Luis Elizondo sat down for a deep dive interview with George Knapp day before yesterday.

a reply to: 1point92AU

LOL. You took an extra dose of troll pills today didn't you?

Why the rather aggressive, over emotional over reaction to statements of fact?

Look at Jim Oberg's data. Tell him what's wrong/right with it instead of claiming he hasn't flown a fighter jet.

Similarly Hynek's study was based on real data. He was very much a believer in the UFO phenomenon by the late 1960s . You should read one of his books and study his career in more depth before stating he has "zero credibility". He founded CUFOS in the 1970s to continue scientific studies of UFOs and developed the "Close Encounter" classification system. He was certainly not a "jack ass" as you insultingly described the man.

So you explain the relevance developing computer games has to with an ability to identify unknown phenomena. LOL.

I think you are referring to Mick West's analysis aren't you? A computer programmer doesn't just sit behind a screen but has to understand the real world to simulate and model it via software. I believe Mick's simulations and explanations were actually attempts to explain the Nimitz videos with real world "known" phenomena as opposed to "unknown".

I'd advise you to let go of concentrating on this single story. It's TTSA's only real focus. There are much better ones out there. Then read up on Hynek and analyse Jim Oberg's data.

Calling people trolls, jack assess and continually asking people whether they've flown a fighter aircraft isn't really taking this thread in a positive direction.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: 1point92AU

LOL. You took an extra dose of troll pills today didn't you?

Why the rather aggressive, over emotional over reaction to statements of fact?

Because, as ever - like Spiritualarchitect and Cellty (on his off days; he's quite polite usually) - it's the last refuge of a desperate UFO evangelist. Sometimes accompanied by cries of "PAID DISINFORMANT!"

In actuality, it's the same old plea from the heart:



Basically, he just needs a big HUG.

a reply to: 1point92AU

J.Allen Hynek is also the jack ass who publicly stated people were seeing "swamp gas". He has zero credibility.

Hynek was far from a jack-ass

On another level, Hynek was probably a government disinformation guy at times...and his infamous, " swamp gas" definitely was at the behest of the government pressure put on him to play ball with their disinformation schemes.

He’s the one who gave Bennewitz that alien computer for the air force.

And he had a track record as a government scientist, i.e. the "swamp gas" rap.

He, like his cut-buddy Jacques Vallee, wasn’t enamored of the Bennewitz type, aliens are demons underground.

No, they are and were enamored of another FAKE ufo research effort: the government

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

Otherwise stop with the whole "disclosure is coming soon' thing please. Thanks.

He's a cheerleader for the cause who can't stop. Just view it as a commercial interruption.

originally posted by: Willtell
…. Hynek was probably a government disinformation guy at times...and his infamous, " swamp gas" definitely was at the behest of the government pressure put on him to play ball with their disinformation schemes.

Give Hynek a break – and get real about the origin of that myth. There were a series of reports, some in the air, some involving mysterious glows in a woods near a college dorm. Some students thought they might be from a landed flying saucer. Hynek determined the woods were frequently flooded and had been during that period. In later years he ruefully remarked he still thinks those ground glows probably were natural swamp luminescence but the media had decided he had tried to explain everything that way.

a reply to: JimOberg



I don’t have any problems with Hynek, I’m sure his good deeds outweighed his bad deeds.

I hope

originally posted by: 1point92AU
But wait...you'll state that being an active duty fighter pilot for 24 + years with thousands of hours in an F18 Hornet does not lend any credence to their ability to identify aerial phenomena as either recognizable or unknown?
Ok...gotcha.

