Reliability and Significance of UFO Drawings

GEP-Tagung, 05.11.2022, Lüdenscheid 1
What Significance can we Assign to Drawings?
Jochen Ickinger, M.Eng.
UFO Drawings &
IFO Perception
ufoinfo.de

Drawings as Part of Case Data/Case Discussion
 Important item when footage is missing
 To answer the key question: “What did it look like?”
 Positive aspects of drawings:
– convey original visual impression of the witness
– supplement verbal/written information
– no restrictions due to verbal/written skills
Report,
Description
(Dynamics)
Questionnaire
Interview
(Details)
Drawing
(Visual
impression)
 (At least) Three information
channels (Complementation/
Consistency?)
3

Drawings as Part of Case Data/Case Discussion
 Important clue in the case discussion
 Comparison of the drawing with possible conventional objects (shape/details)
 Part of the argumentation pro/contra IFO
 Case Bruchhausen-Vilsen,
2019 (GEP)
 How stressable is the reasoning based on drawings?
4
„However, (...) the shape described (...) do not correspond to a helicopter.“

Witness Drawings as a Research Issue
 Obviously rather thin study situation
 Only a few scientific studies and hardly a topic in forensic science
 Some earlier experiments from UFO research
 Approach to the question of reliability and significance of drawings:
 IFOs reported as UFOs (IFO Message)
 Experiments conducted in UFO research
 Scientific studies
 Object and shape perception
5

The IFO Message
 Cases from GER
Case A67/Lorsch, 1980 (CENAP-HN)
Signal lights at towers/masts
No shape/structures recognizable
Bell shape with windows as own
interpretation
Case Leipzig, 2016 (GEP)
Witness video
Comparison video (YouTube)
Airplane (Question: Evaluation based on drawing only, without video?)
6
„Solid shape not recognizable“

The IFO Message
 Examples from Allan Hendry (Hendry 1980)
– Confirmed sightings of different advertising
planes at night
– All structures except the light bands and blinking
light were interpreted purely by the witnesses (what
was to be seen, see graphic left center)
– More „domed discs“ in the IFOs than in the UFOs
– What does this say about the phenomenon itself?
– 90% IFOs as an important part to understand the
entire phenomenon
7

The IFO Message
 Examples from Manuel Borraz (Borraz 1990)
– Meteor or re-entry
– Observations over several decades and
from several countries
– Observed from the ground and in the air
– Often drawn with windows
– Interpretation of artificial structures in
natural phenomena
8

The IFO Message
 UFO flap in Piedmont (Grassino 1986)
Sightings on September 15, 1985, several hundred sighting reports and media coverage
– Stratospheric balloon
– Mass sightings as a basis for research
– IFOs with potential for research, esp. on
reliability of witnesses as main source of
information
9

The IFO Message
Interim conclusions
 Drawings can show considerable varieties from actual objects
 Drawings often contain subjective interpretations (non-existent shapes & details)
 Mass sightings show scatter and deviations in width
10

Experiment of the GEP


 Perception experiment with mini hot air balloon (1988) (Peiniger 2009)
 Objective: To verify the statement that observers are scattered in
their statements and make different claims
 Test design: 5 groups, ~ 25 people, mixed demographics,
at different locations and dates
 Slide of a mini hot air balloon,
followed by: free description, drawing, questionnaire
 Items evaluated were:
Indication of time duration, quality of description, quality of
sketches, further information from questionnaire (interpretation
of the shown object, UFO interest & literature, attitude to the
UFO research & to the ETH, age, profession)
 Evaluation by Dr. Alexander Keul (Salzburg)
11

Test slide, 10 Sec. ↑
Drawings of the
participants
(selection)
↔
Total evaluated: 102
12

 Quality of object sketches:
Scale: 1=very good, 2=good, 3=neutral (“wishy-washy”/meaningless), 4=moderate (with error), 5=completely wrong
Overall, very few very
good or completely wrong
drawings, mostly
good to meaningless,
result similar to the
verbal description (in 3 groups)
 Combination of description and sketch
(very good to good reproduction):
One-third to just under half relatively accurate
13

 Key finding of Keul:
”Verbal descriptions and sketches of objects are in majority 'moderate' (good to wishy-washy). A
third to a maximum of half is 'usable' - but which data is that? Here the 'goodness' lies only in the
statistical evaluation of larger groups, not in the 'single piece'.” (Peiniger 2009)
 Confirmation of previous statements on the scattering of descriptions
 Similar test by sociologist Edgar Wunder on the occasion of the Galileo Mystery UFO
TV show (2007) confirms scattering and inaccuracies in the reproduction (false details):
“(...) that people, when confronted with an ambiguous stimulus for a short time, in retrospect - in
this case already a few minutes later - also draw things in their sketches of the "object" that do not
really correspond to the stimulus,(...)” (Wunder 2021)
14

