Popular Ufologie

Some researchers recommend that observations be classified according to the features of the phenomenon or object that are reported or recorded. Typical categories include:

Saucer, toy-top, or disk-shaped “craft” without visible or audible propulsion. (day & night)
Rapidly-moving lights or lights with apparent ability to rapidly change direction & then suddenly stop, impossible for conventional aircraft.
Large triangular “craft” or triangular light pattern
Cigar-shaped “craft” with lighted windows (Meteor fireballs are sometimes reported this way).
Other: chevrons, equilateral triangles, spheres, domes, diamonds, shapeless black masses, eggs, & cylinders.

[edit] Hynek system
J. Allen Hynek developed another commonly used system of description, dividing sightings into 6 categories. It 1st separates sightings into distant- & close-encounter categories, arbitrarily setting 500 feet as the cutoff point. It then subdivides these close & distant categories based on appearance or special features. The three distant-encounter categories are:

Nocturnal Lights (NL): Anomalous lights seen in the night sky.
Daylight Discs (DD): Any anomalous object, generally but not necessarily “discoidal”, seen in the distant daytime sky.
Radar/Visual cases (RV). Objects seen simultaneously by eye and on radar.
Subgroups of the distant category of sightings correlate with evidentiary value. RV cases are usually considered to have the highest value because of radar corroboration, whereas NL cases have the lowest because it is so easy to mistake lights seen at night for prosaic phenomena such as meteors, bright stars, or aircraft. RV reports are also fewest in number, while NL are most common.

Hynek also defined three “close encounter” (CE) subcategories:

CE1: Strange objects seen nearby but without physical interaction with the environment.
CE2: A CE1 case that leaves physical evidence (e.g. soil depressions, vegetation damage) or causes electromagnetic interference (see below).
CE3: CE1 or CE2 cases where “occupants” or entities are seen. (Hence the title of Steven Spielberg’s movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind.)
From UFO Casebook:

CE4+: aliens communicate with the observer, even abduct, experiment on the observers, others. UFO Casebook lists additional categories, in which the UFO and/or alien is captured/destroyed by military forces and/or civilians.
Like the RV cases, CE cases are considered higher in evidentiary value because they include measurable physical effects, & because objects seen up close are less likely to be the result of misperception. Like the RV cases, these tend to be relatively rare.

Hynek’s CE classification system has since been expanded to include such things as alleged alien abductions and cattle mutilation phenomena.

[edit] Vallee System
Jacques Vallee has devised a UFO classification system which is preferred by many UFO investigators over Hynek’s system as it is considerably more descriptive than Hynek’s, especially in terms of the reported behavior of UFOs.

Type - 1 (a, b,c, d)- Observation of an unusual object, spherical discoidal, or of another geometry, on or situated close to the ground (tree height, or lower), which may be associated with traces - thermal, luminous, or mechanical effects.

a - On or near ground.
b - Near or over body of water.
c - Occupants appear to display interest in witnesses by gestures or luminous signals.
d - Object appears to be “scouting” a terrestrial vehicle.
Type - 2 (a, b,c) - Observation of an unusual object with vertical cylindrical formation in the sky, associated with a diffuse cloud. This phenomenon has been given various names such as “cloud-cigar” or “cloud-sphere.”

a - Moving erratically through the sky
b - Object is stationary and gives rise to secondary objects (sometimes referred to as “satellite objects”)
c - Object is surrounded by secondary objects
Type - 3 (a, b,c, d,e)- Observation of an unusual object of spherical, discoidal or elliptical shape, stationary in the sky.

a - Hovering between two periods of motion with “falling-leaf” descent, up and down, or pendulum motion
b - Interruption of continuous flight to hover and then continue motion
c - Alters appearance while hovering - e.g., change of luminosity, generation of secondary object, etc.
d - “Dogfights” or swarming among several objects
e - Trajectory abruptly altered during continuous flight to fly slowly above a certain area, circle, or suddenly change course
Type 4 (a, b,c, d) - Observation of an unusual object in continuous flight.

a - Continuous flight
b - Trajectory affected by nearby conventional aircraft
c - Formation flight
d - Wavy or zig-zag trajectory

Type 5 (a, b,c)- Observation of an unusual object of indistinct appearance, i.e., appearing to be not fully material or solid in structure.

a - Extended apparent diameter, non-point source luminous objects (“fuzzy”)
b - Starlike objects (point source), motionless for extended periods
c - Starlike objects rapidly crossing the sky, possibly with peculiar trajectories

based on the Wikipedia materials

While many ufologists strive for legitimacy, and some are respected scientists in other fields, ufology has never been fully embraced by the scientific community, for a number of reasons. Despite involvement of some respected scientists, the field has seen very little attention from mainstream science.

