The U.F.O. skeptics are in denial

originally posted by: Jay-morris
But that does not explain when pilots actually see the craft. They see the size, shape and colour, only for certain people to brush it off as Venus or some other ridiculous explanation, while saying we make terrible observers.

It's a complete cop out.

I am not saying that pilots have not misidentified something. They could see a bright star (venus) or a metrioite, but they through the same explanations around when the pilot/pilots have clearly seen something that cannot be explained, while saying pilots are terrible observers.

Look you just contradicted yourself. First you say:

"certain people to brush it off as Venus or some other ridiculous explanation"

and then you say:

"They could see a bright star (venus) or a metrioite, but they through the same explanations around when the pilot/pilots have clearly seen something that cannot be explained"

So can pilots misidentify Venus as a UFO or not? Yes they can. I'm not saying all UFOs are Venus, or a meteorite, but I looked at an old case where everyone including me would have ruled out a meteorite, but now, because we have seen other witnesses make similar drawings fireball swarms as structured spacecraft, I think Hynek's explanation it may have been a meteorite the pilots saw makes more sense. It was one of the "big three" UFO cases from the early days of UFOs after Kenneth Arnold's sighting.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Kandinsky
reply to post by jkrog08
The silver fuselage type (with bright port holes) reflected the tech of the time and sci-fi imagery...

People say maybe the aliens are millions of years ahead of us technology wise, but here's a case where the tech the pilots saw looked remarkably like human tech of the time, and the key to understanding this case is in the Yukon UFO case and the Kiev fireball swarm case, where people saw a bunch of lights in the sky and thought what they were seeing was a structured craft. That doesn't make them idiots, just human, imperfect observers whose brain is trying to make sense out of a stimulus they are not familiar with, and pilots are no exception, and even perhaps as Hynek suggested, more prone to misperception of astronomical objects (for which they have no training) than most people.

Even in 2009 I had some inkling of witness misperceptions, and during the last 11 years of researching UFOs, I have come to place less and less confidence on the accuracy of witness descriptions based on the evidence available that such descriptions are often unreliable in many respects.

In 2014, about 5 years after this 2009 discussion, Jim Oberg presented some information about a UFO sighting over Kiev in 1963. On page 3 of his paper, he says "May constitute a 'Rosetta Stone' for world Studies of human misperception" and indeed it may hold clues for this case in particular. Now, what may have seemed unthinkable in 2009, seems likely, that Hynek's "unlikely" suggestion for an explanation may have actually been correct.

A 50 YEAR OLD SOVIET UFO CASE IS THE KEY TO UNLOCKING THE MYSTERY OF THE GIANT ALIEN MOTHERSHIPS

Look at the two drawings in the middle of that 1963 UFO over Kiev, with the two rows of windows and long fiery exhaust!

Did they see the same space ship? No! It was something burning up in Earth's atmosphere. So now we know that people can perceive things breaking up and burning up in Earth's atmosphere as structured spacecraft, and not just one witness, multiple witnesses. Many things seem to fit, like the long fiery exhaust. Compare that to First Officer Whitted's sketch of two rows of windows from the OP:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1d505f70b910.jpg[/atsimg]

I'm not calling the pilot an idiot, just a human, who is seeing something he can't identify, and he makes a drawing. We can then use our cognitive abilities to compare the pilot's drawing, and description of the object, to the drawings made by others of a fireball swarm over Kiev, and people with reasonable cognitive abilities should be able to see significant similarities in the drawings and descriptions.

Before making this comparison I can see why some people might think a meteor was a ridiculous explanation, but now people can see this comparison, I won't call them idiots but I think people who can't see the similarities have cognitive deficiencies. And pilots don't get training in this, I doubt anybody showed these pilots a video of a fireball swarm breaking up as something they would be trained to identify, because videos weren't common back in 1948 and films of fireball swarms even less so, if they existed at all (were there any videos or films of fireball swarms in 1948?).

I made some other observations in my post at the link and then summarized:

So in summary, in 2009 I probably would have thought Hynek's meteor explanation was very unlikely. After looking at the 2014 report on the 1963 Kiev UFO, as well as what happened with the 1996 Yukon UFO where witnesses also saw a structured craft where there was none, I no longer think Hynek's explanation is unlikely, in fact, I now think it is quite likely. I know there are those who refuse to believe that human perception can work this way, but see the evidence that it can work this way, with multiple witnesses seeing "familiar-looking" structured craft when the looked at a fireball swarm, bringing us back this this statement of "The silver fuselage type (with bright port holes) reflected the tech of the time..." which is what the human mind can imprint on observations that confuse us like a fireball swarm.