Experiment of Alexander Keul


 Drawing test with UFO photo (Keul 1983)
On the occasion of the UPIAR Colloquium in Salzburg 1982
Aufbereitete Version →
 Differences in details
 Orientation to what is known
 Discussion of the application of
Rohrschach tests (effort?)
15

Experiments of Richard F. Haines


 “What do UFO Drawings by Alleged Eyewitnesses and Non-Eyewitnesses have in
Common?” 1978 (Haines 1979)
 First Part: UFO drawings from eyewitnesses and non-eyewitnesses
 Drawing according to own imagination
 Second Part: Influences of previous experiences on UFO drawings:
 Shape drawing test with regular and irregular shapes
 Drawing test according to sample (redrawing)
 Drawing test according to written sample
16



 UFO drawings from eyewitnesses and non-eyewitnesses
”Do alleged UFO eyewitnesses draw sketches of what they think a UFO looks like differently from
people who claim that they have never seen one?”
 General problem due to the presence of the subject in pop culture, media, advertising,
literature. Certain bias of all participants, including those with UFO experiences, in the
period between perception and drawing (misinformation)
 Five test groups, 38 to 72 and 229 people, mixed demographics,
two UFO conferences, two science fiction conferences, one professional conference
 Splitting of the groups according to "UFO seen" and "no UFO seen".
 Request to draw a UFO according to own imagination
 Evaluation of several criteria:
General shape, details, dimensions, proportions
17

 Test results:
People who claim to have seen a UFO draw:
- Less than half as many obviously absurd shapes on average
- Fewer domes on the main body
- Fewer round "openings" around the rim
- Fewer "openings" of other shapes around the rim
- Fewer "leg"-like lines below the shape, and
- Fewer markings, symbols or insignia on the shape
 Dimensions and size ratios as well as number of symmetrical and asymmetrical
drawings were almost the same in both groups
 Preliminary conclusion:
UFO experiences perceived as "real" lead to a limited amount of detail and to a
reluctance to draw obviously absurd shapes
 Did non-witnesses go by typical clichés and details?
18



 Influence of previous perceptual experiences on UFO drawings
Formzeichentest mit regelmäßigen und unregelmäßige Formen
How influence ”… certain ‚controlled‘ prior perceptual experiences (...) subsequent drawings.”
 Two test groups of 15 people each, who were asked to trace certain shapes
 One group was given an illustrated lecture on UFOs (group 2)
 Several slides of objects with irregular and regular (geometric) shapes, with different
time duration
19

Irregular
shapes
Strongly differing number of
drawn objects (N=5), often 3
objects were drawn
No significant difference, but:
Trend towards smaller drawings in group 2
20

regular
shapes
Regular, geometric, familiar forms may be thought of as experimental control drawings
21

regular
shapes
– Unanswered question: Why the trend of slightly
smaller reproduction of shapes in the group with
previous UFO lecture?
– Connection with first drawing test (less detail in
previous UFO experiences)?
Psychophysiological effect in
which lighter areas against a
dark background tend to be
perceived as larger than vice
versa
22



 Influence of previous perceptual experiences on UFO drawings
Drawing test according to template (tracing)
”Reproduction Accuracy of a UFO Drawing Presented for a Prolonged Period of Time.”
 Two test groups of 15 persons each (same as at the previous drawing test)
 Tracing of a given drawing, viewing time seven (Gr. 1) and six minutes (Gr. 2), as
desired by the groups
Given drawing:
23

 Drawings of three participants, representative for all 30 submitted
24

 Test results:
 Width/height ratio too small in all drawings
 Typical reproduction characteristics:
- Less evenness of lines, less line-to-line closure
- More angular overlap
- Wide range of orientation angles
- Incorrect directions of protruding lines
- Distorted dimensions of details as the size and proportions
 Rather large errors of the kind mentioned above were found
 No significant differences between both groups
 If UFOs are, in fact, ''flying machines" then drawings should be done as accurately as
possible. On the other hand, if the UFO phenomenon is some natural phenomenon
which may change its physical form over time, then it probably is not as important to
require particularly accurate drawings (according to Haines)
25



 Influence of previous perceptual experiences on UFO drawings
Drawing test according to verbal descrition
”… potential influence of a verbal description of a UFO upon a drawing of what it is said to look
like.”
 Test group from a UFO workshop (31 pers., 24 submitted drawings), two thirds with
(several years of) investigation experience, three participants with 16 to 20 years of
experience
 Two ten-minute drawing tests, each with a different description of a UFO sighting
 Analysis after inclusion of the given text details
26