One cannot obtain a "ufology" degree from any college or university, though there have been a few college or university courses on the subject, often from a folklore perspective. Many ufologists are scientific amateurs, and however well intentioned, are often unfamiliar with generally accepted research standards, thus often rendering their own research useless even to sympathetic mainstream experts. Some amateur ufologists have been criticised for accepting as true stories or tales without demanding supporting evidence or conducting even cursory research. Some ufologists have been proven to be con artists or people who simply desire fame or money, and these people have damaged the overall credibility of the field. However, other amateur ufologists have conducted solid investigations of UFO cases, but their amateur status had led to them being dismissed by professional scientists and investigators.

Ufologists embrace a wide spectrum of approaches, beliefs, and attitudes, from those regarded by some as quacks (e.g. David Icke); to respected mainstream scientists some of whom argue that UFO reports are as worthy of study as any topic, and deserve case-by-case analysis using the scientific method. Debunkers (such as P.Klass or Dr.Donald Menzel) have offered their opinions on UFOs, and though their conclusions have been disputed, they too represent an influential perspective in UFO studies.

However, this classification (sometimes presented as "skeptics" vs. "believers") is something of a false dichotomy, as there are other opinions on the subject: prominent scientist Dr. Carl Sagan was quite skeptical of any extraordinary answer to the UFO question, but in 1969, he co-organised a symposium on the subject, thinking that science had unfairly neglected the UFO question.

Overall, Ufology might be seen as an interdisciplinary field, as people have examined UFO reports from a number of perspectives. In her critique of the Condon Report, Diana Palmer Hoyt notes that "The UFO problem seems to bear a closer resemblance to problems in meteorology than in physics. The phenomena are observed, occur episodically, are not reproducible, and in large part, are identified by statistical gathering of data for possible organization into patterns. They are not experiments that can be replicated at will at the laboratory bench under controlled conditions." (see external links below)

Along these lines, Peter A. Sturrock suggests that UFO studies should be compartmentalized — as are most scientific endeavors — into at least "the following distinct activities:

Field investigations leading to case documentation and the measurement or retrieval of physical evidence;
Laboratory analysis of physical evidence;
The systematic compilation of data (descriptive and physical) to look for patterns and so extract significant facts;
The analysis of compilations of data (descriptive and physical) to look for patterns and so extract significant facts;
The development of theories and the evaluation of those theories on the basis of facts."[1]
Study of UFO sightings has yielded results applicable to other fields, such as in weather phenomena (see Hessdalen) and in human perception, such as the study lead by the SOBEPS for the Belgian flap in 1989-'90 or the studies of the GEPAN/SEPRA in France.

Some argue the general rejection of ufology by mainstream science is part of the problem: anyone can declare themselves a "UFO researcher", and completely bypass the sorts of scientific consensus building and peer review that otherwise shape and influence scientific paradigms. This has allowed many to stake out territory and disseminate claims, information and analysis of widely varying rigor and quality.

Some ufologists consider the general attitude of mainstream academics as arrogant and dismissive, or bound to a rigid world view that disallows any evidence contrary to previously held notions.[citation needed] Others charge that mainstream rejection of UFO evidence is a classic case of pathological science.[citation needed] Astronomer and ufologist J. Allen Hynek's famous comment regarding this subject is, "Ridicule is not part of the scientific method and people should not be taught that it is."[2] Another comment by Hynek regarding the frequent dismissal of UFO reports by astronomers was, "Close questioning revealed they knew nothing of the actual sightings, of their frequency or anything much about them, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. This is characteristic of scientists in general when speaking about subjects which are not in their own immediate field of concern

based on Wikipedia materials