The following are preliminary notes on procedures that should be adopted by investigators. While working on the new book I had to choose specific High Strangeness cases for inclusion. Cases that were the most "solid" ones available.
To say that I was shocked that out of the many hundreds of CE3K/AE cases on record, very few were scientifically investigated as one might expect of "elite" UFO organizations, well, I wasn't that shocked. Ego, inter~group rivalry and much more highlight the cases more than the actual encounters.
These notes are published here for reference date.
1. Above all else, the person(s) reporting the incident to the investigator/group has to be guarantee 100% that said investigators/group will not betray their anonymity in any way.
2. The person(s) involved must be spoken to at the very earliest opportunity. Weeks or months is not acceptable.
3. The investigator musr put the person(s) involved at their ease. Whether this is one or more witnesses does not matter at this point. Just talking to them and establishing their interests and employment or daily life routine is important but will make them feel more at ease: they are not being treated as some kind of freak. Point out that you cannot discuss similar cases or go into detail and that this is because protocol dictates this. Make it clear that critics cannot say they faked or added bits from cases this way but that after testimony is taken you are slightly more free to do so.
NEVER state "Oh, it's similar to the Stanford case" or anything similar as even an honest witness might be tempted to do an internet search for a "Stanford CE3K" or UFO landing report.
4. There should be no discussion about Ufology in general or local reports, other than to put the person(s) at their ease and show they are not "crazy". CE3Ks/AE cases or reports MUST NOT be referred to and only after the interview should an investigator even suggest anything similar has been described as it could taint future statements.
5. At no point should someone who has had a similar encounter be introduced even if to put a witness at their ease. If the percipient(s) is a female then there should be a female investigator present or a female known top the investigator ~wife, girl friend BUT only under strict confidentiality.
The ideal situation would be for any investigation team to have both male and female members for such situations.
6. Interviewing the percipient(s) should be on an individual basis. NO group interviewing.
7. All interviews should be taped as standard ~note that many digital recorders are of poor quality so make sure any device used records good sound quality.
8. Taped interviews should be transcribed as soon as possible after initial interviews.
9. Do NOT refer to any object sighted as a "space craft" as that leads the witness and critics can later use this to show you have done so even if not intentional. Use the term "UFOB" to indicate what is being described as a seeming constructed object.
10. Do NOT refer to "Alien" or use any phraseology other than "Entity"
11. If the percipient(s) were in a vehicle and vehicle interference was noted refer to manual on VI cases.
12. If the percipient(s) report physiological effects during and after then full details should be noted. It is the duty of the investigators/organization to facilitate some form of medical examination. If organizations cannot do this (no reference should be made to a UFOB case though, if the doctor involved is part of a UFO organization this is moot).
13. The first interview should enable any investigator to determine whether there is any missing time period during the encounter reported ~ascertain that there is no mundane reason for a mistake having been made such as a car clock being slow or house clock fast as the discrepancy between these two could give a false impression.
14. Do NOT immediately start asking whether the percipient(s) would be willing to undergo hypnotic regression. There must be very strict guidelines as to when any form of hypnosis is used and then only by a qualified professional.
15. Even if not good artist(s) get the percipient(s) to draw any UFOB they saw and then any entity. Once this/these have been made then a more professional set of drawings can be made and to guarantee that the percipient(s) agree this is accurate they should be asked to sign said drawings.
16. It will also be necessary for investigators to ask the percipient(s) to return with them to the scene of the incident (daylight is best as some percipient(s) may be too fearful to return to the spot at night though if they are willing no problem) so that it can be pin~pointed as accurately as possible. The inveastigators should note anything unusual in the area such as abandoned buildings, factoroies. If the visit takes place during daylight then the investigators should return at night, as close to the time of the incident as possible. It could be that something locally was mistaken for a UFOB.
17. During the day and at night, photographs should be taken of the scene of the incident. Look for any trace evidence etc., as should be standard.
18. Any final version of the whole percipient(s) statement(s) should be read through, approved and signed by the percipient(s).
19. When the investigation is completed the investigator should be able to tell the percipient(s) whether he feels that they have had a genuine experience and those involved may now ask questions but it should be made clear that we cannot say where these things originate and any mention of "Alien agendas"/"breeding programs" must not be made.
20. Only now should it be clear whether or not there is any missing time period an ways to help the percipient(s) (not regression hypnosis) consciously recall what might have happened. If any such methods are unsuccessful then, and only then if the percipient(s) are willing, should regression hypnosis be suggested and, again, this must be by a qualified person not heavily steeped in Ufology.
21. At all times a central case coordinator should be kept up to date on the investigatrion. This helps investigators talk through any problems or seek advice. If there is more than one group involved then this must be an evenly split investigation with everyone complying with the established procedure. A central case coordinator could smooth over any problems.
22. The final report should be signed by all involved. A summary should be handed to the percipient(s)
23. Although this should be a conclusion to the investigation it should be made clear to the percipient(s) that the investigator(s) can be contacted regarding any developments or recollections.
24. Re. 23, above, the investigator should make a courtesy call to see how the percipient(s) are doing and any developments after one year. Then after two years and the fact that the percipient(s) can contact investigators in future should be reiterated.