This article is part of an ongoing series created in collaboration with the UAP News Center, a leading website for the most up-to-date UAP news and information. Visit UAP News Center for the full collection of infographics.
In the often-chaotic field of ufology, organizing data is as challenging as gathering it. Phenomena range from distant nocturnal lights to significant psychological experiences and, disturbingly, physical injuries. In his seminal work Confrontations: A Scientist’s Search for Alien Contact, Dr. Jacques Vallee addresses the limitations of earlier classification systems, such as J. Allen Hynek’s original “Close Encounter” framework, which often failed to capture the “high strangeness” or aggressive nature of certain reports.
In the book’s appendix, titled “Bringing Order Out of Chaos,” Vallee outlines a rigorous methodology designed to encompass the full spectrum of anomalous phenomena. His system moves beyond simple categorization by utilizing a dual approach: a descriptive Classification Code to define the event, and a quantitative SVP Rating to assess the credibility of the data.
Part I: The Classification Matrix (Defining the Event)
Vallee argues that a robust system must account for both the physical behavior of the phenomenon and the specific nature of its interaction with the witness and environment. To achieve this, he developed a matrix that crosses four behavioral categories with five levels of interaction.
The Four Categories of Behavior
The vertical axis of Vallee’s matrix defines the physical characteristics and movement of the observed phenomenon:
| Code | Category | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| AN | Anomaly | Examples include amorphous lights, unexplained explosions, strange clouds, or static phenomena that lack a clear geometric shape or defined flight path. |
| FB | Fly-by | Objects observed flying through the sky with a continuous trajectory, without landing or distinct maneuvering. |
| MA | Maneuver | Objects exhibiting discontinuous trajectories suggesting controlled flight, such as hovering, sudden stops, oscillating motion, or “falling leaf” descents. |
| CE | Close Encounter | Events involving close proximity to the witness, interaction with the environment, or landing. |
The Five Levels of Interaction
The horizontal axis describes the intensity or outcome of the event. Crucially, Vallee expanded previous definitions to include psychic effects and physical harm:
| Level | Interaction Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sighting | A purely visual observation with no associated physical effects or entities. |
| 2 | Physical Effects | The event leaves verifiable traces (e.g., depressed ground, scorched vegetation), causes electromagnetic interference with vehicles or electronics, or is confirmed by radar. |
| 3 | Living Entities | Beings, humanoids, or “occupants” are observed in association with the object. |
| 4 | Reality Transformation | The witness experiences a significant alteration of reality. This includes abductions, time loss, hallucinations, or absurd, dream-like scenarios. |
| 5 | Lasting Injury/Death | The witness suffers permanent physiological injury (such as radiation-type burns, ocular damage, or healing effects) or death. |
Putting the Matrix to Work
By combining these two axes, researchers can create precise alphanumeric codes. For example:
- AN1: A simple sighting of an anomalous light.
- MA3: A maneuvering object where entities were visible on board.
- CE5: A close encounter resulting in permanent injury to the witness – a primary focus of the investigations in Confrontations.
Part II: The SVP Credibility Rating (Assessing the Data)
A classification code tells us what was reported, but it doesn’t tell us if the report is reliable. To assign weight to an observation, Vallee utilizes a three-digit “SVP” score, rated on a scale of 0 to 4.
S: Source Reliability (The First Digit)
This assesses the trustworthiness of the witness reporting the event.
- 0: Unknown or unreliable source.
- 1: A known source, but their reliability is unproven.
- 2: A reliable source reporting secondhand information.
- 3: A reliable source reporting firsthand experience.
V: Site Visit and Investigation (The Second Digit)
This evaluates the rigor of the investigation methodology.
- 0: No site visit was conducted, or the status is unknown.
- 1: Site visited by a casual person unfamiliar with anomalous phenomena.
- 2: Site visited by persons familiar with the phenomena.
- 3: Site visited by a reliable investigator with experience.
- 4: Firsthand personal interview with the witness conducted by a skilled analyst (a source of proven reliability).
P: Probability of Natural Explanation (The Third Digit)
This estimates the likelihood that the event was a misidentified conventional phenomenon.
- 0: Data is consistent with known natural causes.
- 1: A natural explanation requires only slight modification of the data.
- 2: A natural explanation requires a gross alteration of one parameter of the report.
- 3: A natural explanation requires gross alteration of several parameters.
- 4: No natural explanation is possible based on the available evidence.
Application Example
Vallee’s system allows for a nuanced shorthand when cataloging cases. The appendix’s Case Index provides several examples of this system in practice:
The Parnarama Case (“Chupas” Attacks)
- Classification: CE5 (A close encounter resulting in injury or death).
- SVP Rating: 203
- S=2: The source is considered reliable but is reporting secondhand.
- V=0: No site visit had yet been conducted by the analyst at the time of rating.
- P=3: A natural explanation would require gross alteration of several parameters of the report.
The Ubatuba Case (Magnesium Fragments)
- Classification: MA2 (A maneuvering object leaving physical effects – the dropped metal fragments).
- SVP Rating: 043
- S=0: The initial source of the fragments remains unknown.
- V=4: The physical evidence was subjected to skilled, firsthand scientific analysis.
- P=3: A natural explanation requires gross alteration of parameters.
Summary
Jacques Vallee’s methodology in Confrontations represents a significant evolution in ufological research. By separating the description of the event from the credibility of the report, and by explicitly including categories for psychic transformation and physical injury, Vallee created a framework capable of handling the complex, often contradictory nature of UFO data without discarding the “absurd” elements that define the phenomenon.