Instead of wasting your brainpower on refuting things you only imagine I might say, how about grappling with the real issue, the 'Leslie Kean Syndrome', which has possessed you, apparently. Several years ago, I described the ‘questionable foundation’ of Leslie Kean’s book as the naïve and unverified faith in pilot reports. She has insisted the UFOs show intelligent purpose based on their perception of the nature of their witnesses, since they behave differently when seen by military pilots than when seen by civilian pilots [when the more common-sense explanation is that different pilots report observations in terms of what they expect from their own different experience bases]. The data archives she touts as ‘unexplainable’ pilot sightings [such as the French ‘Weinstein Report’] can easily be shown to contain numerous pilot misinterpretations of unrecognized space and missile activity around the world, so who knows how many other prosaic explanations were never found by the ‘investigators’? See here:

ats.com appears to be garbling the link via web.archive.org

web.archive.org...:/www.nbcnews.com/id/38852385

so original link may need to be searched on wayback mchine:
http:/www.nbcnews.com/id/38852385

text of nbc.com article:

HOUSTON — If we trust pilots to carry us through the air safely, and to guard our nation’s skies, then why can't we trust what they tell us about their encounters with unidentified flying objects?
That's the question posed by investigative journalist Leslie Kean in her new book, "UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record." It's a compelling question — but is it a good argument for the existence of something truly unexplainable?
The book's main themes are the extraordinary stories of strange aerial encounters in Europe, South America and even the United States. In these stories, investigators have failed to pinpoint phenomena to explain the sightings. And because the primary witnesses are pilots, the accounts are considered more credible than run-of-the-mill UFO reports. But are they really?
Kean asserts that pilots are the best describers of aerial phenomena. “They represent the world’s best-trained observers of everything that flies,” she writes. “What better source for data on UFOs is there?... [They] are among the least likely of any group of witnesses to fabricate or exaggerate reports of strange sightings.”
This may sound like a plausible assumption, but others who have studied the raw evidence disagree. Experienced UFO investigators realize that pilots, who instinctively and quite properly interpret visual phenomena in the most hazardous terms, are not dispassionate observers. For pilots, a split-second diagnosis can be a matter of life or death — and so they're inclined to overestimate the potential threats posed by what they see.
Story: Skeptic misses point behind UFO book
One of the world’s first genuine UFO investigators, Allen Hynek of Northwestern University, came to believe that some encounters really could have otherworldly causes. But he was much more skeptical about the reliability of pilot testimony. "Surprisingly, commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses," he wrote in "The Hynek UFO Report."
Hynek found that the best class of witnesses had a 50 percent misperception rate, but that pilots had a much higher rate: 88 percent for military pilots, 89 percent for commercial pilots, the worst of all categories listed. Pilots could be counted on for an accurate identification of familiar objects — such as aircraft and ground structures — but Hynek said "it should come as no surprise that the majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects."

The authors of a Russian UFO study came to the same conclusion. Yuli Platov of the Soviet Academy of Science and Col. Boris Sokolov of the Ministry of Defense looked into a series of sightings in 1982 that caused air defense units to scramble jet fighters to intercept the UFOs. Platov and Sokolov said the sightings were sparked by military balloons that rose to higher-than-expected altitudes.
"The described episodes show that even experienced pilots are not immune against errors in the evaluation of the size of observed objects, the distances to them, and their identification with particular phenomena," Platov wrote.
Susceptible to overinterpretation
Ronald Fisher of the International Forensic Research Institute at Florida International University in Miami is a lecturer who teaches staff members at the National Transportation Safety Board how to interview eyewitnesses at “critical events” such as airplane crashes. He stresses the importance of eliciting raw sensory impressions first, before asking for the witness’s interpretation of what they think they saw.

“Once they start focusing on their interpretation, that will color the memory of their perceptions,” he told msnbc.com.
“Pilots are susceptible to overinterpretation, especially of vague, rapid and unclear experiences,” he continued. “The less clear the situation, the more your general knowledge and your expectations [contribute].” Passage of time is an enemy of accuracy, because it gives witnesses the opportunity “to use their general knowledge to construct the memory of what they experienced.”
As witnesses of things seen while flying, pilots were a special case. “The cost of a false negative is greater than the cost of a false positive,” he explained. “It’s probably a safety mechanism.”
The body of UFO reports is replete with cases of spectacular misinterpretations, and pilots are frequently involved. So it's prudent to use caution when evaluating the testimony of pilots.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: 1point92AU
...How interesting your statement is and yet we have "experts" who've never flown a single second inside the cockpit of a fighter jet able to readily offer a precise explanation for the very same "anomalous unknowns". You're statement literally debunks debunkers.

