“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi
PART 22: Quantitative criteria : BUFORA’s case priority
One of
That book included, in effect, two different proposed systems in relation to the ranking of cases. They had different purposes:
(1) Firstly, Jenny Randles suggested that case reports written by UFO investigators (i.e. after an investigation is concluded) should include an evaluation of the strangeness and probability rating of the case. That suggestion adopts (and adds to) J Allen Hynek’s Strangeness/Probability Ratings and is discussed in PART 20: Quantitative criteria : Hynek – Strangeness and Probability.
(2) Secondly, Jenny Randles included a “chart to determine case priority” (i.e. when a report is received by an investigator, prior to an investigation) – see Footnote 22.01. That chart is discussed below, along with similar proposals and their implementation.
The proposals made by Jenny Randles make use of the following definitions (see Footnote 22.02):
(a) Low definition - Simple phenomena with no definite shape and no interactive effects.
(b) Medium definition - Phenomena as above, with clear shapes accorded them.
(c) Instrumentally detected – Recorded evidence of a visually observed phenomenon (sub-divided into photographic, film and radar cases).
(d) CE1 – Any phenomenon causing transient effects on the witness, the environment, or both (e.g. time loss, animal disturbance, radio interference etc)
(e) CE2 – Any phenomenon causing effects, as in CE1, which are semi-permanent and observable by others, who did _not_ experience the phenomenon alleged to have caused them.
(f) CE3 – Phenomena which have animate entities of some king in association with them.
(g) CE4 - Events which cause a witness to suffer temporary or permanent reality distortion (e.g. a psychic interaction) or which cause imbalance or change in a witness of long duration following the initial events (e.g. post-abduction symptoms).
Jenny Randles commented that “one can, I think, use this as a guide to priority in an ascending scale (with the possible exception that CE1 and INST [instrumentally detected] cases are often of roughly equal priority)” (see Footnote 22.02)
The “chart to determine case priority” mentioned above assigns a certain number of points to each of three factors:
Factor A: Case type
Factor B: Witness Groups
Factor C: Witness Type
In short, the higher the total number of points, the more likely a report is to merit a higher priority investigation.
The number of points to be assigned to each of these factors is as follows:
Factor A. Case Type
1 point: Low definition
2 points: Medium definition
3 points: not used
4 points: CE1 / Instrumentally detected
5 points: CE2
6 points: CE3
7 points: CE4
Factor B. Witness Groups
1 point: Single witness
2 points: Multiple witnesses
3 points: Independent witnesses
Factor C. Witness Type
1 point: Experience in RAF etc
2 points: Serving in army, air force etc. Pilot or policeman etc.
The purpose and content of the “chart to determine case priority” devised by Jenny Randles are similar to the purpose and content of a system set out in BUFORA’s “UFO Investigation” manual (1976, edited by Roger Stanway, with Jenny Randles as Assistant Editor) – see Footnote 22.03.
BUFORA’s manual set out BUFORA’s “Investigation Classification System”, the purpose of which is to assist in determining “the degree of urgency which is likely to be involved” when a UFO report is first made. That system was stated to be “based on an original system devised by Mr Charles Lockwood, BUFORA’s Research Projects Officer” (although no reference is given in BUFORA’s manual for any relevant publication by Lockwood).
BUFORA’s 1976 manual states that it is likely that the system of classification to be used after evaluation of a case will be different, and details will be published “as soon as this final system has been agreed” and refers to the desirability of obtaining international agreement on such a system. I am not aware of BUFORA adopting or promoting any such system, although it may be that the proposals of Jenny Randles for that system are reflected in her proposals based on Hynek’s Strangeness/Credibility ratings (discussed in PART 20: Quantitative criteria : Hynek – Strangeness and Probability).
The BUFORA system also assigned points to three different factors:
Factor 1 : Number of qualified or trained observers;
Factor 2 : Class of observation;
Factor 3 : Total number of witnesses.
The number of points to be assigned to each of these factors is as follows:
Factor 1 : Number of qualified or trained observers [“Category”]
2 points – 1 or more official observers: pilot, professional astronomer, who was using his expertise when making the observation.
1 point – 1 or more experienced observers, not necessarily professional but of good standing: police, trained UFO students.
0 points – No experienced observers. Most reporters of UFO’s are in this category.
Factor 2 : Class of observation [“Class”]
6 points – Permanent record made – such as physical or physiological traces left, photograph taken, measurements made with instruments and recorded.
5 points – Temporary physical effects reported. Occupants or entities. Vehicle interference. EM effects. Time inconsistency.
3 points – Object seen nearby with features not likely to be observed in a known manmade or natural phenomenon. No effects noted locally.
1 point – Distant object or point of light. Shape not clearly distinguishable.
Factor 3 : Total number of witnesses [“Group”]
2 points – 2 or more independent witnesses at different locations.
1 point – 2 or more witnesses at one location.
0 points – 1 witness only.
The BUFORA manual suggests that Lakenheath was an “A1a” case (10 points), whereas the Villas Boas incident was a “C1c” case (6 points).