So in 2009 if you said a meteor breaking up in the atmosphere was a ridiculous explanation for the UFO those pilots saw, I might have tended to agree it didn't seem like a good fit. But now, after seeing how common it is for other observers to have such misperceptions, and that other aspects of the sighting are very consistent with a meteor, I no longer think you can deny the similarity of these drawings and claim the explanation is ridiculous. That doesn't mean it's correct, but at least it's not ridiculous, and I think it very likely is the correct explanation now that we have more evidence of how human perceptions work on these phenomena.

neoholographic, you are putting words in my mouth using a "false dichotomy" that people are either 100% accurate observers who get everything right, or else they are complete idiots. Those are not the only two options, hence why it's a "false dichotomy". Most people are not idiots but almost nobody is a 100% accurate observer, including me, so I'm not even saying I'm infallible, we all have these abilities to misperceive, just look through a book of optical illusions, they fool all of us. There is a vast range between "100% accurate observer" and "idiot" and all of us fall somewhere in-between those two, though I heard a saying "every village has its idiot", but even if that's true it's only one per village. Most people are not idiots but none of us are 100% accurate observers and we are capable of misperceptions.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: LABTECH767 ....
Now as for this video remember there were Russian scientists convinced the moon may itself have been an ancient craft or artificial structure, ....

You were doing so well with the latest 'disclosure' tales, then you pulled out that old "Russian scientists and artificial moon theory" hoax, and you blew it. Sad. That was debunked about, oh, forty years ago. Please try to catch up.

Hey Obe one that is something I only just came across, if you would feel free to share the debunking that would be good, for what it is worth I accept your claim since I know nothing about this other supposed ufo in orbit, I still do not accept that explanation for the black knight though but that one really is stepping down the hole with all kinds of new age crap pinned to it these day's, that said I do believe that there was or maybe (unlikely) still is something up there unless we or they got it and blew it up so that they or we could not then get it after them.

a reply to: neoholographic
No he's not right, the burden has not shifted at all.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Look you just contradicted yourself:

No I did not, you just need to read it again.

"certain people to brush it off as Venus or some other ridiculous explanation"

and then you say:

"They could see a bright star (venus) or a metrioite, but they through the same explanations around when the pilot/pilots have clearly seen something that cannot be explained"

How can you not understand what I am saying here. I mean, seriously? Ok, let me explain again. I said pilots can mistake venus or a metrioite. That has happend before. My point is, and you totally missed it, is the fact that these explanations are thrown out there even when pilots see the object, close to the point where they can see the shape and colour. But these sightings will have the same explanations, and of course have the "pilots are the worst observers in the history of the human race"

So, when pilots mistake things like venus, are their I servations that bad that Venus appears to be right by their plane, where they can see the shape and colour of the object?

I cannot make it any plainer that that for you.

So can pilots misidentify Venus as a UFO or not?

I have explained perfectly. I hope you eill admit you were wrong, but I doubt it.

I'm not saying all UFOs are Venus, or a meteorite,

Good, because that is not always the case.

but I looked at an old case where everyone including me would have ruled out a meteorite, but now, because we have seen other witnesses make similar drawings fireball swarms as structured spacecraft, I think Hynek's explanation it may have been a meteorite the pilots saw makes more sense. It was one of the "big three" UFO cases from the early days of UFOs after Kenneth Arnold's sighting.

I would like to see those cases. Can you post one? And I mean one that proves it was a meteorite, and not because someone said so, so it has to be true.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Did you read my last post?

First off, Hynek shows that Military Pilots are very reliable eyewitnesses and great at identifying U.F.O.'s and so is Military Personnel, Police Officers, Astronauts and many U.F.O. sightings in general. This is because todays Pilots and starting in the 70's as I laid out would be classified as Technical Persons because of all of the technical training they have to have to fly more advanced planes than in the 60's.

Here's Hynek's classification system:



Hynek, who you keep mentioning, showed that Technical Persons were reliable U.F.O. eyewitnesses. This is obvious because the more technical training you have the better you are at identifying technology. This says 2 things:

1. Pilots starting in the 70's up to today have to have more technical training in order to operate Planes equipped with more advanced technology.