How many examples do you need of pilots misinterpreting weird sky apparitions caused by space/rocket events?

satobs.org...

www.debunker.com...


The following is on rocket firings over South America of Russian launches to Molniya orbit:
Plesetsk launches into Molniya orbits used to perform first-apogee engine restart [or upper stage ignition] half an orbit after launch, just east of Chile. For a narrow range of illumination conditions [soon after local sunset] the burn and fuel dump created a spectacular apparition moving left-to-right high in the western sky. In the 1970s and 1980s a number of sensational UFO sightings were recorded, including several from pilots.

Pilots on page 46

31 October 1981 == After 2100 - Cordoba, Argentina - Austral Pilot incident. Bright, round huge object flew through sky, witnessed by pilots of two commercial flights when landing. One round object was observed by two experienced male witnesses (Pedro Heslop). Hall: “Both observed bright round object flying at about 180 meters altitude [Alberto Paracampo, Aerolineas Argentinas] .”

A red, green, and white glowing UFO allegedly accompanied the pilot Pedro Heslop, 33 (17 years flying experience), as he piloted a DC-6 "Austral"-company flight 834 from Buenos Aires to Mar del Plata. Two pilots of the State "Aerolineas Argentinas" claimed that they had seen a huge bluish white disk "in the clear Patagonian sky".

Pedro Heslop’s 1981 sighting [Kosmos-1317] endorsed in “Weinstein List” and Leslie Kean book

===
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena - Eighty Years of Pilot Sightings • www.narcap.org... •

Weinstein: “These cases are special for several reasons. Training and experience make pilots and crews much more reliable witnesses than others. They are used to unusual meteorological phenomena. …Military pilots are trained to estimate distances, shapes and speed of flying machines.” •

Page 51, he describes 1981 event as “a bright round object flying at about 180 meters altitude”. Actual altitude was above 400,000 meters. •

Both Weinstein and Kean describe the list as meeting a standard defined earlier by NASA scientist Richard Haines: it is supposed to contain ONLY reports where “the appearance and/or flight dynamics … do not suggest a logical, conventional flying object and which remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making both a full technical identification as well as a commonsense identification, if one is possible.” •

Kean is enormously impressed by pilot sightings, which she describes as “a unique window into the unknown.” She writes that pilots “represent the world’s most experienced and best-trained observers of everything that flies… these unique circumstances potentially transform any jet aircraft into a specialized flying laboratory for the study of rare anomalous phenomena.”

Yes, pilots are people. People misidentify things. Not a great suprise to anyone.

And yet we have the national Air and Space Intelligence center training pilots to do aerial target recognition, identification and assessment. They are not employing computer programmers or physicists for that task.

[continued]

Intelligent UFOs ... or sensible pilots?
UFOs are often reported as maneuvering intelligently, and Kean argues that a particularity of the different types of maneuvers reported by pilots serves as proof that UFOs are real and are acting with intelligence. But that logic actually ends up supporting the idea that a pilot's circumstances affect what he or she reports seeing.
Kean refers to the “Weinstein List,” a compendium of 1,300 UFO reports from pilots, assembled by French investigator Dominique Weinstein in 2001. It is described as containing only those “cases for which adequate data is available to categorize the [cause] as unknowns.”
"One crucial point I have noted, which is shown in Weinstein’s study, is that a UFO's behavior tends to depend on whether the encounter involves a military aircraft or a civilian passenger plane," Kean writes.
"Neutrality usually seems the general rule with commercial airlines or private planes, whereas an active interaction often occurs between UFOs and military aircraft. Military pilots usually described the movements of UFOs as they would air maneuvers of conventional aircraft, using terms such as follows, flees, acute turns, in formation, close collision, and aerial combat," she says.
For Kean, this constitutes evidence that the UFOs are guided by intelligent pilots. "These incidents clearly demonstrate that in no way are these examples of natural events, but rather that UFOs are phenomena with a deliberate behavior. The physical nature of UFOs has been proved," she says.

