I copied this over from my [Substack](https://www.raffythemusen.com/p/the-phenomenon-as-science). There may be some formatting anomalies, please bear with me. I would like to help get some conversation going on this topic.
\—-
The question is often asked: why should ‘the people’ leave the management of the UFO phenomenon in the hands of the government? As a life-long career government scientist, the answer is simple: The modern history of the phenomenon was first documented and empirically codified in the annals of military reporting dating back to the 1930s. For reasons unknown, the mostly accepted first encounters with UFOs occurred across various elements of the military in the U.S. and abroad. I will solely focus on military and government reports of encounters with the phenomenon for the majority of this work (I am well aware of the work of John Mack and other current and historical data collection organizations who have developed datasets from non-military encounters with the phenomenon—the scope is limited here for intelligibility).
For the first several decades of the U.S. military’s history with the phenomenon, eyewitness testimony was the sole source of data collected (historical radar telemetric data were and still are very difficult to come by). Within these qualitative data exist patterns that allows us to catalog the observations of qualified, trained personnel in a systemic fashion. By the government’s own admission, historical and current analysis of data related to the phenomenon has been hindered by the lack of a unified reporting structure which disallowed the standardization of data reporting, data collection, and data analysis[1](https://www.raffythemusen.com/p/the-phenomenon-as-science#footnote-1-141322281). However, given the breadth of publicly available historical data now, we can analyze the textual data and catalog it in such a way which makes verification and validation of vital patterns possible. In turn, this allows us to create potential models based on these documented histories. This process also provides us with a way to build the scaffolding of what may allow us to one day discover new evidence and expand our understanding of what the phenomenon is. While rigorous, it provides us with two powerful allies: patterns and a structure by which to understand those patterns.
​
### Concepts, funding, and limitations
I do not think we are yet to a point where we can solely rely on the data to achieve a greater understanding of the phenomenon. This is why it is important that we first establish a foundation. We do this, in part, through funding. I have spent my career working in research-intensive government programs and the one thing that they all have in common is that they are all sufficiently funded. This is a discussion that needs to be had more openly. The stigma around funding is just as pervasive as the stigma around discussions around the phenomenon itself. There is no shortage of bad actors out there, but these are not the individuals carrying out the kind of work which will actually move the needle forward. There are individuals and organizations, like the [SOL Foundation](https://thesolfoundation.org/) and [The Galileo Project at Harvard University](https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+galileo+project&cvid=b04825773f1e4aef844497084ed79027&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEAAYQDIGCAAQABhAMgYIARBFGDkyBggCEAAYQDIGCAMQABhAMgYIBBAAGEAyBggFEAAYQDIGCAYQABhAMgYIBxAAGEAyBggIEAAYQNIBCDUxNzJqMGo0qAIAsAIA&FORM=ANAB01&PC=W011), which, I believe, intend to do for the phenomenon the kind of work that my colleagues and I have performed to great success in our respective fields.
Funding *is* essential. However, it isn’t everything and the second half of this equation pertains to science itself. While we live in a scientific age, distrust toward scientific institutions is at an all-time high[2](https://www.raffythemusen.com/p/the-phenomenon-as-science#footnote-2-141322281)[3](https://www.raffythemusen.com/p/the-phenomenon-as-science#footnote-3-141322281). As scientists, we can do better. Additionally, we still need to be more transparent about funding structures, public outreach with regard to science education, identifying gaps to improve pathways from education into science, technology, engineer and mathematics (STEM) career fields (the education to workforce pipeline), and literacy concerning how science is actually conducted. Education is vital and I favor an inclusive approach where everyone at least can understand how these endeavors work so that we can move away from throwing rocks to getting work done. Below is my attempt to help those not familiar with the topic understand how this is done.
### Methodology and additional considerations
Say that we do get the aforementioned substantive data gathered and catalogued using automated qualitative data analysis and natural language processing (NLP) tools, what then? Whatever tools we use, the process by which they are used is going to be documented and analyzed by teams of other scientists. If they cannot authenticate our dataset, then replication of any study findings is not going to be possible. Any data must be re-usable by other researchers, so using a methodology that can be agreed upon and vetted is vital. One additional consideration: whether one is using traditional tools for context encoding or using collaborative AI and human interpretation algorithms, every effort must be made to remove bias. The same goes for data collection and processing of quantitative survey or other telemetric or sensor data. However, because we are dealing with language and text-based data, sentiment analysis, topic modeling, keyword extraction, and named entity recognition (NER) methods must undergo significant review in order to be deemed reliable. Seeing a pattern here?
With that out of the way, what kinds of questions do we ask? What types of hypotheses can we establish early on to help guide us? What relationships do the data form? There is no shortage of proclamations on the nature of the phenomenon. The more time you spend on this topic, the weirder it gets. Even as efforts are made to strive toward an empirical and scientific understanding of the phenomenon, the currently available, disclosed, visual, spatial, and telemetric data yield no additional understanding. Experiencer sightings of tic-tac, orbed, and other geometrically shaped objects go back to at least the [1940s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter). However, if one digs deep into the topic, these sightings can be tentatively attributed to events hundreds, if not thousands, of years before our current era. How are these date ranges determined? How do we include and exclude cases? How do we handle issues concerning data integrity?
