page S systems expert or computer scientist. Experience in serving a diverse community (such as a campus or multi-site company such as a bank) would be most useful. (ii) A data analyst who captures incoming data and reduces it intelligently to summary text. T his person will need to interview witnesses on the phone and to interface with authors of external catalogues. He or she will need to be neat, very well organized, able to maintain a paper-based riling system as a back-up. G eneral knowledge of standards for maps, weather reports and military and civilian aviation systems will be useful. T his person could come from the military or from a major company, possibly as administrative assistant to an international manager. S oon after the start of implementation we need to add: (hi) A quality control coordinator who can challenge the information in the rile, verify sources and codes, and check that all available information has been captured. T his person should be an independent thinker with a good eye for noticing mistakes and inconsistencies. He or she could come from many backgrounds, such as copy-editing, paralegal, or technical work where close inspection is mandatoiy. M ost importantly, this person must not report to others in the data warehouse team and must be protected from criticism when challenging the integrity of the data in the files. In the second year the project needs to be completed with the addition of (iv) A statistician in charge of pattern analysis, data extraction for specific studies and reports, and advanced datamining. T his person should have at least an M .S degree in statistics and practical experience with hard field data (as opposed to economics, marketing or astronomy). Experience in geology, ecology, medicine (epidemiology) or other field involving sparse data sets with high variability will be helpful. (v) A second data analyst in the large extant literature of aerial phenomena T his person would review the books and reports compiled over the last 50 years, including files released by various governments (the U .K ., S pain, France and others) in order to improve the quality and consistency of the CA PELLA files. T his person must have knowledge of foreign languages such as French and S panish in addition to English. His or her background could be in library science, indexing or publishing, with a keen interest in literature research and impeccable mastery of reference systems and international library search techniques. specialized A s a team the members of this group should be encouraged to review the cases on file and critique them, looking for missing data elements or inconsistencies in the information. In this author’s experience, such mistakes are frequent and they naturally pollute any statistical result or physical theory developed on the basis of the system. S uch collective review sessions would be the best training process for the group and would enhance its contribution to BA A S S as a whole. W hether or not members of this group should be cleared is open to question. M ost of the information on file will be from open sources and only sensitive in terms of individual A A P Person 5 CAPELLA Data Warehouse page 9 privacy, unless BA A S S has special access to recent military data. It would also be useful to setup a policy on foreign access. T here are centers of excellence in this field outside the U nited S tates, notably in France and S pain. Establishing a channel of collaboration with the individuals there could be highly beneficial to BA A S S , if it is consistent with the group’s security requirements. 6. Budget estimates A t this point we can only give a rough estimate (+ or - 30% ) of the expense involved. T he following assumes that the team uses an already-established, secure system of servers internal to BA A S S , professionally-maintained. It also assumes that offices and basic furniture are already in place. First Year T hree (3) persons at $120,000 fully-loaded average salary $ 360,000 Computer equipment: 5 desktop computers + 5 laptops ... $ 40,000 S oftware packages.............................................................. $ 5,000 D ata acquisition (internal).................................................. $ 20,000 Communications, local travel, meetings............................ $ 70,000 Filing systems, supplies, projection system, media....... $ 15,000 External contracts for information gathering .................. $ 100,000 $610,000 Second Year Five (5) persons at $120,000 fully-loaded average salary $ 600,000 Computer hardware/software updates.............................. $ 10,000 Communications, travel, meetings.................................... $ 80,000 D atamining and analysis software........................................$ 20,000 D ata acquisition (internal)................................................... $ 20,000 External contracts for information gathering.................... $ 100,000 $ 830,000 A A P------ Person 5 CAPELLA Data Warehouse page 10 A ppendix A A System of Classification and Reliability Indicators for the A nalysis of the Behavior of U nidentified A erial Phenomena A A P Person 5 When taced with hundreds or even thousands of reports of unusual aerial phenomena, no serious researcher can undertake any study or hazard any hypothesis before analyzing the patterns buried in the reports. T hese patterns only reveal themselves when the witnesses* accounts are classified into major categories whose prevalence and recurrence can then be computed. T his is a time-consuming task that demands a great deal of rigor, which explains why so few research organizations have done it consistently. In our own work, we have used such classification systems for many years, in the context of very different data sets. We have learned from early mistakes, and this effort has led us to propose the current scheme based on the reported behavior of the phenomenon under observation. T he purpose of this paper is to clarify the system and its practical use. Background A ny classification system for