ANALYSIS Forum (IPACO) Forum Index

ANALYSIS Forum (IPACO)
Dedicated to the analysis of alleged UFO photos and videos

 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

GEIPAN definitions and their applications to the photo/videos analysis subject

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ANALYSIS Forum (IPACO) Forum Index -> Analysis: photos and Videos -> Class definitions
Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
elevenaugust
Administrator
Administrator

Offline

Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Posts: 67

PostPosted: 06/26/2012, 12:15 pm    Post subject: GEIPAN definitions and their applications to the photo/videos analysis subject Reply with quote

The Group of Studies and Information on Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena (GEIPAN) established a classification of cases according to their degree of strangeness and consistency as defined below:

CLASSIFICATION of the case:
The classification of a case requires evaluation on the one hand of the degree of consistency (C), on the other hand of the degree of strangeness (E).
The more a case is strange, the more it requires substantive information to be classified, and if not, it will be classified C. It is important to note that the cases are classified C depends of the level of progress of the investigation and are absolutely not the same as cases classified A/B/D1/D2, as it's about investigations on which GEIPAN really could not tell anything. Strictly speaking, the cases classified as C should be removed from the classification scale of UAP A/B/D1/D2, to be considered separately.
If we evaluate the consistency (C) and strangeness (E) on a scale from 0 to 1, a case is classified A/B/D1/D2 if and only if C> E.

CONSISTENCY of the case
Amount of reliable (F) information (I) collected on a testimony (C = I x F).
The amount of reliable information (objectified) collected during the investigation constitute the consistency of the case which assessment is an important criterion for the classification. A strong consistency will validate all the descriptive elements of the case and check all possibilities; examples: several independent witnesses, photographs, ground traces ...
A weak consistency will leave a good number of untested assumptions and probably not verifiable; examples: single witness, no other elements than the person's story.

STRANGENESS
A case observation can be seen more or less strange by the witness. GEIPAN, from its  experience, assess a "strangeness level" from the following: proximity of the phenomenon (nearest = strangest), appearance of the moving (fixed or straight: not strange; irregular: strange), details on the object (bright spot: not strange, unknown form: strange) ... GEIPAN can provide a measure of the strangeness with the distance in terms of information between the observed phenomenon and all the aerospace phenomena known.
Only a high level of strangeness will justify further investigation.

UAP
Acronym for: Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena
The UAP (Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena) are divided into four categories:

  •     UAP Class A: Observation having been explained unambiguously
  •     UAP Class B: Observation for which the assumption by the GEIPAN is very likely
  •     UAP Class C: Observation not usable due to lack of information
  •     UAP Category D: Observation unexplained despite evidence in possession of GEIPAN. Category D includes two subcategories:         

              - The UAP D1 corresponding to strange phenomena, but so-called medium consistency, for example associated with a unique, no photo or video recording.

              - The UAP D2  corresponding to very strange phenomena and strong consistency: several independent witnesses, and / or photo or video recordings, and / or ground traces.


Source

For our subject, we are by definition in the presence of photographs or videos, which led us to slightly modify (especially for UAP classified "D") the definitions of the GEIPAN presented above and as following:

The UAP (Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena) are divided into four categories:


   
  •     UAP Class A: Observation having been explained unambiguously
  •     UAP Class B: Observation for which the assumption by the GEIPAN is very likely
  •     UAP Class C: Observation not usable due to lack of information
  •     UAP Category D: Observation unexplained despite evidence in possession of GEIPAN. Category D includes two subcategories:         

              - The UAP D1 corresponding to strange phenomena, but so-called medium consistency, for example, a single document with no concomitant visual testimony.

              - The UAP D2  corresponding to very strange phenomena and strong consistency: several independent witnesses, and / or ground traces, and / or visual evidence contemporaneous and / or more independent documents without visual evidence.


Back to top
Publicité






PostPosted: 06/26/2012, 12:15 pm    Post subject: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ANALYSIS Forum (IPACO) Forum Index -> Analysis: photos and Videos -> Class definitions All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  

Index | Create free forum | Free support forum | Free forums directory | Report a violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group