For example, the modern, government-documented history of the phenomenon is nearly one hundred years old—a whole human lifetime, as researcher Richard Dolan often puts it. Regardless of whether it has been a hundred years, 500 years, or thousands of years, this line of reasoning leads us down a rather compelling path of deduction: this phenomenon, whatever it is, has existed alongside us for a long time. But wait, what is the phenomenon? Is it an umbrella term for all anomalous phenomena? What is the criterion? How do we operationalize this definition? In other words, how do we move from the abstract to the observed? Until this is resolved, we cannot move forward.
As you can see, we encounter massive issues when we allow bias to guide the data collection and analysis stages of research. In fact, doing so compromises the integrity and validity of the research itself. Because this is important, researchers painstakingly abide by scientific principles which uphold objectivity and scientific rigor, stringent standards for generalizability, ensuring ethics which aim to remove stigma and discrimination from all areas of the endeavor, and elimination of confirmation bias—my biggest pet peeve.
Confirmation bias occurs when researchers seek evidence that confirms their existing beliefs. As an example, say that you’re an established scientist leading a 12-person multidisciplinary team and you get called to retrieve an object of unknown origin. Eight eyewitnesses in the vicinity of the area in which the object was found claim the object came from a UFO crash. For the sake of getting to the point, all local, state, and federal safety regulations are followed, and you’re allowed to sweep in and do your thing. You do your due diligence and take down statements using a recorder, because your brain and notes are not as accurate as you think. Before doing so, you ask for consent to take down statements. Remember: ethics are not optional. Of the initial eight witnesses, six give you consent. You utilize a survey instrument to help guide you in the questions you will ask. You record six conversations. retrieve the object given the correct procedures established for hauling off potentially dangerous items and off you go.
In short, you have just conducted a data collection operation. Once you get back to your lab, you make sure to transcribe all of your processes and submit it for review amongst your 12-person team. You meet several times over the course of two weeks to ensure that nothing was missed or invented (you are handling a potential object of unknown origin! I can understand if you let excitement get the best of you!). You write your methodology—it’s important that others replicate your findings using your methodology! Nowhere in the documentation process do the words UFO, UAP, the phenomenon, alien, or anything of the sort are explicitly or implicitly alluded to. Instead, you de-identify the object and eyewitness testimony using a random alphanumeric generator. This is vital. Any analysis conducted afterward is rendered meaningless if you begin with the assumption that this object was in fact part of a UFO crash retrieval—this includes how you catalog the data collected. Why? Because you’re upholding objectivity and, more importantly, because you don’t know what it is! If you lead with certainty that you know what it is or even one millionth of an inkling as to what it is, then you’re doing it wrong. However, IF you and others on your team have watched James Fox’s excellent documentary [The Phenomenon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJomA4NDQI), [have read all of Jacque Valle’s work](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vall%C3%A9e#Publications), and some even happen to have a bit of a man-crush on [David Grusch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH10mD9hQas) and/or Representative [Ana Paulina Luna](https://youtu.be/uCAe5N_CDO0?t=156), and are convinced that that this is a UFO… you will proceed in error.
Let’s stay with this. So, you allow your bias to guide your research. At this point, whatever analysis you do perform will have a predetermined outcome attached. You ignore all of your training and decide to continue on. You draft a publication, which you don’t allow to be peer-reviewed by **reputable**, **knowledgeable** **scientists or agencies**. You ignore colleagues who tell you that you’re doing this wrong—despite your protestations to the contrary. Even worse, you anticipate the backlash, so you double-down on your “methods” and announce over social media that you have in your possession, never-before-retrieved metals of unknown origin that were retrieved from a crash site and are in the process of having several start-up labs with no professional reputation for conducting this kind of analysis working hard to bring UFO disclosure to the masses.
You didn’t say it was a UFO outright, but you didn’t need to. Your bias planted the idea and we’re off to the races now. Ladies and gentlemen, this has ceased to be scientific. As soon as you labelled the finding something before allowing the unadulterated scientific process to play out. From a scientific perspective, anything that happens beyond this point is without merit. You must go back to the beginning and do this the right way. You’re not going to be ex-communicated or anything like that. We just want you to do this right. Yes, it’s a metric-ton worth of work, but it is worth doing it right.
Allow me to play the devil’s advocate for a moment: What if you were right? Screw the methods! I found a bonafide UFO! Well, you still should have followed the scientific process because you’re a good scientist and want others to be able to replicate your findings, build upon your body of work (you did find it after all), be a good steward of the process, and because integrity is everything.
### Conclusion
Let’s be honest. We don’t know what the phenomenon is. We may have ideas, but deep down, we don’t really know. I always tell people to beware anyone who claims to have the monopoly on truth. One of the scientific processes greatest assets lies in its ability to foster a sense of wonder. I feel that this has been lost when it comes to the phenomenon. This is an extraordinary field of study, but we should be courageous enough to follow a process by which we can test the merit of our ideas. We currently lack the structure to do so. Before we can even get there, an understanding of how science works is foundational. I’ve said before, I want to believe that there is something to the phenomenon. The good thing is that I can leave my bias at the door because now, more than ever, it ceases to be a matter of *belief.* There legitimately is *something* there! We won’t know what it is by being blindly led astray. We have a process. Let’s be brave enough to see where it takes us.
by RaffyHighStrangeness