ut a much simpler explanation makes more sense: The difference is due to "observer bias." People see what they expect to see, and combat pilots expect to encounter combative bogies. Civilian pilots mostly fear accidental collisions.
The different behavior that is perceived by the two categories of pilots doesn't necessarily mean the unidentified flying objects themselves behave differently. It's more likely that different kinds of pilots draw upon differently developed instincts as they react to perceived threats — and thus they bring different interpretations to stimuli that are actually similar.
10 solved UFO cases from the Weinstein List
What all this means ... and doesn't mean
There’s no reason to argue that all the pilot reports are caused by exactly the same stimuli. UFO reports that are linked to rocket launches or booster re-entries are relatively easy to explain, because the location and timing of the events can be correlated with the accounts from startled and mistaken witnesses.
For other stimuli, such as fireball meteors, secret (or illegal) aircraft operations or natural atmospheric displays, documentation of their transitory existence usually doesn't exist. The main value of the solved UFO cases is to allow a definitive calibration of pilot testimony in general.
Thus, I am not dismayed by the fact that I can't explain every case Kean mentions in her book, because experience has shown that finding the real explanation — even if it turns out to be prosaic — is often a massive effort involving as much luck as sweat. If investigators are unable to find the explanation for a particular UFO case, that doesn't constitute proof that the case is unexplainable.
This is just a fact of life, for UFO sleuths as well as other breeds of investigators. The same is true for murders, kidnappings, accidents, illnesses — for all the catastrophes that befall humanity. We don't need to conjure up alien murderers or kidnappers to account for unsolved crimes. Not finding Jimmy Hoffa isn't proof he must be on Mars.
So the “not proven” assessment makes it even more important to keep our eyes and minds open — to vigorously observe, accurately perceive, and precisely relate unusual aerial perceptions. Something really new could still be discovered. Or something critically important could be masquerading, by accident or design, in a manner that leads too many people to pay too little attention.
Accepting every UFO claim uncritically or rejecting every claim automatically would be equally unjustified. And quite possibly, equally harmful.

[end]

a reply to: mirageman

You debunk yourself in one post and come back to defend the debunking of yourself. LOL.

But I love how you continue to defend your ridiculous argument that a video game programmer is more credible at identifying other fighter jets versus an actual fighter jet pilot with 24+ years and 10,000 + hours in an actual fighter jet.

Do you even realize how idiotic your argument is? No matter how many times you tell yourself it's true....it will never be true.


EDIT: Don't forget your 0-5 in debunking your boy Zondo. Zondo owns you son.

a reply to: Willtell

Hynek was 100% the first US government troll before trolls were known as trolls. Anyone quoting Hynek lacks a substantial understanding of the general intelligence community and UFOlogy.

a reply to: JimOberg

You quoted Hynek. Literally the fakest news guy of his time. One of the best first disinfo agents of our time. And you quoted him as some imaginary "gotcha" in the hopes of supporting your RIDICULOUS argument that pilots are the least credible individuals to identify aerial phenomena.

One last time.

How many hours have you spent in a fighter jet?
How many years active duty service do you have in hostile war zones where you have flown against other aircraft?

Try to follow this logic. By you quoting Hynek (aka disinfo agent #1) you are in effect nullifying your self authored experience. I can use your same logic that the eons of experience you have are not grounds to use you as a credible resource because you apply the same logic in idiotically thinking a 24+ fighter pilot with more than 10,000 hours in the sky cannot correctly discern the difference between an aerial phenomena and another jet.

Right? Why should we consider you as a credible resource for any of the positions you've held throughout the years if by your logic EXPERIENCE is irrelevant when it comes to credibility?

You guys are like dumb and dumber with your arguments.

a reply to: 1point92AU

That’s definitely FALSE!

The score is the opposite. Zondo has not and can’t defend himself against the facts in the thread MM hosted. Nor has any of his defenders been able to defend him.