anomalous reports needs to start from the observed behavior of the phenomenon rather than any subjective feature special to the observer. A t the same time, the classification system must be able to support the testing of hypotheses by researchers coming from “skeptical" as well as “proponent” positions with respect to popular interpretations of the phenomena in question. A nd it must not presuppose any particular theory. T o my knowledge, the first classification system of this type that was applied to unidentified aerial phenomena grew out of my work in 1961 and 1962 with and 1843(a)(2) 1843(a) in p^ [ proposed to separate the massive collections of French sightings - notably those from the 1954 wave - into four major categories. Briefly summarized, they encompassed the following: A A P Person 5 Appendix A page 1 1843(a)(2) T ype I, which was further divided into three subgroups, gathered all the “landing” reports that ." 1843(a)(2) would later call “close encounters." Il may be hard for the modern reader to realize that until the late S ixties, A merican ufology did not admit that such reports existed. , ----- 11843(a)(2)A mong the major civilian organizations, only A PR O, headed up by|and 1843(a)(2) recognized their significance. T he A ir Force’s Project Blue Book automatically sent landing reports into the psychological file. T ype II reports were observations of the “cloud cigars” so prevalent in Europe in 1954, and whose apparent role in the development of major waves had been pointed out by 1843(a)(2) (+). S uch reports became rare in the following years, and there is no longer a justification for this category. T ype III reports involved objects that exhibited a discontinuity in their trajectory; either they stopped and hovered, or they came towards the ground with a falling leaf motion before resuming their flight, or they performed some other maneuver that identified a specific point in space and time. Illis was important for us at the time because we were compiling a catalogue with longitudes and latitudes, recorded with as much precision as possible. T ype IV , by contrast, gathered all cases of objects in uninterrupted flight. T his classification served its purpose for many years. It enabled us to uncover specific time and space patterns for various types of behavior, notably the “law of the times" for landing reports. 1843(a)(2) c]assjflcation 1843(a)(2) In 1972, on the basis of the work we had done together since the mid-sixtiesJ built upon my earlier classification when he proposed (*) to divide all reports into two groups: the short­ range sightings which corresponded to my ‘T ype I” and which he called Close Encounters 1843(a)(2) A A P Person 5 Appendix A page 2 (aterm later immortalizedby1843(a)(2) i; and the objects observed “at some distance, which he further divided into three categories: NL for Nocturnal Lights D D for D aylight D isks R V for R adar-visual 1843(a)(2) was wen aware that these divisions were arbitrary, and he remarked himself that the categories “may not be mutually exclusive." 'D ie major contribution of 1843(3) classification was the clarity with which “landings" were now defined: CE1 was the class of objects seen on the ground or close to die ground CE2 was the class of cases where physical effects or traces were reported CE3 was the class of reports where “occupants” or “entities” were present, a category from which he excluded claims of repeated contact. T hese definitions have stood the test of time. In recent years a new category has been invented. Called CE4, it encompasses the abduction reports in which the witness claims not only to have seen occupants but to have extensively interacted with them inside their vehicle or craft. R adier than taking an abduction claim as our reference, we prefer to use the term “reality transformation.” S erious complications arise, however, when one tries to use1843(a) 12} categories of nocturnal lights, daylight disks and radar-visual cases, especially when the screening process works from a computerized database, as it needs to do in any sophisticated effort to attack the problem. Not only do these categories overlap (a “disk" may be seen in daylight and also tracked on radar, for instance) but many reports cannot be placed into any of these classes: W hat happens if an object is seen at night, but is not a light? Or when an object seen in daylight is not shaped like a disk? W hat about reports of objects seen at dusk or dawn? A A P Person 5 Appendix A page 3 T he work we have done in recent years with four parallel computer catalogues has led us to suggest a practical solution to the problem. A Classification System based on the Behavior of the Phenomenon T he major flaw in previous classification systems is that they take as their basis the position of the observer, which is arbitrary and changing, rather than the reported behavior of the phenomenon from which one could draw important conclusions in tenns of patterns. In other words, it may be interesting to know that a particular witness described a disk while another saw a triangle or a square, but this is a purely subjective item that is a function of the percipient, not a behavioral attribute of the phenomenon: one person’s “disk” is another person’s “ball of light.” It is more relevant to know such stable facts as whether or not the object presented a discontinuity in flight or came close to the ground, items for which there is more consistent agreement. A nother flaw in existing systems is that they are too complicated and require constant reference to codebooks with overly-detailed definitions that are time consuming and enor-prone. In order to encompass the full range of phenomena one finds in the reports from witnesses, it is important to acknowledge that what most people call “U FOs” are related in significant ways to other anomalies. It is the rule, rather than the exception, to find the observation of a flying object preceded or followed by other unusual phenomena. For that reason, I find it useful to begin with a classification