 First verbal description:
”It looked like a flat rim around the sides, and there was a little bump on top. It
was shiny like metal or something, like the color of a bumper. It didn't make any
noise.'
Question [by the investigator]: 'So it was a hundred feet or a couple hundred feet
or something like that?'
Answer: 'yeah'”
 Deliberate choice of this very brief description because ambiguous and no indication of
basic outline shape or other essential details
27

< Drawing of the eyewitness
Results (2 details):
– Bump drawn by all
– Flat rim drawn by 18 part.
– Different interpretations of
the shape (to be expected)
28

 Second verbal description:
”... they ran outside in time to see a large object, flat on the bottom with a dome
on top ... hovering over the house, almost appearing to balance on top of the
house. It was twice as large as the small house.
They heard a humming noise, and lights around the bottom edge of the object
were blinking on and off, giving a predominantly red impression, but also
appearing at times to be green and yellow.... 'It was too bright. Every time you
look at it, it kind of hurts your eyes.' No occupants were seen inside the dome....
The 'red' beam that only illuminates things it touches was described.”
29

< Drawing of the eyewitness
(pupil)
Results (5 details):
– Flat bottom: 23 Part.
– Dome: 19 Part.
– Lights: 18 Part.
– House: 14 Part., at 3 too
big, at 2 too small
– Red beam below: 5 Part.
– Not all details considered
equally
30

 Dividing participants into three groups,
according to investigative experience and
inclusion of text details
 Participants with the highest investigative
experience provided partly less accurate
drawings
 Question: Were text details be omitted because
they were not noticed while reading, or because
they were not considered important?
 Conclusion: Increasing investigative experience does not seem to go hand in hand with
higher detail and is no guarantee for more accurate drawings
 Extremely large difference in the width/height ratio of the main body drawn, especially in
the second description (why?).
31

Experiments from UFO Research


 Interim conclusion (also according to Haines)
 Due to partially low number of participants only preliminary character (room for
further research and studies)
 Variations and scatter in width when looking at the same stimulus (If several people
see the same, it is not the same)
 Accuracy of visual perception?
 If variations occur already minutes after viewing, what distortions can be expected
with longer time to recall?
 General problem in case assessment: what quality do we have in the specific case?
(Criteria for measuring quality? Calibration of the result?)
 Basically: Do not underestimate the complexity of drawing UFOs and analyzing
them!
32

Studies from the Science


 Improving memory performance by making drawings immediately after the
stimulus
Study at the University of Waterloo; several experiments on free recall;
Comparison between drawing and writing
“We found that drawing improves memory (...) more than other known learning techniques. (...)
Drawing improves memory across a variety of tasks and populations.” (Wammes, Meade & Fernandes 2016)


 Drawings as an effective method of recall, independent of an interview (Less
confabulation)
“(...) the researchers found that witnesses produced fewer confabulations when sketch was used
which led to the belief that the witness’s used their own cues to help them remember rather than
relying on the interviewer to direct them towards relevant cues.” (Memon & Fraser 2010)
 → Advise witnesses to make drawings at an early stage
33

Studies from the Science


 Anfertigung von Zeichnungen durch Untersucher in Gegenwart des Zeugen
No studies, but problem of interaction between witness and investigator:
Verbal description ↔ Representation → Adjustment
”The drawings, (...) depend on the verbal retrieval powers of the given witness, and on the artistic
abilities of the investigator. (...) The interaction between the investigator and witness would also
(...) absolutely be expected to influence the ultimate account, and the subsequent drawing, very
strongly.” (Sharps 2022)
 Richard Haines sees “… the need to have eyewitnesses draw what was seen.” (Haines 1979)
 Creation of composite sketch images as forensic equivalent, with low hit ratio
“However, composite sketches are often not very successful: statistically, the resemblance of the
sketches resulting from such efforts to the actual perpetrators is rather low.” (Davies & Valentine 2007),
specific problem of identification of perpetrators by witnesses
 → Preferably, avoid making own drawings (by examiners), encourage witnesses to
make own drawings
34

Object/Shape Perception
 In focus: Observations at night with multiple lights (Classic: Airplanes at night)
 Typical questions: One or more objects? Which shape?
35
Case Kausen, 2021 (GEP)
Airplane example Airplane example
Belgian flap 1990
„... that he had seen a triangular-shaped
unknown flying craft and that it could not
be an airplane.“