2. Persons with technical training are identifying U.F.O. that are mechanical and this is the reason Technical Persons are better at identifying U.F.O.'s according to Hynek.

Here's more about Navy Pilot Training starting in the 70's.

Advances in computer technology had an impact on training at USNTPS beginning in the 1970s with the introduction of aircraft capable of variable stability including the Calspan Learjet, which remains a cornerstone of flight training at the school today. Advancements in technology during that decade required the school to expand its curriculum again to incorporate airborne systems and to lengthen the syllabus from eight months to the current 11 months, which the school deemed sufficient to allow more flight opportunities and time to absorb class instruction and apply it in the air.

navalaviationnews.navylive.dodlive.mil...

Here's some info on Pilots in Air Force:

The test pilot will be following carefully-crafted flight profiles, not daring aerial maneuvers. They must be taught to handle his airplane with extraordinary precision: to control their airspeed to the nearest knot, and their altitude virtually to the foot--every time. Beyond this, the student test pilot must have a natural affinity for mechanical systems, an ability to "feel" the airplane and have a well-honed sense of what is happening at any given time. Mature and reasoned judgment is also vital - human lives, and millions of dollars, depend upon how carefully a test mission is planned and flown. But all of these skills would be useless without knowledge and training - systematic training in gathering flight data, and then interpreting it. Minutes spent in precision flying must be matched by hours of painstaking effort at computers, in the library, and around the conference table.

It is obvious that in the world of flight testing, there simply is no room for "second best." That is why the Air Force Test Pilot School (TPS) takes such pains to make certain that its graduates are the equal to any in their profession.

The U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School selection board convenes annually in July. Those interested in becoming a test pilot, test combat systems officer, test remotely piloted aircraft pilot or flight test engineer are encouraged to apply. Applicants from all aircraft types and backgrounds must have strong academic and technical experience.

www.edwards.af.mil...

So based on Hynek's criteria, Military Pilots are excellent eywitnesses of U.F.O.'s because of their technical training which makes them Technical Persons. A Pilot in the 60's or Technical Persons in the 60's can't compare to the Technical training of Pilots in the 70's, 80's, 90's and up to today.

Will you admit that based on the technical training of Pilots that they make excellent eyewitnesses at identifying U.F.O.'s?

Will you be honest?

Secondly, it's not a false dichotomy. You tried to paint all observers including Pilots as unreliable and this is a false statement.

Are some unreliable, yes but some are very reliable.

Will you admit that some Pilots are very reliable eyewitnesses?

The problem you have is you want to paint these illogical absolutes. So I ask you the same question that Phage dodged based on your illogical statement.

Which one of these statements accurately describes all observers or eyewitnesses?

A. The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

or

B. The objective truth is some people aren't reliable observers while some people are very reliable observers.

It's obvious why you don't want to answer the question.

If you answer A, you realize how illogical it sounds but you want to support your pseudoskeptic brother Arbitrageur.

If you answer B, then you have to admit that some U.F.O. accounts from Pilots are reliable.

You're the one that said:

The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

This isn't objective truth. There's some people who are very reliable eyewitnesses.

People make this claim that eyewitness accounts are unreliable but what happens when a Police comes to a crime scene or a car accident? The first thing they look for is eyewitnesses.

If eyewitnesses accounts are so unreliable, why have sketches drawn of criminals that eyewitnesses saw?

I just saw a case where a woman saw a lady in a truck kind of slumped over next to her on the highway. A few days later she saw the girl was missing on the news and told the Police about the truck which helped them find a killer. Was this woman unreliable?

My point is, of course, all eyewitness accounts aren't good ones but pseudoskeptics speak in absolutes and they want to paint the picture that all eyewitness accounts are unreliable which is dishonest.

Will you say that some eyewitness accounts are reliable and especially those accounts from Technical Persons like Pilots?

As I asked Phage, will you be honest???

originally posted by: Jay-morris
I would like to see those cases. Can you post one? And I mean one that proves it was a meteorite, and not because someone said so, so it has to be true.

I gave you a case, did I say it had to be true? My question is do you still say a meteorite is a ridiculous explanation for that case after comparing the pilot's drawing to other fireball drawings?