of A nomalies that parallels 1843(a) 112) close encounter designations: A N1 events are anomalies like amorphous lights or unexplained explosions in the sky, that do not have lasting physical effects. A N2 reports involve lasting physical effects, such as poltergeist phenomena, anomalous photographs, flattened grass or “apports." A N3 cases are anomalies with associated entities. T his could involve reports of ghosts and instances of crytozoology, or even “spirits.” A N4 designates those anomalous reports in which witnesses describe personal interaction with entities in the reality of the entities themselves. T his includes near-death experiences, claims of religious visions and some cases of out-of-body experiences. A A P Person 5 Appendix A page 4 Finally, we place under A N5 the cases in which anomalous injuries or deaths are reported, such as unexplained wounds or spontaneous combustion. Claims of permanent healings would also fit within this category. W e now come to the U FO reports themselves, which we will divide, following ^^^ into close encounters and distant sightings. W e see no reason to change anything to the classification of close encounters that is in current use, from CE1 to CE4, although ~843^a^^^ ~|was not responsible for creating the CE4 category and was not especially happy with this extension of his work. In recent years the need has arisen for a new category, CE5, which encompasses cases of close encounters in which the witnesses have suffered permanent injury or other physiological or pathological effects. Naturally, in introducing these classes of items, we make no assumption regarding the reality of the phenomenon as described by the witnesses, and we do not presuppose any physical explanation. T he distant sightings will be classified according to the apparent behavior of the object under two general categories, namely M A for “maneuver” and FB for “flyby.” W ithin these categories, the sub definitions follow those of close encounters. M aneuvers M A I gathers those observations that involve an object with a discontinuous trajectory such as a drop, a maneuver, a hovering stop, or a loop. M A 2 includes those cases that give rise to physical effects in addition to a discontinuity in trajectory. For instance, an official French report described an object that hovered close to a town’s photocell, triggering an extinction of the street lighting system. M A 3 contains the cases of objects with discontinuous trajectories when beings are observed on board. A A P Person 5 Appendix A page 5 M A 4 covers instances of maneuvers accompanied by a sense of transformation of reality for the percipient. M A 5 involves reports of permanent injury or death related to a maneuvering object in the sky. Flybys T he classification continues with the “Flyby” cases: FBI is a simple sighting of an unexplained object “flying by” in the sky without discontinuity. It is the most-frequently reported category. FB2 involves cases of flyby with physical evidence, such as a recorded sound or radar tracking. FB3 gathers cases of flyby where report of an object is accompanied by the observation of beings on board. A lthough rare, this type of sighting is occasionally reported. FB4 represents a flyby in connection with which the witness claims he or she has undergone a transformation of reality. FB5 has to do with cases where witnesses of a flyby suffer serious injuries, as in the well- documented “Cash-Landrum" medical incident near Houston, T exas, where two women and a boy were hurt as an unexplained, very bright object flew above them without stopping. T hese four major categories, with their five variants, define a very simple system of 20 codes that are easy to remember and to handle statistically since very little overlap can occur among the categories. A n additional benefit of a behavior-based classification system for the analyst is found in the fact that certain hypotheses to explain the observations are specific to each category. For instance, FB events should be examined for explanations involving meteors or airplanes, which are unlikely to apply to CE cases. T he SV P Credibility Rating No classification system is complete without a way of assigning credibility or “weight” to an observation. W hile such a procedure is an integral part of any intelligence evaluation, U FO A A P Person 5 Appendix A page 6 researchers have rarely applied it in support of their work. (A notable exception is the “quality index” proposed by S panish researchers!184313^2^ for practical use on large databases.) and 1843 (a)(2) but it may be too detailed T he system needs to be simple enough to be applied quickly, and with enough mnemonic value to insure it does not require constant reference to a thick codebook. In our own work we now use a simple, three-digit code to indicate the weight of a U FO report. Each of the three digits has a value from zero to four, as follows: T he first digit, “S " indicates the reliability of the source: 0 is used for an unknown source, or an unreliable source 1 is for a report attributed to a source of unknown reliability 2 is from a credible source, second hand 3 is from a credible source, first hand 4 is a firsthand personal interview with the witness, by a source of proven reliability T he second digit, “V ” indicates whether or not a site visit took place: 0 is used when there was no site visit, or the answer is unknown 1 indicates a visit by a casual person unfamiliar with such phenomena 2 flags a site visit by a personal familiar with the range of phenomena 3 is a site visit by a reliable investigator with some experience 4 indicates a site visit by a skilled analyst T he third digit, “P" indicates the probability of natural explanations: 0 is used when the data is consistent with one or more natural causes 1 means that a natural explanation only requires slight alteration of the data 2 means that a natural explanation would demand gross alteration of one parameter 3 means that a natural explanation demands gross alteration of several parameters 4 means