The podcast and subsequent publication will address common mistakes made by members of the UFO community when investigating or discussing the topic.  The most significant involves the use of phrases like "I believe..." or "I think..." when referring to specific cases or the phenomenon as a whole. Members of the UFO community, skeptics, and scientists interested in the topic should avoid personal convictions at all cost. Opinions or beliefs have no place in this endeavor, as what individuals "think" about any particular case or the topic in general is irrelevant. Instead, it seems more appropriate to use verbiage such as "the evidence points to..." or "the available evidence suggests..." when publicly solicited, rather than tainting the subject matter with personal beliefs or, worse, absolute claims. None of us are exempt from this tendency, myself included, but we have to work hard to avoid it going forward. While there is nothing wrong with inherently harboring a personal belief or opinion, those associated with the community who might share that with the general public could be seen as inadvertently adding to the discord.

​

Another mistake made by those in the community is jumping to conclusions instead of suspending judgement and allowing the evidence, testimony, or account to unfold naturally. There seems to be a significant level of impatience in wanting immediate answers, even when those answers aren't entirely discernible due to incomplete information or a lack of substantial evidence. Criticizing eyewitnesses or others in the field, including skeptics with an interest in the topic, is unnecessary and counterproductive. It is better to take the high road, engage in constructive and polite discourse, and agree to disagree with someone else's interpretation of the evidence. Infighting has never been very productive for the UFO community and typically leads to unnecessary strife and further criticism from the skeptical and scientific communities.

​

Avoid claiming absolute certainty. Not only does this prevent potential embarrassment if a case is ultimately proven true, mundane, or a hoax, but we also do not know enough about the phenomenon to discount anyone's claims, regardless of our personal views. Claiming certainty about the ultimate origin of any potential NHI is a similar trap. Avoiding absolutes allows for various interpretations of an anomaly we are likely not evolved enough to fully grasp or understand in the first place. If a non-human intelligence is indeed present and the ultimate proof ever presented to us in a comprehensible manner, those who refrained from claiming absolute certainty regarding origin might be taken more seriously going forward.

​

These and other basic rules of engagement will be discussed on the podcast and explored in more detail in the book.