It's easier to prove the cases of manmade objects entering the Earth's atmosphere because we track those and have records that can prove what it is. Natural objects like meteors can approach Earth without being tracked if they are small enough, we won't see them until they actually start lighting up the sky, but both manmade objects and natural objects can produce fireballs as they light up entering Earth's atmosphere.

Here's a list of those which can be proven:

Misperception of Satellite Re-Entries - Seeing is Not Necessarily Believing.

There are numerous cases listed there. Look at the Yukon case for an example, one of the "top ten" UFO cases with over 30 witnesses said to be a close encounter with a giant mothership, until records showed it was just very distant lights in the sky from an object breaking up and lighting up as it entered Earth's atmosphere. Here's a more detailed article for that case:

"Top Ten" UFO Case - Yukon, Canada, 1996 - BUSTED!

Here's a case involving pilots which can be proven:

November 5, 1990 re-entry of the Gorizont/Proton rocket body across northern France and Germany

"What did the BA captain see? Here is his comment.

" 'I looked ahead and saw, somewhat to my surprise, ahead and to the right and higher than we were, a set of bright lights. One of the lights, the leading one, was brighter than the others, and appeared bigger, almost disklike. It was followed closely by another three that seemed to be in a V formation. As I watched, I heard another aircraft crew also reporting seeing lights.

" 'I watched the objects intently as they moved across my field of view, right to left, ahead and high. It was then, on hearing the report from the other aircraft, that I realized I was watching something much further away than I had first thought. The other report came from France.'

"Was it a satellite re-entry? The pilot stated: 'It certainly didn't look like that to me. I have seen a re-entry before and this was different.'

"But it was the BA captain's further comments that are causing amazement and intense interest. SIGAP has released the information to UFO researcher and writer Tim Good, and we hope to have more comprehensive details this year.

"That same night, a colleague of the captain, in another BA aircraft, reported two 'very bright, mystifying lights' while flying over the North Sea. Two days later, an RAF Tornado pilot told the captain that on the same evening (5th November) his Tornado -- while flying with another squadron aircraft, had been 'approached by bright lights'. The lights, he reported, 'formated on the Tornadoes'. (This expression 'formate' is apparently used to indicate a deliberate intent)

"The accompanying Tornado pilot was so convinced that they were on collision course with the lights (apparently nine of them were seen) that he 'broke away' and took 'violent evasive action'. This same pilot later added that he thought he was heading directly for a C5 Galaxy, a giant US transport plane. The formation of UFOs carried 'straight on course and shot off ahead at speed -- they were nearly supersonic. Some C5!', he said, indicating that they were going faster than the speed a C5 can achieve.

"The pilot known to Paul Whitehead commented, 'This is all a good true story, and could do with an explanation. All the pilots are adamant that what they had seen was definitely not satellite debris -- and they should know,'"

Further details were reported in the National Enquirer, March 12, 1991, page 50: "Airline pilot in chilling brush with giant UFO", by Fleur Brenham. Has photo of "Veteran pilot, Capt. Mike D'Alton. He's convinced it came from outer space."

"A massive glowing UFO stunned a veteran British Airways pilot and his crew when it shot in front of their Boeing 737 on a night flight from Rome to London -- then zoomed out of sight at fantastic speed"

The newspaper quoted the pilot: "This thing was not of this world," declared Capt. Mike D'Alton. "In all my 23 years of flying I've never seen a craft anything like this."

More: "Capt. D'Alton says he's convinced the mysterious craft came from outer space because: It was traveling at tremendous speed, but caused no sonic boom. . . it had a bizarre shape like nothing he'd ever set eyes on . . . and it made a sharp turn while flying at high speeds -- an impossible maneuver that would rip any man-made aircraft to bits. Just as incredible, when Capt. D'Alton checked with area air traffic controllers, they hadn't detected a thing! 'There was nothing on the radar screens of any of the control towers it was flying over,' he said."

According to the article, "The encounter began at 6:03 p.m. last November 5 as Capt. D'Alton's airliner was flying over Genoa, Italy. 'The rest of the crew saw it, too,' he said. 'What we saw was one large, fairly bright light. Ahead of it was a formation of three fainter lights in a triangle. Another faint light was behind the large light and was slightly lower.'

D'Alton continued: "The craft was flying level, going much too fast to be a man-made aircraft. I've flown all over the world, and I know this thing wasn't a shooting star, space debris or the northern lights."