that no natural explanation is possible, given the evidence Appendix A page 7 a A A P Person 5 T hus a rating of 222 or better (meaning that each of the three digits is 2 or higher) indicates events reported through a reliable source, in which a site visit has been made, and where a natural explanation would require the gross alteration of at least one parameter. Equipped with this reliability code and the classification described above, it is possible to start making sense of the patterns extracted from the mass of unusual aerial phenomena reports. T his system has been used by several studies, notably by CU FOS in their U FOCA T catalogue, by the National Institute for D iscovery S cience (NID S ) in its private database, and by the French study of pilot sightings conducted by 1843(a)(2) in connection witli tire G EIPA N (G roupe d’Etudes et d’Information sur les Phdnomdnes A driens Non-identifids) and the CNES in Paris. T hus it is becoming possible to compare statistical data in cross-indexing among several databases, a significant first step towards international cooperation in the study of this puzzling phenomenon. 1843(a)(2) A A P Person 5 Appendix A page 8 A ppendix B A six-layer model for A nomalous Phenomena: Incommensurability, Orthodoxy and the Physics of Consciousness andA A P Person 58A A P Person 5 A bstract T he main argument presented in this paper is that the continuing study of unidentified aerial phenomena (“U A P”) may offer an existence theorem for new models of physical reality. T he current SET ! paradigm and its “assumption of mediocrity” place restrictions on forms of non-human intelligence that may be researched. A similar bias exists in the ufologists' often-stated hypothesis that U A P, if real, must represent space visitors. Observing that both models are biased by anthropomorphism, the authors attempt to clarify the issues surrounding “high strangeness” observations by distinguishing six layers of information that can be derived from U A P events, namely (1) physical manifestations, (2) anti-physical effects, (3) psychological factors, (4) physiological factors, (5) psychic effects and (6) cultural effects. In a further step they propose a framework for scientific analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena that takes into account the incommensurability problem. (*) Based on a presentation at the Forum on “S cience, R eligion and Consciousness” at the U niversity Fernando Pessoa, Porto (Portugal) 24 October 2003. A A P Person 58 A A P Person 5 Physics of High Strangeness page 1 T he Challenge of High Strangeness T he rational study of reported cases of U nidentified A erospace Phenomena (U A P) is currently at an impasse. T his situation has as much to do with the incomplete state of our models of physical reality as it does with the complexity of the data. A primary objection to the reality of U A P events among scientists is that witnesses consistently report objects whose seemingly absurd behavior “cannot possibly" be related to actual phenomena, even under extreme conditions. S keptics insist that intelligent extraterrestrial (ET I) visitors simply would not perpetrate such antics as are reported in the literature. T his argument can be criticized as an anthropocentric, self-selected observation resulting from our own limited viewpoint as 21st century Homo S apiens trying to draw conclusions about the nature of the universe. Nonetheless, the high strangeness of many reports must be acknowledged. A dvocates of U A P reality, on the other hand, generally claim that the Extra-T errestrial Hypothesis (ET H) centered on interstellar travelers from extrasolar systems visiting the Earth is the most likely explanation for the objects and the entities associated with them. T his argument, too, can be challenged on the basis of the witnesses’ own testimony: U fologists have consistently ignored or minimized reports of seemingly absurd U A P behaviors that contradict the ET H, by selectively extracting data that best fits their agenda or version of the ET H. T hus the ET H, just like the skeptical argument, is based on anthropocentric self-selection A A P Person 5 Here we are witnessing an interesting overlap between the S ET I and U A P paradigms: each excludes consideration of the other when laying claim to the legitimate search for and contact with i potential non-human intelligence. In the view of the authors, current hypotheses are not strange enough to explain the facts of the phenomenon, and the debate suffers from a lack of scientific information. Indeed, from the viewpoint of modem physics, our Cosmic Neighborhood could encompass other (parallel) universes, extra spatial dimensions and other time-like dimensions beyond the common 4­ dimensional spacetime we recognize, and such aspects could lead to rational explanations for apparently “incomprehensible" behaviors on the part of visitors to our perceived continuum. A s it attempts to reconcile theory with observed properties of elementary particles and with discoveries at the frontiers of cosmology, modern physics suggests that mankind has not yet discovered all of the universe’s facets, and we must propose new theories and experiments in .A A P Person 58 anaA A P Person 5 Physics of High Strangeness page 2 order to explore these undiscovered facets. This is why continuing study of reported UAP events is important: It may provide us with an existence theorem for new models of physical reality. M uch of the recent progress in cosmological concepts is directly applicable to the U A P problem: T raversable wormholes (3-dimensional hypersurface tunnels) have now been derived from Einstein’s G eneral T heory of R elativity 1843(aK 2) In particular, it has been shown that Einstein’s G eneral T heory of R elativity does not in any way constrain spacetime topology, which allows for wormholes to provide traversable connections between regions within two separate universes or between remote regions and/or times within the same universe. M athematically it can also be shown that