Object/Shape Perception
 Laws of gestalt psychology, in total 9, relevant selection: (acc. to Bak 2020)
 Grouping of several objects according to: Similarity, proximity, common fate (movement)
 Preferred shape: Good gestalt (simplicity), closure (complete shapes)
 Description of triangle or boomerang,
depending on the arrangement
of the lights, in so far not
unusual
 Illusion of the so-called illusory contours/edges (Nieder 2002)
 Request in the questionnaire to draw a shape that encourages interpretive information
36
Case Schwaigern, 2018 (GEP)
Case Grünstadt, 2014 (GEP)
Phoenix lights 1997
„... an extremely large triangular object, which had very faint non-flashing lights and
thus could be defined in its shape.“

Conclusions & Recommendations
Conclusions
 Drawings are not photos and not a 1:1 likeness of the actual observation
 Overall rather moderate quality (error-prone, deviations, especially in details)
 Recognition of shapes subject to subjective perception & interpretation
 Improved memory performance compared to purely verbal descriptions and written
notes (→ expressive skills)
 Ambivalence: Memory vs. reproduction of unknown objects (diffus stimulus)
 General: Understand drawings as a "single frame" of a sighting (appearance before and
after the same?)
 Regarding the initial question: Significance of drawings per se rather low,
no reliable deduction regarding conventional objects (for/against)
37

Conclusions & Recommendations
Recommendations by Richard Haines
 Use of more careful investigative techniques
 Strive for as accurate eyewitness drawings as possible
 Elicitation of reports and drawings to be cross-checked against each other
 Presence of a second investigator to cross-check between eyewitness and
investigator's report
Own Recommendations
 Early creation of drawings by witnesses (before questioning)
 Cautious evaluation of described shapes and details (especially at night), question
richness of details, especially after a longer period of time (Sharps 2022)
 Evaluate drawings in the context of other data and evidence
 Potential for projects and further experiments of private UFO research
38

References
– Bak, P. M. (2020). Wahrnehmung, Gedächtnis, Sprache, Denken. Berlin: Springer, pp. 36-37
– Borraz, M. (1990). “Meteoros con ventanillas”. Cuadernos de Ufologia, 2(9-10), pp. 15-24
https://www.academia.edu/42949504/Meteoros_con_ventanillas
– Davies, G. M. & T. Valentine (2007). “Facial Composites: Forensic Utility and Psychological Research”. In: R. C. Lindsay et al. (Hrsg.). Handbook of
Eyewitness Psychology. Erlbaum, pp. 59–86. Cited in: M. Pfundmair (2020). Psychologie bei Gericht. Berlin: Springer, pp. 105
– Grassino, G. P. (1986). “’Flap’ in Piemonte,” UFO Rivista di Informazione Ufologica, 1(2), pp. 17-22
– Haines, R. F. (1979). “What Do UFO Drawings by Alleged Eyewitnesses and Non-Eyewitnesses Have in Common?” In: R. F. Haines (Hrsg.). UFO
Phenomena and the Behavioral Scientist. Metuchen: Scarecrow, pp. 358- 395
Press.https://www.nicap.org/books/Behavioral_Scientist/UFO_Phenomena_and_Behavioral_Scientist.pdf
– Hendry, A. (1980). The UFO Handbook. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., pp. 91-92
– Keul, A. G. (1983). “What could be this?” In: lnternational UPIAR Colloquium on Human Sciences and UFO Phenomena (Proceedings), pp. 15-20
– Memon, A., C. A. Meissner & J. Fraser (2010). “The Cognitive Interview: A Meta-Analytic Review and Study Space Analysis of the past 25 Years”.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), pp. 340-372. Cited in: Wikipedia (2021). Cognitive Interview [Online]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_interview#Adults_and_cognitive_interviews
– Nieder, A. (2002). "Die Wahrnehmung von Scheinkonturen - Wie sich das Gehirn Illusionen macht". e-Neuroforum, 8(3), pp. 210-217
https://doi.org/10.1515/nf-2002-0302, https://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/andreas.nieder/Nieder(2002)Neuroforum.pdf
– Peiniger, H-W. (2009). “Wahrnehmungspsychologische Aspekte bei UFO-Sichtungen”. JUFOF, 3-2009, pp. 81-86
– Sharps, M. J. (2022). E-mail to the author. Personal correspondence, 11 May 2022
– Wammes J. D., M. E. Meade & M. A. Fernandes (2016). “The Drawing Effect: Evidence for Reliable and Robust Memory Benefits in free Recall”.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 69(9), pp. 1752-1776 https://doi.org/10.1080%2F17470218.2015.1094494
– Wunder, E. (2021). E-mail to the author. Personal correspondence, 18 October 2021
39

Reliability and Significance of UFO Drawings

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen (20)

Reliability and Significance of UFO Drawings