Said Bob Parkhouse, the flight's chief steward: "The UFO was moving from left to right across the horizon. It was a sight I'd never seen before!"

"The crew watched the craft for two minutes, said Capt. D'Alton. 'Then it took a lightning-fast right-angle turn and zoomed out of sight.' Other pilots, including a Lufthansa German Airlines captain, reported a UFO sighting around the same time. Capt D'Alton said. 'It had to be something from another planet -- because it was definitely not man-made!' "

Things like the "lightning-fast right-angle turn and zoomed out of sight" really amaze me because we know that is not what objects entering the Earth's atmosphere normally do, so these are very large misperceptions.

Double post removed.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What you're doing is dishonest. Who hear has said misidentifications never happen?

Point to the post that you're debating.

You're debating a straw man because nobody has made the claim that misidentifications don't occur.

What your doing is is trying to paint all eyewitnesses as unreliable based on some misidentifications. So answer the questions from my previous post.

Which one of these statements accurately describes all observers or eyewitnesses?

A. The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

or

B. The objective truth is some people aren't reliable observers while some people are very reliable observers.

It's obvious why you don't want to answer the question.

If you answer A, you realize how illogical it sounds but you want to support your pseudoskeptic brother Arbitrageur.

If you answer B, then you have to admit that some U.F.O. accounts from Pilots are reliable.

You're the one that said:

The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

This isn't objective truth. There's some people who are very reliable eyewitnesses.

People make this claim that eyewitness accounts are unreliable but what happens when a Police comes to a crime scene or a car accident? The first thing they look for is eyewitnesses.

If eyewitnesses accounts are so unreliable, why have sketches drawn of criminals that eyewitnesses saw?

I just saw a case where a woman saw a lady in a truck kind of slumped over next to her on the highway. A few days later she saw the girl was missing on the news and told the Police about the truck which helped them find a killer. Was this woman unreliable?

My point is, of course, all eyewitness accounts aren't good ones but pseudoskeptics speak in absolutes and they want to paint the picture that all eyewitness accounts are unreliable which is dishonest.

Will you say that some eyewitness accounts are reliable and especially those accounts from Technical Persons like Pilots?

As I asked Phage, will you be honest???

I will stipulate and have stipulated that some eyewitnesses make mistakes. So what?

Does that mean all eyewitnesses are unreliable? What exactly is your point? You have no point because nobody has claimed misidentifications don't happen so who are you debating?

What you're doing is being dishonest because your trying to say because there's some misidentifications all eyewitnesses are unreliable and can't be trusted.

Like I said, it's an old outdated pseudoskeptic tactic.

a reply to: neoholographic
Who are you saying is immune from eyewitness misperception regarding UFOs?
The answer is nobody.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: neoholographic
Who are you saying is immune from misperception?
The answer is nobody.

LOL, What?

First, you dodged the question like Phage so I will repeat it.

Which one of these statements accurately describes all observers or eyewitnesses?

A. The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

or

B. The objective truth is some people aren't reliable observers while some people are very reliable observers.

It's obvious why you don't want to answer the question.

If you answer A, you realize how illogical it sounds but you want to support your pseudoskeptic brother Arbitrageur.

If you answer B, then you have to admit that some U.F.O. accounts from Pilots are reliable.

You're the one that said:

The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

This isn't objective truth. There's some people who are very reliable eyewitnesses.

Again I ask:

WHO ARE YOU DEBATING??

Who has made the claim that misidentifications doesn't happen?

What is your point? Yes they're people who are immune to misperceptions in some cases. These would be reliable witnesses. The problem your having is that you're trying to speak in absolutes.

WILL YOU ADMIT THAT THERE ARE RELIABLE EYEWITNESSES THAT GIVE ACCURATE DETAILED ACCOUNTS?

Again, it's like a glitch or something. You can't say what's logically true because then you would have to say there's some very reliable eyewitness accounts for U.F.O.'s

You can't simply say, YES, SOME EYEWITNESSES ARE RELIABLE!

LOL, Pseudoskeptics!