higher-dimensional wormholes can provide hypersurface connections between multidimensional spaces1843(a)(2) R ecent quantum gravity programs have explored this property in superstring theory, along with proposals to theoretically and experimentally examine macroscopic-scale extra-dimensional spaces T hus it is now widely acknowledged that the nature of our universe is far more complex than observations based on anthropocentric self-selection portend. In this respect, ufologists and S ET I researchers appear to be righting a rear-guard battle. Botli suffer from identical limitations in the world view they bring to their own domains, and to their antagonism. A nthropocentric Bias in the SET I and L A P Paradigms T he anthropocentric biases in the S ET I program are evident in the present search paradigm. Historically the founders of S ET I defined the search paradigm from a series of complex arguments and assumptions that led to the creation of a “S ET I orthodox view” of interstellar communication while applying the “assumption of mediocrity" to our known present technological capabilities 1843(aH2) T his approach was predicated on the notion that it was economically cheaper and technologically easier to generate and receive radio-wave photons for interstellar signaling rather than engage manned interstellar travel or robotic probes. Indeed the latter was considered economically and technologically improbable within the “S ET I orthodox view". T his has led to andA A P Person 58A A P Person 5 Physics of High Strangeness pageS four decades of the S ET I program following a dominantly radio/microwave (R M W ) oriented search scheme. G iven the failure of this initial approach, in the last two decades alternative S EII programs have been proposed. T hey exploit coherent laser optical/IR (COSET I), holographic signals and worldwide web detection schemes, as well as ideas to search for ET I artifacts (S ET A , or and visiting probes (S ET V , V =visitation) in the solar system or on Earthastroarchaeology) 1843(a)(2) 1843(a)(2) T here are new proposed search schemes based on the application of high-energy (particle) physics detection, such as modulated neutrino beams. X -rays, gamma rays, and cosmic rays, etc. Other search schemes propose looking for artificially generated excess radiation emissions from astronomical bodies in space or for high-energy radiation starship exhaust trails 1843(a)(2) T hese new programs have been at odds with members of the dominant R M W -S ET I program, possibly because of concern over having to share scarce resources or compete with other non- R M W programs for the very limited private funding available for overall S ET I research. T he community of U A P researchers is also driven by its own orthodoxy, which is only violated at great personal risk to the critic who proposes a deviant view, and by its own “principle of mediocrity” when attempting to categorize and hypothesize explanations for the phenomenon. For this reason we prefer to use the term “U A P” rather than the more common “U FO”, which is immediately associated with the idea of space visitors in the mind of the public and media. Yet a bridge could be formed between the disparate S ET I and U FOlogy communities if both would only recognize a simple fact: No experiment can distinguish between phenomena manifested by visiting interstellar (arbitrarily advanced) ETI and intelligent entities that may exist near Earth within a parallel universe or in different dimensions, or who are (terrestrial) time travelers. Each of these interesting possibilities can be manifested via the application of the physical principle of traversable wormholes since they theoretically connect between two different ’universes, two remote' space' locations, "different times and dimensions 1843(a)(2) T raversable wormholes are but one example of new physical tools that are available or on the horizon for consideration of interuniversal, interstellar, interdimensional or chronological travel. A A P Person 5 Physics of High Strangeness page 4 T his leads the present authors to speculate that a new synthesis can be found by examining the full context of the U A P phenomenon -- including its apparently “absurd" characteristics - in terms of a six-layer model. T he model uses the framework of the incommensurability problem and concepts borrowed from semiotics. U A P - T he Need for a U nified A pproach W hat we present here is a new framework for U A P analysis that takes into account the lessons from S ET I. In any scientific question it must be possible to ascertain to what extent a hypothesis, when tested and proven to be true, actually “explains" the observed facts. In the case of U A P, however, as in physics generally, a hypothesis may well be “proven true” while an apparently contradictory hypothesis is also proven true. T hus the hypothesis that the phenomenon of light is caused by particles is true, but so is the opposite hypothesis that it is caused by waves. W e must be prepared for the time when we will be in a position to formulate scientific hypotheses for U A P, and then we may face a similar situation. T he framework we present here is based on such an apparent contradiction, because we will argue that U A P can be thought of both as physical and as “psychic”. W e hope that it will prove stimulating as a unified approach to a puzzling phenomenon that presents both undeniable physical effects suggesting a technological device or craft and psychic effects reminiscent of the literature on poltergeists and psychokinetic phenomena. Here we use the word “psychic" in the sense of an interaction between physical reality and human consciousness. T he feeling of absurdity and contradiction in these two aspects is not worse than scientific puzzlement during the particle/wave or, more recently, quantum entanglement and multi­ dimensional transport controversies. T he contradiction has to do with the inadequacy of our language to grasp a phenomenon that defies our attempts at classification. T he Six L ayers of U A P A