What key data points are required to analyse a UFO sighting?

[ManInBlack]

Everyone can probably agree that the data in the reporting sightings of UFO's is terrible.

What data is most helpful to make a report credible (i.e location, when did the sighting happen)?

 

[NorCal Dave]

I would think as much specific data as possible. In a sense anything that helps debunk it or falsify it. If one wants to claim that whatever they saw and/or photographed is in fact and alien UFO, then they should make it hard to show it is not. So at a minimum:

• Exact time of sighting
• Exact location sighting was made
• Exact direction sighting was made in relation to where the sighting occurred

Those 3 at least give a good chance of ruling out mundane things like planes and satellites.

Going further, would be type of camera/phone used, settings used and all relevant metadata. Again, here is everything about this event, you skeptics try to prove it's NOT alien.

Of course, it usually is the other way around, here is a bad video of a light in the sky, prove it is NOT alien. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, so the more information they can provide the better.

 

[Mendel]

It's helpful to have a recording of the observation, along with a precise location, direction and time; also the make and model of the recording device. It's important to know if the recording was made outside, or through a window. If the camera was moving, the track of the camera is important as well.

Do not stop recording until the sighting is over, or until it is unambiguously resolved.

It helps if the sighting is recent, and if there are multiple observations from different vantage points.

It also helps to know if the witness (and others?) noticed the phenomenon as it happened, or if it was only discovered later while going through the footage.

If it's a nighttime sighting, a daytime view from the same location has at times been helpful.

----

What data is most helpful to make a report credible?

Credibility:

Giving as much of the above data as possible makes it credible that the witness actually wants to have the sighting analysed; but I'd still expect that it's not of anything paranormal.
Having the data helps analysts cross-check various databases.

For a UFO sighting to be credibly attributed to an extraterrestrial craft, I'd want close-ups of the craft; and/or several observatories tracking an interstellar object to enter Earth orbit or to the surface.

See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/what-evidence-of-aliens-would-convince-skeptics.12366/ for more discussion on what would constitute credible evidence of aliens.

 

[Hougenai]

The 'Psychosocial hypothesis' ,see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosocial_hypothesis , suggests a psychological and cultural element to some sightings.
In which case the name/names of the reporter(s) are an important detail that may provide insight into reliability/credibility of the report itself.

In the case below, ' A well known prankster' fooled various media outlets;
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/truth-or-fake/20211116-ufo-hoax-fools-several-french-media
Knowledge of his previous history is a huge red flag.

Additionally, it might allow a debunker to directly contact the primary source should there be questions raised where answers aren't apparent in published material relating to their sighting/experience.

 

[Ann K]

It's important to know if the recording was made outside, or through a window. If the camera was moving, the track of the camera is important as well.

It's also important to have at least some of the photos/videos show other buildings or objects so there are things to compare with the object. A view zoomed in against a featureless sky gives nothing by which to judge the angle it subtends.

 

[FatPhil]

It's also important to have at least some of the photos/videos show other buildings or objects so there are things to compare with the object. A view zoomed in against a featureless sky gives nothing by which to judge the angle it subtends.

@Mendel mentioned "multiple observations", and I think I'd put that right near the top of my list - triangulation is necessary to get an idea of distance, and without distance you can't accurately judge size.

 

[Mendel]

It's also important to have at least some of the photos/videos show other buildings or objects so there are things to compare with the object. A view zoomed in against a featureless sky gives nothing by which to judge the angle it subtends.

Context in the picture often helps identify or confirm the location and direction. Notably, in night pictures, stars have helped.

If there's reference footage, it'd be interesting to include some demonstration of the zoom capabilities on known targets.

In cases where bokeh is suspected, it's probably helpful to deliberately try to make bokeh happen with that camera, as a reference. Do we have instructions on how to do that?

 

[Ravi]

@Mendel mentioned "multiple observations", and I think I'd put that right near the top of my list - triangulation is necessary to get an idea of distance, and without distance you can't accurately judge size.

Agreed, or (perhaps never happens) a 'stereo image' of the event, two persons with a phone filming the same thing. Then you know exactly how far it is, by analysis. Photogrammetry is perhaps the technique to use for ufo detection..

 

[JMartJr]

Interesting thread. Below is a "copypasta" I've used on some UFO discussion sites, specifically discussing shooting video of a sighting. I anticipate improving it based on what's been posted already and what will be posted next.

Maybe everybody start carrying your BEST camera around with you. Take a moment to learn how to use it, especially how to use manual focus if that is an option. If you see a UFO, tape it the entire time it is visible, especially stay on it until we see how it leaves or moves out of sight, as that can be really important. While shooting, spend about half your time zoomed in, and half zoomed out for wider shots with foreground items or other objects in the sky, like planes or something. Do not use digital zoom, as this does not capture any additional detail but does create artifacts that can render the image worthless for trying to learn about the object. If you zoom way in, and your autofocus has a stroke and blurs the UFO into a wavery indistinct blob, zoom back out a bit until focus locks in again. There is no information in out of focus footage at high zoom, there is at least something in lower-zoomed footage that is in focus. (And again, if you can do manual focus on your camera, use that.)

Hold the camera steady – this can be tricky at high zoom, but it will help to place your elbows against a car or other solid object; practice this with your camera in advance. As you are shooting, describe and sounds you are hearing, or even just what you are seeing by eye, as this info may not all get captured by the camera. If a friend is with you, ask them to pull out their phone or any camera they have and shoot video as well. Makes sure you note time and date and where you are, and which direction(s) you are facing.

IF it happens you are seeing a plane, or a military drone, or something, under unusual conditions, that will be made more clear by gathering all this info, but that's OK because IF you are really seeing something "out of this world," it will be easier to RULE OUT planes and normal stuff, and you have a better chance of capturing some details or info to maybe learn what they really are.

Source: Me

In terms of credible reports, I'd urge making contemporaneous notes as soon as is possible, and if there are multiple witnesses doing so before discussing the sighting together -- either write it down or video yourself -- this to guard against shifting memories or cross-contaminating each other's memories.

 

[Ann K]

Below is a "copypasta" I've used on some UFO discussion sites, specifically discussing shooting video of a sighting.

Nice summary! But of course you run the risk of people going out "loaded for bear", to whom every tree stump looks like a bear. At least better images would make it easier to cull out the obvious objects.

 

[JMartJr]

But of course you run the risk of people going out "loaded for bear", to whom every tree stump looks like a bear.

There were plenty of those in the groups being addressed already. Folks to whom everything looks like a spaceship from Omicron Persei 8, or inter-dimensional time lords. So as you say, hopefully with better data it will be easier to weed out insctances where they are looking at a party balloon, and on the off chance they capture visitors from Out There it might be easier to prove that.

 

[jarlrmai]

A lot of what we do here is find out the missing data points that were not provided and often when we do that the answer presents itself.