A system similar to that in BUFORA’s manual is set out in the material relating to BUFORA’s Postal Training Course for UFO investigators (see Footnote 22.04). The similarities are not surprising given that the Postal Training Course materials were, as I understand it, largely written by Jenny Randles. The potential scores set out in that material are as follows:
Case happened within past week : 2 points
Case older than a week but exact date known : 1 point
Three or more witnesses : 3 points
Two witnesses only : 2 points
At least one witness is independent (i.e. not known to others and in a different location : 1 point
An entity is seen : 2 points
Interaction between entity and witness : 1 point
Time loss reported : 1 point
Photograph/video taken : 2 points
Ground traces or electrical interference : 2 points
Total : 17 points
BUFORA is not the only organisation to offer a postal training course based on material written by Jenny Randles. MAPIT also offers such a course. MAPIT’s course material also includes a case priority system for UFO reports (see Footnote 22.05), with the following point system:
2 points: Case happened within the past week
1 point: Case older than a week but exact date known
3 points: Three or more witnesses
2 points: Two witnesses only
1 point: At least one witness is independent (i.e. not known to others, different location)
2 points: A UFO entity has been seen
1 point: Physical interaction between witness and phenomena
1 point: Time loss reported
1 point: Time Displacement reported
2 points: Recorded : Photograph or video
2 points: Electrical / mechanical interference
3 points: Physical marks on the body caused by the phenomena
2 points: MIB Encounter
2 points: Animal or Human Mutilation reported
1 point: Military presence
1 point: Black helicopter reported
1 point: Crop circle / Burns / Flattened Area reported
0 points: One witness only
1 point: Angel Hair substance
1 point: Paralysis reported
2 points: Abduction / Interaction
Since MAPIT’s remit is not limited to investigation of UFOs, its course material also includes a case priority system for cases of a paranormal nature (see Footnote 22.06). That system involves assigning points as follows:
2 points: Case happened within past week
1 point: Case older than a week but exact date known
3 points: Three or more witnesses
2 points: Two witnesses only
1 point: At least one witness is independent (not known to others, different location)
2 points: An apparition is seen
1 point: Physical interaction between witness and phenomena
1 point: Time slip / Lapse or Displacement
3 points: Recorded : Photograph or video
2 points: Electrical / mechanical interference
1 point: Objects being moved or misplaced
1 point: Formings / disembodied voices or strange sounds
2 points: Strange balls of light or Plasma Effects
2 points: Appearance of Gentry ie small dwarf type beings, fairy type folk etc
3 points: Physical Marks on the body caused by phenomena
1 point: Bad smells or odours / cold spots or areas
0 points: One witness only
1 points: Suffered from paralysis
1 points: Levitation or Excess Body Electricity
Actual applications of the proposals by BUFORA / Jenny Randles
I do not know to what extent Jenny Randles herself applied her proposals for assigning points to reports when received as a guide to the relative priority to be assigned to cases. I presume that her proposals were intended as a guide for newer investigator rather than to be strictly applied by someone with her level of experience.
I have asked one of the former Chairmen of BUFORA whether the BUFORA case files and/or any database held by BUFORA include BUFORA’s “Investigation Classification System” ratingsand/or any other rating system (e.g. Vallee's three digit SVP scores and/or Hynek's Strangeness-Probability ratings). I also asked him whether, if not, whether he knew if any such rating system was tried and/or rejected for any particular reason(s). He replied: "A very good question. Yes for all of the cases I submitted" [although I am not sure whether this answer was intended to refer to BUFORA’s “Investigation Classification System” ratings or one of the other rating system mentioned in my question]. He continued: "The manual I have includes a copy of the BUFORA Case Report Database (by Mike Wootten 1992) and just by looking through one of the boxes of archived cases I found that a number of completed sighting questionnaires did not contain this information, others did. It might be possible that when a case report was submitted this information may have contained such a form and that this was taken by someone like Phillip Mantle or Heather Dixon and then the data was entered onto a database (I've never seen this) and then returned the form to the case file for storage". I have emailed the current Chairman of BUFORA (Matt Lyons) and Heather Dixon to see if they assist further.
Robert Moore, the co-author of the updated online edition of "UFO Study" (see Footnote 22.07), has suggested that the case priority system developed by Jenny Randles and BUFORA:
(1) "was mostly for the benefit of beginning investigators" and "to get people thinking along the right lines" (see Footnote 22.08). He has commented "one of Jenny's main concern were that investigators were spending too much time on simple Lights in the sky (LITS) cases" and that there was a hope that focusing on "high strangeness" cases could provide more high quality information on "True UFOs".
(2) is "now effectively obsolete!". In his opinion, those systems were "compiled at a time when investigators had lots of sightings to deal with and choices had to be made as to which reports to investigate. In ufology today we have clumps of very low quality reports (mostly Khoom Fay [i.e. Chinese lanterns]) and the very occassional significant event. While the quantity of UFO reports has increased since the early 2000's quality has not".
In relation to the latter point, I disagree with Robert Moore. In my opinion, even if the choices as to which current reports are worth investigating (i.e. those not very likely to be Chinese Lanterns), there is still a need to decide which historical cases are worth further investigation.
FOOTNOTES
[22.01] Jenny Randles, “UFO Study” (1981) at page 75 of the Hale hardback edition.
[22.02] Jenny Randles, “UFO Study” (1981) at page 73 of the Hale hardback edition.
[22.03] BUFORA’s “UFO Investigation” manual (1976, edited by Roger Stanway, with Jenny Randles as Assistant Editor), Appendix 9.
[22.04] BUFORA’s Postal Traingin Course material, Lesson 1, as at approximately 2000.
[22.05] MAPIT’s BITC course material, Module 4, as at approximately 2000.
[22.06] MAPIT’s BITC course material, Module 1, as at approximately 2000.
[22.07] Revised edition of “UFO Study” (1981), updated by Jenny Randles and Robert Moore. Available online at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33162159/Ufo-Study-p1v2-162
[22.08] Email from Robert Moore to Isaac Koi, 24 June 2010.
NOT YET OBTAINED : “Guidelines on the Content and Organisation of Reports”, Hind, J & Keatman, M. UFOIN Guidebook, 1979. [Referred to by Jenny Randles in her book "UFO Study" at page 125, footnote 2]