nalysis Let us consider the characteristics of the sightings that are not explained by trivial natural causes; wc can recognize six major “layers" in terms of our perceptions of these characteristics, A A P Person a™58A A P Person 5 Physics of High Strangeness pageS as they can be extracted from earlier works about U A P phenomenology1843(a)(2) or from the current NID S database. L ayer 1: First of all is the physical layer, evident in most accounts describing an object that: > occupies a position in space, consistent with geometry > moves as time passes > interacts with die environment through thermal effects > exhibits light absorption and emission from which power output estimates can be derived > produces turbulence > when landed, leaves indentations and bums from which mass and energy figures can be derived > gives rise to photographic images > leaves material residue consistent with Earth chemistry > gives rise to electric, magnetic and gravitational disturbances T hus U A P, in a basic physical sense, are consistent with a technology centered on a craft that appears to be using a revolutionary propulsion system. L ayer II: For lack of an adequate term we will call the second layer anti-physical. T he variables are the same as those in the previous category but they form patterns that conflict with those predicted by modern physics: Objects are described as physical and material but they are also described as: > sinking into the ground > shrinking in size, growing larger, or changing shape on the spot > becoming fuzzy and transparent on the spot > dividing into two or more craft, several of them merging into one object at slow speed > disappearing at one point and appearing elsewhere instantaneously > remaining observable visually while not detected by radar > producing missing time or time dilatation > producing topological inversion or space dilatation (object was estimated to be of small exterior size/volume, but witness(s) saw a huge interior many times the exterior size) > appearing as balls of colored, intensely bright light under intelligent control A A P Person 5 Physics of High Strangeness page 6 L ayer III: T he third layer has to do with the psychology of the witnesses and the social conditions that surround them. Human observers tend to see U A P while in their normal environment and in normal social groupings. T hey perceive the objects as non-conventional but they try to explain them away as common occurrences, until faced with the inescapable conclusion that the object is truly unknown. L ayer IV : Physiological reactions are another significant layer of information. T he phenomenon is reported to cause > sounds (beeping, buzzing, humming, sharp/piercing whistling, swooshing/air rushing, loud/deafening roaring, sound of a storm, etc.) > vibrations > burns > partial paralysis > extreme heat or cold sensation > odors (powerful, sweet or strange fragrance, rotten eggs, sulphurous, pungent, musky, etc.) > metallic taste > pricklings > temporary blindness when exposed to the objects’ light > nausea > bloody nose and/or ears; severe headache > difficulty in breathing > loss of volition > drowsiness in the days following a close encounter L ayer V : T he fifth category of effects can only be labeled psychic because it involves a class of phenomena commonly found in the literature of parapsychology, such as > impressions of communication without a direct sensory channel > poltergeist phenomena: motions and sounds without a specific cause, outside the observed presence of a U A P > levitation of the witness or of objects and animals in the vicinity > maneuvers of a U A P appearing to anticipate the witness’ thoughts > premonitory dreams or visions > personality changes promoting unusual abilities in the witness » healing and A A P PersonA A P Person 5 Physics of High Strangeness page 7 L ayer V I: T he sixth category could be called cultural. It is concerned with society’s reactions to the reports, the way in which secondary effects (hoaxes, fiction and science-fiction imagery, scientific theories, cover-up or exposure, media censorship or publicity, sensationalism, etc.) become generated, and the attitude of members of a given culture towards the concepts that U A P observations appear to challenge. T he greatest impact of the phenomenon has been on general acceptance of the idea of life in space and a more limited, but potentially very significant, change in the popular concept of non-human intelligence. Possible Nature of U A P T echnology A framework for scientific hypothesis on the U A P observations can be built on the identification (admittedly very coarse) of the six major layers of U A P effects. If we must formulate a view of the problem in a single statement at this point, that statement will be: Everything works as if UAPs were the product of a technology that integrates physical and psychic phenomena and primarily affects cultural variables in our society through manipulation of physiological and psychological parameters in the witnesses. T his single statement can be developed as follows: a) T he phenomenon is the product of a technology. D uring the observation, the U A P is a real, physical, material object. However, it appears to use either very clever deception or very advanced physical principles, resulting in the effects we have called “anti-physical”, which must eventually be reconciled with the laws of physics. b) T he technology triggers psychic effects either purposely or as a side effect of its manifestations. T hese consciousness phenomena are now too common to be ignored or M Person 58 Physics of High Strangeness page 8 A A P A A P Person 5 relegated to the category of exaggerated or ill-observed facts. A ll of us who have investigated close-range sightings have become familiar with these effects. c) T he purpose of the technology may be cultural manipulation - possibly but not necessarily under control of a form of non-human intelligence - in which case the physiological and psychological effects are a means to that end. But the