Could it be a flaw or want of better word weakness a lot of people want to believe....
this would / could make convincing anyone of these people there beliefs are correct very easy..... susceptible

being sceptical could make people have a more rounded view as they would need to have facts....as fact require no belief?

originally posted by: neoholographic
The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

I said it because all the evidence points to that being true. As Hynek's data shows, some classes of observers have higher misperception rates than other classes, but none of the classes of observers had zero misperception rates. Indeed, I think lots of evidence shows that it's the very way we humans are made that makes all of us susceptible to misperceptions.

You can't simply say, YES, SOME EYEWITNESSES ARE RELIABLE!

I have yet to meet an eyewitness that I trust more than myself, and I don't even trust myself to be 100% reliable because I'm only human too, and even if I may have less misperceptions than pilots, I can still have misperceptions. So I can't say that because I don't believe it to be true, and I think people who believe that is true are overlooking much evidence to the contrary.

Even if it was true, how would you decide which eyewitnesses didn't make misperceptions from which ones did, or which observers are reliable and which ones aren't? You can't tell, or if you can, explain your secret for how to tell which is which. I mean I can tell the obvious crackpots but that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about people like this pilot:

web.archive.org...
"Other pilots, including a Lufthansa German Airlines captain, reported a UFO sighting around the same time. Capt D'Alton said. 'It had to be something from another planet -- because it was definitely not man-made!"

First of all, we assume, when we refer to a UFO, to be talking about an alien phenomenon.
We need to establish that and accept it for better or worse. I am open to the idea

It does get to a question to some degree of one's personal belief—the credulity of the evidence and the testimony.

I've seen two, three or maybe 4 ariel phenomena that might be classified as a UFO, including a giant size bird-like thing of some sort, and recently in the NY skyline something going so fast it wasnt any conventional plane unless it was a missile.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You're just proving my point. You're being illogical because you want to avoide making a basic common sense statement.

YES, SOME EYEWITNESSES ARE RELIABLE!

Again, this is just common sense but you say things like this:

I said it because all the evidence points to that being true. As Hynek's data shows, some classes of observers have higher misperception rates than other classes, but none of the cases of observers had zero misperception rates.

This has nothing to do with the thread. Nobody has claimed that there are misidentifications. Who are you debating? You're debating a straw man because nobody has claimed these things don't happen.

You want to paint all eyewitnesses as unreliable, which is an illogical position so you can't say any eyewitnesses are reliable so you make this illogical statement.

I have yet to meet an eyewitness that I trust more than myself, and I don't even trust myself to be 100% reliable because I'm only human too, and even if I may have less misperceptions than pilots, I can still have misperceptions.

Again, just an ignorant statement because you're trying to avoid saying any eyewitnesses are reliable because then you would have to say some U.F.O. eyewitnesses are reliable. You then asked:

Even if it was true, how would you decide which eyewitnesses didn't make misperceptions from which ones did, or which observers are reliable and which ones aren't?

I have to pause hear because sometimes when I hear these statements from pseudoskeptics I can't decide if you're joking or not. This is just so illogical it has to be a joke.

If we go by your standard, we couldn't have a society.

Do you think if you asked Lawyers or Police do they know the difference between reliable and unreliable witnesses they would say they don't have a clue what a reliable eyewitness is?

This is what you're saying LOL! Are you serious?

Let me ask you this question:

Do you think Police or Lawyers ever encountered a reliable eyewitness?

Of course you will dodge the question like you have dodged my question.This is because this is basic common sense.

Hynek showed that the more techical training you have, the better you are at spotting U.F.O.'s. So yes, you trust Pilots perception because of their technical training. You can also asked things like is there a reason I should doubt that they're accurately describing what they saw. Are they known for making things up? What has their superiors said about them in the past.

This doesn't mean they haven't misidentified something, it just means you're asking basic common sense questions. Here's more from Hynek:

First off, Hynek shows that Military Pilots are very reliable eyewitnesses and great at identifying U.F.O.'s and so is Military Personnel, Police Officers, Astronauts and many U.F.O. sightings in general. This is because todays Pilots and starting in the 70's as I laid out would be classified as Technical Persons because of all of the technical training they have to have to fly more advanced planes than in the 60's.

Here's Hynek's classification system:



Hynek, who you keep mentioning, showed that Technical Persons were reliable U.F.O. eyewitnesses. This is obvious because the more technical training you have the better you are at identifying technology. This says 2 things:

1. Pilots starting in the 70's up to today have to have more technical training in order to operate Planes equipped with more advanced technology.

