RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
What I Study
My research is interdisciplinary by nature.
The questions that interest me often cross conventional subject boundaries. A single unexplained report can involve history, psychology, physics, technology, folklore, human perception, environmental factors, or several of these at once.
My areas of research methodology include:
UFO / UAP Phenomena
Historical and contemporary reports, encounter accounts, proposed explanations, technological questions, recurring characteristics, and unresolved cases.
Paranormal Phenomena
Reported hauntings, apparitions, unusual experiences, environmental claims, investigation methods, and competing explanations.
Anomalous Experiences
Experiences that individuals report but that do not have an immediately obvious or universally accepted explanation.
Historical Mysteries
Unresolved events, disputed historical accounts, missing information, unusual artifacts, and questions surrounding accepted historical narratives.
Ancient Civilizations
Ancient cultures, technological claims, archaeological questions, historical evidence, and alternative interpretations.
Cryptids & Unidentified Creatures
Historical reports, eyewitness accounts, physical evidence claims, biological possibilities, and conventional explanations.
Science & Technology
Questions involving physics, propulsion, energy, perception, consciousness, materials, and technological concepts that may intersect with unexplained observations.
Recurring Patterns
Similarities between reports, cases, historical accounts, and experiences that may warrant closer examination.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Curiosity Starts the Investigation. Evidence Determines Where It Goes.
My research methodology process is designed to keep an unconventional question from automatically becoming an unconventional conclusion.
1. Start With the Question
What exactly are we trying to explain?
A vague question produces vague research. I begin by defining the specific observation, claim, event, or problem.
2. Establish What Is Actually Known
Before developing a theory, I separate established information from assumptions, rumors, later interpretations, and unsupported claims.
3. Find the Sources
Whenever possible, I look beyond secondary retellings and seek original reports, historical documentation, scientific material, firsthand accounts, interviews, archival sources, and other primary or authoritative material.
4. Compare Accounts
I look for similarities and contradictions between different reports.
5. Examine Conventional Explanations
An unusual event does not automatically require an unusual explanation. Known physical, environmental, psychological, technological, historical, or biological explanations must be considered.
6. Identify the Gaps
Where does the existing explanation stop?
What information is missing?
What observations remain unexplained?
7. Develop the Hypothesis
If a possible connection or explanation emerges, I formulate it as a hypothesis rather than presenting it as established fact.
8. Look for Ways to Challenge It
A useful hypothesis should be capable of being questioned.
I look for evidence that contradicts the idea just as carefully as evidence that appears to support it.
9. Document the Reasoning
The objective is for another person to be able to follow the path from the original question to the proposed hypothesis.
EVIDENCE VS. INTERPRETATION
This distinction is fundamental to my work.
DOCUMENTED FACT
Information supported by reliable evidence or authoritative documentation.
REPORTED EXPERIENCE
Something an individual states happened to them.
OBSERVATION
Something directly observed or recorded, while recognizing that interpretation can affect what an observation means.
INTERPRETATION
An explanation assigned to an observation or collection of observations.
HYPOTHESIS
A proposed explanation that requires examination and testing.
SPECULATION
An idea that may be worth discussing but currently lacks sufficient evidence for a stronger conclusion.
I will identify these distinctions whenever they matter to the subject being discussed.
ORIGINAL HYPOTHESES
Questions Worth Investigating
Some of my research leads to questions that don’t appear to have straightforward answers.
When I identify a possible connection between established concepts and an unexplained observation, I may develop an original hypothesis.
A hypothesis presented here should be understood as exactly that:
a proposed explanation requiring further examination.
It is not automatically a fact.
It is not automatically a discovery.
And it is not presented as proof simply because the idea is compelling.
Each research hypothesis will attempt to identify:
- The question being examined
- The established information
- The observations or reports involved
- Relevant existing explanations
- The gap or unresolved issue
- The proposed connection or mechanism
- Evidence that could support the hypothesis
- Evidence that could challenge it
- Questions requiring additional research
WHY PUBLISH HYPOTHESES?
Because an idea cannot be examined if nobody is willing to put it on the table.
Publishing a hypothesis creates an opportunity for other researchers, scientists, investigators, historians, engineers, or interested readers to examine the reasoning, identify weaknesses, provide additional evidence, or suggest better explanations.
The purpose isn’t to win an argument.
The purpose is to investigate the question.