parapsychologist with a Jungian framework may argue that the human collective unconscious is also a potential source of such effects - without the need to invoke alien intervention. T he Incommensurability Problem T he above considerations bring us back to a discussion of the S ET 1 paradigm. M any S ET I workers now realize that we cannot be so presumptuous as to assume that ET cultures, possessing a cognitive mismatch with us, will behave as humans do in the 21st century. S pecifically, there is no reason to restrict them to radio-based communications technology and to exclude travel through interstellar space or the sending of automated probes. T hus the S ET V /S ET A program overlaps ET H-based U FOiogy. Both are dedicated to detecting non­ human intelligence on or near the Earth, demonstrating a paradigm shift away from the “S ET I orthodox view” and principle of mediocrity. T he view that ET s and humans may have such divergent ways of conceptualizing the world that there can be no mutual understanding is referred to as the “Incommensurability Problem” in the S ET I literature1®4^3^) , T he cognitive mismatch or Incommensurability Problem between human and ET cultures will guarantee that the latter will develop communication techniques other than radio. ET cultures may be sending radio and optical signals to Earth now but they may also be sending signals in a variety of other forms such as holographic images, psychic or other consciousness-related signals, modulated neutrinos, gamma ray bursters, wormhole-modulated starlight caustics, signals generated by gravitational lensing techniques, modulated X -rays, quantum teleported signals, or some quantum field theoretic effect, etc. T he Incommensurability Problem even applies to the problem of understanding U A P manifestations within the framework of the ET H. A t the core of the Incommensurability Problem is the view that no intelligent species can understand reality without making certain methodological choices, and that these choices may ______ A A PA A P Person ..I- L^ person 58 5 ... Physics of High Strangeness page 9 vary from civilization to civilization1843(a)(2) If ET s and U A P entities have different biologies and live in considerably different environments from humans, they may well have different goals for their science, and radically different criteria for evaluating the success of their science. T heir explanatory mechanisms, their predictive concerns, their modes of control over 1843(a)(2) nature might alt be very different, and their means of formulating models of reality should be expected to differ drastically from ours In this regard, there is one additional feature that needs to be mentioned in support of alternative S ET I paradigms. T he S ET I program’s encryption/decryption emphasis on pictorial images or messages is predicated on the assumption that ET s have sight like humans vis-a-vis the “S ET I orthodox view” ’“43(a)(2) W e observe that this emphasis is not so much a reflection of the primacy of vision in humans, but rather a reflection of the philosophical assumptions about the proper means of gaining knowledge. Hence, anthropocentric self­ selection becomes manifest within the S ET I and U FOlogy “orthodox view”. 1843(a)(2) asserts that human reliance on science is based on studying visible characteristics of objects 1843(a)(2) T he belief that true knowledge must be acquired from sight originated in the 17th century. T his emphasis on sight led to eliminating the other senses as potentially valuable sources of scientific information. W ithout even raising the question of whether ET s or U A P entities can “see”, we may be wise not to overestimate the importance of pictorial representations for them. T he same applies for ET /U A P transmissions to us. W e can see and gain knowledge by sight, but ET /U A P signals potentially bombarding the Earth could be misunderstood, unrecognized or undetected because we are not employing paradigms involving our other modalities, such as psychic functioning. M any examples of this are found in interactions between humans from different cultures 1843(a)(2) Because we cannot be certain of the nature of ET /U A P recipients of our deliberate messages and they cannot be certain of our nature when sending us their messages a priori, it is difficult to construct pictures that will be unambiguous. T o some extent, ET /U A P viewers of our pictograms may project characteristics from their own species-specific experiences onto our messages, and we certainly project our own species-specific experiences onto their messages. T he former may be the cause for the lack of detected ET signals (save for those 100+ radio and A A P Person 5 Physics of High Strangeness page 10 optical signals which were not false positives but also not repeated by their source) while the latter can be the cause of the current impasse in the study of U A P phenomena. Semiotics In his analysis of the communication problem S ET I Institute psychologist 1843(a)(2) advocated the application of semiotics, the general theory of signs 1843(a)(2) has 1843(a)(2) where a sign is something that represents something else, the signified. For example the words "the coin" might represent the object you hold in your hand. In interstellar messages, in terms of classical information theory, there is no innate relationship between the form of the message and the content borne by the message. Once the information of the message is decided upon, an efficient means of encoding it is sought. In this approach, there is a purely arbitrary connection between content and form of the message. S emiotic-based messages have a wider range of possibilities for relating form and content. S emioticians categorize signs according to the ways that the sign and signified are related to one another. In the association between the sign "the coin" and its signified object, this relationship is purely arbitrary. T he sign for this object could have well been “the poofhoffer". T his is a purely conventional association. In