2. Persons with technical training are identifying U.F.O. that are mechanical and this is the reason Technical Persons are better at identifying U.F.O.'s according to Hynek.

Here's more about Navy Pilot Training starting in the 70's.

Advances in computer technology had an impact on training at USNTPS beginning in the 1970s with the introduction of aircraft capable of variable stability including the Calspan Learjet, which remains a cornerstone of flight training at the school today. Advancements in technology during that decade required the school to expand its curriculum again to incorporate airborne systems and to lengthen the syllabus from eight months to the current 11 months, which the school deemed sufficient to allow more flight opportunities and time to absorb class instruction and apply it in the air.

navalaviationnews.navylive.dodlive.mil...

Here's some info on Pilots in Air Force:

The test pilot will be following carefully-crafted flight profiles, not daring aerial maneuvers. They must be taught to handle his airplane with extraordinary precision: to control their airspeed to the nearest knot, and their altitude virtually to the foot--every time. Beyond this, the student test pilot must have a natural affinity for mechanical systems, an ability to "feel" the airplane and have a well-honed sense of what is happening at any given time. Mature and reasoned judgment is also vital - human lives, and millions of dollars, depend upon how carefully a test mission is planned and flown. But all of these skills would be useless without knowledge and training - systematic training in gathering flight data, and then interpreting it. Minutes spent in precision flying must be matched by hours of painstaking effort at computers, in the library, and around the conference table.

It is obvious that in the world of flight testing, there simply is no room for "second best." That is why the Air Force Test Pilot School (TPS) takes such pains to make certain that its graduates are the equal to any in their profession.

The U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School selection board convenes annually in July. Those interested in becoming a test pilot, test combat systems officer, test remotely piloted aircraft pilot or flight test engineer are encouraged to apply. Applicants from all aircraft types and backgrounds must have strong academic and technical experience.

www.edwards.af.mil...

So based on Hynek's criteria, Military Pilots are excellent eywitnesses of U.F.O.'s because of their technical training which makes them Technical Persons. A Pilot in the 60's or Technical Persons in the 60's can't compare to the Technical training of Pilots in the 70's, 80's, 90's and up to today.

Will you admit that based on the technical training of Pilots that they make excellent eyewitnesses at identifying U.F.O.'s?

I will also ask the question again that you keep dodging:

Which one of these statements accurately describes all observers or eyewitnesses?

A. The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

or

B. The objective truth is some people aren't reliable observers while some people are very reliable observers.

It's obvious why you don't want to answer the question.

If you answer A, you realize how illogical it sounds but you want to support your pseudoskeptic brother Arbitrageur.

If you answer B, then you have to admit that some U.F.O. accounts from Pilots are reliable.

You're the one that said:

The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

This isn't objective truth. There's some people who are very reliable eyewitnesses.

The fact that you're acting like there's no reliable eyewitnesses is just asinine.

a reply to: KiwiNite

Now, thats the truth...

a reply to: Arbitrageur I am giving up on logical skepticism or at least the same arguments from the same participants. It is futile. Unless one had a close encounter and or worked on a highly classified SAP, you are not going to change minds. I watched for two years now as someone like Spiritual Architect and a few others try to logically build a case for the ET presence only to be refuted at every corner by the same debunkers/skeptics/ naysayers. It is useless. Brainwashed.

Fortunately, their days are numbered...

Trickle, trickle, drop, drop....

Sorry, this was addressed to you. a reply to: neoholographic

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What is your opinion of the Travis Walton case for example?

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
For the record. I do believe in aliens. I just have not seen any credible evidence of such.

I'm with you. I've always been a "fan" of UFOs, and Bigfoot, too, along with a variety of paranormal stuff. But I also understand how logic and proof work. And when it comes to aliens, I have to admit I've never seen even one bit of objective, verifiable proof that they exist. That's not being skeptical, that's just being rational.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You are cometly missing my point. I never said once that pilots never miss identify objects. The point I am making is the same explanations are used, no matter what the eitnesess say they saw, no matter how ridiculous the explanation sounds.

There is a certain amount of denial here. I do not know if it's becsuse a lot of people have dedicated their lives to debunking, and they actually lime it and are happy for it to stay that way, I really do not know.

But the evidence is overwhelming that something is going on here, and I have been saying that for years, as the evidence points to that fact.

It's now that things are coming to light, that will make people take this subject seriously, and about time.