Your conflating things out of emotion.

As for Hynek, sure he wasn't perfect, but who is. And sure he may have been a part of the early official ufo disinformation era when ufology was in its infancy.

But it seems he did repent of that and become a credible and sincere ufologist with many contributions to ufology.

He himself exposed a lot of what we know about the cover-up

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: JimOberg
You quoted Hynek. Literally the fakest news guy of his time. One of the best first disinfo agents of our time. And you quoted him as some imaginary "gotcha" in the hopes of supporting your RIDICULOUS argument that pilots are the least credible individuals to identify aerial phenomena.

We're getting nowhere due to your unbroken pattern of imagining and insisting on me saying things I never did.

Do you believe Kean's assertion that since military and civilian pilots report UFO behavior quite differently, this is due to the UFOs themselves choosing to behave differently based on the detected specialization of the pilots who are observing them?

originally posted by: Sublant

originally posted by: Markword

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
So now when pilots say they saw a flying "craft" no one wants to believe them. It's a wonder they can find their own plane on the flight deck.

Very disappointing.

It may be hard for you to accept, but the pilots are trained solely to identify known foreign aerial craft and rockets...fuel propulsion craft. Its a narrow, specialized focus, and a narrow specialized training. They have no training in identifying anomalous unknowns.

No they are not. Not even close. It may be hard for you to accept, but the US military isn't run by idiots.

a reply to: 1point92AU

I think most of those reading the forum can see that you have an inherent lack of ability to actually debate points and provide factual evidence.

Instead you imagine things and state them as if they are true and insult anyone who doesn't agree with you. Strangest of all is your obsession of continually questioning other people's abilities to fly a combat aircraft.

All of which makes this comment the more ironic.

You guys are like dumb and dumber with your arguments.

Source

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: 1point92AU

That’s definitely FALSE!

The score is the opposite. Zondo has not and can’t defend himself against the facts in the thread MM hosted. Nor has any of his defenders been able to defend him.

Your conflating things out of emotion.

As for Hynek, sure he wasn't perfect, but who is. And sure he may have been a part of the early official ufo disinformation era when ufology was in its infancy.

But it seems he did repent of that and become a credible and sincere ufologist with many contributions to ufology.

He himself exposed a lot of what we know about the cover-up

I am compelled to second that about Hynek. As a youth he swayed my opinion from no way because like Santa Clause, sorry kids, it is made up for tv Science fiction to thinking maybe I am wrong. It made me look at the evidence to come away with the new logic of I don't know absolutely it is untrue. I learned we do know there are some credible witnesses in my estimation. Those who fly for our Navy or Air Force who are trained to recognize enemy aircraft for the last 50 years have been making interesting reports that sound surreal and are the kind that ruins reputations if it is a lie.

I don't believe I can say they do or don't exist but it seems very likely something, interdimensional time travelers or Aliens from the Stars is visiting Earth. I will believe 100% when I see one and know it to be. For know, like Mulder's poster behind his desk in the X Files said, "I want to believe". I want to know the truth.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: 1point92AU

That’s definitely FALSE!

The score is the opposite. Zondo has not and can’t defend himself against the facts in the thread MM hosted. Nor has any of his defenders been able to defend him.

Your conflating things out of emotion.

As for Hynek, sure he wasn't perfect, but who is. And sure he may have been a part of the early official ufo disinformation era when ufology was in its infancy.

But it seems he did repent of that and become a credible and sincere ufologist with many contributions to ufology.

He himself exposed a lot of what we know about the cover-up

You're not following the discussion here. Oberg quoted a complete and absolute jack ass (Hynek) as some form of "evidence" that pilots are the least reliable eyewitnesses when it comes to identifying aerial phenomena versus other aircraft. The fact anyone would even argue a trained observer (i.e. pilot) is somehow unqualified is ludicrous in and of itself. The fact he is quoting a KNOWN disinfo agent either shows his complete ignorance of who and what Hynek's purpose was or Oberg is nothing more than yet another troll like MM.