semiotics, when the association between sign and signified is arbitrary, the sign is referred to as a symbol. W ith symbols, there is no intrinsic connection between the form of expression (the sign) and the content that is expressed (the signified). T here are alternatives to the arbitrary connection between sign and signified that are seen in symbols. One alternative is the icon, a sign that bears a physical resemblance to the signified. W ith icons, the form of the message reflects its contents. For example, the profile of the man on a modern A merican quarter is an icon for a specific man who was the first President of the U nited S tates. W e can also represent the same man with the symbol “G eorge W ashington". In the former case, the image of W ashington is an icon because it physically resembles the signified. Icons can also be used when the signified is less concrete. For example, the scales of justice icon represents the concept of justice because there is similarity between the sign (scales that balance two weights) and the signified (concept of justice, which involves a balance between transgression and punishment). A A P Person 5 Physics of High Strangeness page 11 It is also helpful to realize that icons are not specific to the visual sensory modality. It is possible to have a sign that physically resembles the signified in a non visual way. For example, the fly S pilomyia hamifera beats its wings at a frequency very close to the wing-beat frequency of tire dangerous wasp D olichovespula arenaria. A s a result, when one of these flies is in the vicinity of a group of these wasps, the fly gains some immunity from attack by insect-eating birds. T he fly's mimicry of the wasps occurs within the auditory modality. It is not attacked by would-be predators because it sounds like the wasps. In short, the fly’s defense strategy is based on producing an auditory icon, in which the fly’s wing-beating (the sign) physically resembles the wing-beat of the wasps (the signified)1843(a)(2) Icons could function in any sensory modality. G iven that we are not sure which sensory modality will be primary for ET s/U A P, a sign for communication that is not reliant on any particular sensory modality would be preferable. In S ET I/CET I, electromagnetic radiation is used as an iconic representation, allowing a direct communication of concepts (Earth chemistry, solar system organization, human D NA , math, geometry, etc.) without encoding the message into a format specific to a particular sensory modality. In using icons, the message’s recipients are pointed directly toward the phenomena of interest, and not toward our models of these phenomena. From a more complete perspective, the sign and the signified arc in a triadic with the interpreter of the relationship. T hus, the similarity that exists between an icon and its referent does not exist independently of the intelligence perceiving this similarity. A lthough in iconicity there is a natural connection between the sign and the signified, this connection cannot exist without intelligence to observe the connection. U ltimately, the problem of iconicity is that similarity is in the eye of the beholder. A nd because we do not know what ET s/UA P are really like, we cannot be sure that what to us seems an obvious similarity will be seen as such by an intelligence with a different biology, culture, and history, possibly originating in a different universe. T hus, judgment of similarity is not purely objective, but is influenced by a variety of factors that impact conventions of interpretation. andA A P Person 58A A P Person 5 Physics of High Strangeness page 12 T he U A P and A bduction Problem T he aforementioned behavior of U A P is not fundamentally absurd. T his apparent absurdity is merely a reflection of the cognitive mismatch or the Incommensurability Problem that exists between humans and the phenomenon. In this particular case, U A P are sending the message and we are the recipients. T he message(s) they are sending to us are icons, icons fashioned by the phenomenon and sent to us via various sensory modalities. T he difference between our respective cultures, biologies, sensory modalities, histories, dimensional existence, physical evolution, models of nature and science, etc. is directly responsible for our lack of understanding of the phenomenon and its message. W e cannot see what U A P believe to be (iconical) similarities in the message that is intended for us. T hese stated differences directly impact our conventions of interpretation in such a way as to impair our recognition of the ‘‘similarity” between the sign and the signified contained within the icons of the U A P message, further impairing our ability to “sec and understand" the potential message. T he difference between the sensory modalities of U A P entities and humans is responsible for our inability to properly detect the U A P message (icons) and correspond with them. T his difference may also prevent us from correctly interpreting what their icons are if we do in fact recognize them. In this regard, recall that we will project our own species-specific experiences onto their icons (messages) thus manifesting the appearance of “absurdity" during the human- U A P interaction. U FO abduction cases may exemplify this, in the sense that the “absurd” activities (or scenes) concurrent with abduction events could merely be the iconical defense mechanism deployed by the U A P to protect itself from the victim/subject much like the way S pilomyia hamifera protects itself from insect eating birds by mimicry. 1843(a)(2) 1^ 1843(a)(2) suggest that ET s/UA P visiting Earth would find it necessary to hide themselves from our detection mechanisms until they have assessed our technological layer or potential threat and hazards. T hey would employ an adaptive multi-layer risk program to avoid danger. Low observable stealth such as simple camouflage through mimicry, which works well in nature, may be the technique of choice for visiting U A P/ET I experienced in surveillance 1843