"Retired RAF pilot reveals multiple close encounters with UFOs"

THE SUN, July 12, 2020.

"Brian, who was acting Squadron Leader, was left baffled by the object which looked like a bright shiny oil drum.

Speaking for the first time about the sighting, he said: "Imagine a 56 gallon oil drum, the ones that come up to your hip and have those little bulges at regular intervals; imagine Michelin Man.

"Imagine also that it was not black or dirty but shining bright with an immense glare. It was suspended in our 11 o'clock position and above us.

"In real terms, had it been the real thing its apparent size put it 20 feet away but the inability to sense its relative distance was eerie because we could not work it out.

"We concluded it could have been a mile or several depending on its size, whatever that was. We lost sight of it when we could crane our heads no higher.

"It was impossible to focus on it in any normal way. The impression was that it could have been any size and at any distance. As I said, it was eerie. It was motionless relative to us."

He reported the incident to Nice ATC and two fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the UFO but the pilots saw nothing on radar."

www.thesun.co.uk...

I always enjoy ufo stories from pilots they have training and a lot of time in the air so they tend to be more credible and much less likely to make a mistake!

a reply to: Planetarian

a reply to: research100

To me, they sound just as stumped as everyone else. They just use more official language to describe how they have no idea what it is.

that's what makes it all the more interesting don't you think! pilots with training and experience and like you said they are stumpted.

a reply to: carewemust

a reply to: research100

Pilots are not any less subject to misinterpreting something they don't recognize than anyone else is. More so, possibly.

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."

Recalling an incident long after it occurred doesn't help. Our minds can add details that weren't there. It's what they often do.

“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.”

www.nbcnews.com...

This pilot may have a certain mindset which would encourage such things.

"There is no doubt in my mind that if this was not extra-terrestrial then it's strange it has never been developed on Earth and become common knowledge.

glad you posted that Phage! so pilots are better identifying ordinary objects not so good with astronomical objects....Yes I agree the longer time passes the more likely the memory is not so clear

a reply to: Phage

a reply to: research100

It doesn't just apply to astronomical objects, but things they are not familiar with in general. It could be unusual weather phenomena or actual (but "mundane") objects as well.

that makes sense....a really rare weather phenomenun could fool or confuse anyone

a reply to: Phage

a reply to: research100

In any case, there is just not enough actual information here, so long after the fact. Just the pilot's recollection.

Maybe it was ET. Or maybe the recent talk about "tic tacs" influenced his memories.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: research100

It doesn't just apply to astronomical objects, but things they are not familiar with in general. It could be unusual weather phenomena or actual (but "mundane") objects as well.

which suggests that all the sightings and stories may only be due to misinterpretations by our brain. because to this day there is no visible evidence to approve all of these stories. maybe in the end all this alien&ufo stuff is just imagination. the human mind is its own universe.

a reply to: oloufo

There really isn't any unequivocal evidence which shows we are being visited. But that doesn't mean we aren't.

It is a possibility.

yeah there's that small percentage that can't be explained...I wonder about those

a reply to: Phage

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: oloufo

There really isn't any unequivocal evidence which shows we are being visited. But that doesn't mean we aren't.

It is a possibility.

personally i have lost faith. i suspect extraterrestrial life rather in one of jupiter's moons. and far out there possibly also intelligent life. or it's all completely different and we are just not able to see it.

a reply to: research100

Lack of information makes things unexplained. That doesn't mean that more information wouldn't change that. JAL 1628 is a good example.

The ET hypothesis is fine, but it thrives on a lack of information rather than its presence. Perhaps that's why some refuse to acknowledge the full set of data available regarding the aforementioned case.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: research100

Lack of information makes things unexplained. That doesn't mean that more information wouldn't change that. JAL 1628 is a good example.

The ET hypothesis is fine, but it thrives on a lack of information rather than its presence. Perhaps that's why some refuse to acknowledge the full set of data available regarding the aforementioned case.

Do we have any evidence to prove any UFO sighting? I would argue not.

However I would likely take the word of a fighter pilot over a keyboard jockey myself.

a reply to: ARM1968

However I would likely take the word of a fighter pilot over a keyboard jockey myself.

That he saw something that he didn't know what it was? Sure. But a VC10 is not a fighter.


I've only had one such experience myself. So, what's your point?

a reply to: oloufo

which suggests that all the sightings and stories may only be due to misinterpretations by our brain. because to this day there is no visible evidence to approve all of these stories. maybe in the end all this alien&ufo stuff is just imagination. the human mind is its own universe.

Multiple witnesess and radar evidence tells use that the subject is very real, and unexplained.

Does that mean ET? Of course not, as some of these ufos could be a number of things. But saying it's all people's imagination and in their own minds is certainly not true.

a reply to: ARM1968

However I would likely take the word of a fighter pilot over a keyboard jockey myself.

Why ?
Most everyone has imagination (well , maybe not me)
And folks use that imagination to fill in the blanks sometimes.

a reply to: Phage
Very curious Phage... what did you see? "I've only had one such experience myself."
I have read many of your responses in ATS threads and give your words a lot of weight (even if I don't always agree).

a reply to: fworkman

A light. Directly overhead, unmoving, three or four flashes over 30 or 40 seconds.

Not really remarkable but no idea what it was. I've described it a few times.