Abstract
This article provides a critical analysis of ufology as a historically established yet methodologically unstable field of research on unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Key problems are identified, including the dominance of inductive generalizations, the lack of verification criteria, dependence on subjective testimony, and the proliferation of pseudoscientific concepts. The concept of UFO identification is proposed as a new interdisciplinary field based on the deductive-hypothetical method, standardized analytical parameters, and the integration of modern monitoring technologies. Particular attention is paid to the critique of institutional approaches, including the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office [3]. The necessity of establishing global identification networks is substantiated.
Introduction
The phenomenon of UFOs (UAP) has remained a complex interdisciplinary issue for decades, encompassing scientific, defense, and sociocultural dimensions. Despite a substantial accumulation of data, this field has failed to establish a coherent scientific paradigm.
Modern institutional initiatives such as GEIPAN [1] and Central Intelligence Agency for Aerospace Phenomena [2] demonstrate the potential of a systematic approach while simultaneously highlighting the need for methodological unification.
Epistemological Crisis of Ufology
Ufology has developed at the intersection of empirical observations, popular culture, and isolated scientific initiatives. However, it has failed to establish a clear system for evaluating data reliability, leading to the conflation of fundamentally different types of information. As a result, eyewitness testimony—intrinsically subjective—is often treated on par with instrumental measurements, contradicting the principles of scientific methodology.
Moreover, the absence of falsification mechanisms has led to the accumulation of claims that can neither be confirmed nor refuted. This creates a closed epistemic loop in which knowledge does not progress but is merely reproduced. Such a condition is characteristic of pre-scientific knowledge systems and necessitates a transition to a more rigorous methodological framework [4].
Inductive Errors and the Problem of “Anomaly Factors”
Traditional ufology relies heavily on inductive reasoning, where general conclusions are drawn from isolated cases. Characteristics such as abrupt trajectory changes or luminosity variations are often interpreted as “anomaly factors.” However, these features can be explained by known phenomena, including modern unmanned aerial systems or atmospheric effects.
The core issue lies in defining anomaly prior to identifying the nature of the phenomenon, which is methodologically flawed. A scientific approach requires that identification precede interpretation. Therefore, the concept of “anomaly factors” must be reconsidered and replaced with a framework based on measurable parameters [5].
Sociocultural Nature of Ufological Data
A significant portion of ufological data is shaped by sociocultural influences. The descriptions of objects and alleged “contacts” evolve in parallel with technological development, indicating that human perception and cultural models play a crucial role in shaping such accounts.
Additionally, subjective observation leads to inconsistencies in descriptions of the same phenomenon. This complicates analysis and underscores the importance of objective recording methods. In this context, a portion of ufological data should be considered within the domain of social sciences rather than physics or aerospace disciplines [4].
UFO Identification as a New Scientific Discipline
UFO identification is proposed as a systematic approach grounded in the principles of the scientific method. Unlike ufology, it prioritizes identification over interpretation, meaning that each observation is analyzed within the framework of known natural and technological processes.
The deductive-hypothetical method plays a central role, enabling the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Standardization of analytical parameters ensures objectivity and reproducibility. Within this framework, anomaly is defined strictly as a deviation from established physical models [5].
Technological Transformation of Research
Modern technologies have fundamentally transformed the study of UFOs. The widespread use of digital platforms enables the collection of large datasets in real time, opening new analytical possibilities. Artificial intelligence, in particular, facilitates the processing of these datasets and the detection of patterns that would otherwise remain unnoticed.
At the same time, this transformation introduces new challenges, including the need for specialists capable of handling complex analytical systems. Thus, technological progress expands research capabilities while simultaneously raising methodological requirements [2].
Critical Analysis of Institutional Programs
All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office represents a modern institutional attempt to systematize UAP research. However, its activities are characterized by limited transparency and the absence of fully disclosed methodologies, which complicates independent scientific evaluation.
Furthermore, political factors may influence data interpretation, reducing objectivity. In many cases, findings are limited to identifying phenomena as “unknown” without deeper analysis. In contrast, GEIPAN provides more open access to both data and methodologies [1], making its approach more scientifically robust.
The Need for a Global Network
Fragmentation remains a major obstacle in this field. The lack of coordination between research groups leads to duplication and loss of valuable information. Differences in classification and analytical approaches further complicate data comparison.
The establishment of a global identification network would enable integration of research efforts, standardization of methodologies, and improved analytical quality. Such a network should include both expert communities and automated monitoring systems operating in real time [2].
Practical Significance
UFO identification has clear practical implications. In the defense sector, it enables rapid detection and classification of potential threats. In science, it contributes to the study of poorly understood natural phenomena.
Socially, it reduces misinformation and public anxiety, while technologically, it supports the development of advanced monitoring and analytical systems. Thus, this discipline combines both fundamental and applied dimensions [3].
Conclusions
Ufology does not meet modern scientific standards due to its lack of methodological rigor. The transition to UFO identification enables the formation of a new interdisciplinary field grounded in verifiable data and modern technologies.
Key conditions for its development include methodological standardization, international coordination, and professional training. This creates the potential for integrating UFO research into both scientific and defense frameworks.
Table: Comparative Characteristics of Ufology and UFO Identification
References
- GEIPAN. Groupe d'Études et d'Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non identifiés [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/
- Comisión de Estudio de Fenómenos Aeroespaciales (CIAE). Informe oficial 2025 [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/2018/11/informe-ciae-2025.pdf
- All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). Official [Electronic resource]. – Access mode:https://www.aaro.mil/
- Калитюк І. Європейський феномен НЛО: між наукою, безпекою та браком координації [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://ufology-news.com/novosti/yevropejskij-fenomen-nlo-mizh-naukoyu-bezpekoyu-ta-brakom-koordinaci%d1%97.html
- Kalytyuk I., Mykolyshyn A. How to identify Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)? How to investigate Anomalous Aerospace Phenomena (AAP)? – Kyiv: Lira-K, 2026 342p. ISBN978-617-8883-25-6 [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://ufology-news.com/u/18672430/Ufology_News/Kalytyuk_I._Mykolyshyn_A._How_to_identify_UFOs_How_to_investigate_AAP_2026.pdf
