Great Interview with Dr Richard Haines.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I think we are in closer agreement about what to do now and in the future, and we can leave the unexplained residue -- which will exist whether or not there is any unexplainABLE stimuli -- for future dispute.

So, if all of the predictable, lame and completely unconvincing cover stories for a UFO sighting cannot be shoehorned into place to dismiss a sighting, you try to deride it as 'residue' and just sweep it under the rug? That doesn't work and it makes you look like a fool to even try it. Say goodbye to your credibility before it disappears over the horizon.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
That quote sums up an aspect of my views on the subject. I believe a lot of people actually see what they claim to have seen. What people interpret from the sighting is what causes all the scorn, debate and shenanigans.

Kandinsky, if I'm being honest then I'd have to agree -I have absolutely no idea what these objects are or where they come from and, as Gordon Creighton mentions in this interview, "Unquestionably, something very extraordinary is going on and unquestionably it's a very bewildering mystery".

Originally posted by deadred
I've often wondered how many "anecdotal" reports are required before the skeptics stop dismissing them out of hand because they don't fall under our traditional understanding of physics.

Deadred, good point - for people just to flippantly dismiss these UFO (and USO) reports because they don't conform to preconceived attitudes about reality seems a bit irresponsible to me and I think each case should be taken on its own merits (rather than the subject just being willfully ignored as a whole) - here's a good quote about certain mindsets.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Herbert Spencer, British philosopher

Link

Cheers.

Good documentary about pilot UFO sightings such as the Bariloche incident, the Tehran incident etc.. - also featuring various interviews with Dr Richard Haines.

reply to post by spacevisitor


Hey bud -here are some other interesting statements made by Dr Haines and he speculates about the origin of UFOs in the last one.

"Air Catalogue is a rather extensive library I’ve been collecting for almost 30 years from commercial, private, and test pilots. I have over 3,000 cases. My estimate is that for every pilot who does come forward, and makes a confidential or a public report, there are 20, 30 other pilots who don’t."
NASA Research Scientist (Gemini, Apollo, Skylab), Dr. Richard Haines



"Reports of anomalous aerial objects (AAO) appearing in the atmosphere continue to be made by pilots of almost every airline and air force of the world in addition to private and experimental test pilots..
We're not dealing with mental projections or hallucinations on the part of the witness but with a real physical phenomenon."
Dr. Richard Haines, Psychologist specializing in pilot and astronaut "human factors" research for the Ames NASA Research Center in California-Chief of the Space Human Factors Office




"What I found was compelling evidence to claim that most of these aerial objects far exceeded the terrestrial technology of the era in which they were seen. I was forced to conclude that there is a great likelihood that Earth is being visited by highly advanced aerospace vehicles under highly 'intelligent' control indeed."
Dr Richard F. Haines-Retired NASA senior research scientist,Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science,1998.

Cheers.

Originally posted by karl 12

Hey bud -here are some other interesting statements made by Dr Haines and he speculates about the origin of UFOs in the last one.

"What I found was compelling evidence to claim that most of these aerial objects far exceeded the terrestrial technology of the era in which they were seen.

I was forced to conclude that there is a great likelihood that Earth is being visited by highly advanced aerospace vehicles under highly intelligent control indeed."

Dr Richard F. Haines-Retired NASA senior research scientist, Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science,1998.

Thanks for this one buddy, that’s an interesting and for me important remark of him which confirms in a way my saying I did in my post you referring to.

“But I have nevertheless the strong impression that he very well knows what it is, but can’t just freely speak out about it”.

reply to post by spacevisitor


Thanks for the reply mate, I think Dr Haines has arrived at this position after studying and collating all these unexplained UAP reports over the years and his thoughts also seem to echo Dr James E Mcdonald's opinions on the subject (Easynow has posted a very interesting statement by the chap here).

One of the principal results of my own recent intensive study of the UFO enigma is this: I have become convinced that the scientific community, not only in this country but throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance. The attention of your Committee can, and I hope will, aid greatly in correcting this situation. As you will note in the following, my own present opinion, based on two years of careful study, is that UFOs are probably extraterrestrial devices engaged in something that might very tentatively be termed "surveillance."

Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona. Statement on Unidentified Flying Objects, submitted to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics at July 29, 1968, Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects, Rayburn Bldg., Washington, D.C

I also think this audio statement by Dr Mcdonald is one of the best I've heard when it comes to the UFO subject and deductive reasoning:


Dr James E. Mcdonald - Audio Quote

Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12


Hi karl 12, I obviously missed that thread for some reason.

I did read that statement easynow has posted and I did listen to that audio statement and I cannot see other than that it is no doubt a very important statement from a very credible and respectable senior physicist who obviously had the guts to come openly forward with his view about it in so many occasions.

I sorely go watch those other videos about this man posted by you and easynow in there because I did not saw them before.

Thanks for making me aware of that buddy.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Hi karl 12, I obviously missed that thread for some reason.

I did read that statement easynow has posted and I did listen to that audio statement and I cannot see other than that it is no doubt a very important statement from a very credible and respectable senior physicist who obviously had the guts to come openly forward with his view about it in so many occasions.

Spacevisitor -you're not wrong about him being a very courageous scientist mate and I don't think many people these days are even aware there were U.S. Congressional hearings held about the UFO subject in the 1960s.


Committee on Science and Astronautics - US House of Representatives, 1968.


As for aviation safety and the UFO subject, Captain Rodrigo Bravo Garrido makes some interesting comments below about incidents over Chile.

Rodrigo Bravo GARRIDO, Captain and Pilot for the Aviation Army of Chile. In 2000, he was assigned to conduct an internal study titled "Introduction to Anomalous Aerial Phenomenon and their considerations for aerospace security" involving previous case reports military planes encounters with UAP. For the last several years he has continued this research on recent and current cases affecting aviation safety in cooperation with the Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena (CEFAA), a branch of the General Administration of Civil Aeronautics, Chile's FAA.

link (pdf)

Cheers.

Hi All,
Let me address this list without an alias. I am Ted Roe, Executive Director of NARCAP.org. Dr. Haines and I founded this org ten years ago.

Let me first respectfully address Mr. Oberg's contentions:

Neither NARCAP nor Dr. Haines feel that pilots are any better witnesses than anyone else. What we do contend is that we can apply consistent methodology to investigations. We have the potential for radar data and other data that isn't usually available to the majority of UAP reports. So we must be, actually, in agreement.

Further, the Null Hypothesis idea is not consistent, at all, with our data and with that of the official investigations into UAP. Work by EMBLA and www.itacomm.net , www.hessdalenproject.org, Massimo Teodorani, Renzo Cabassi and others has adequately demonstrated that there are poorly documented phenomena with the attributes described by witnesses. They have been filmed, photo'd, detected and analyzed with instrumentation, and there is no question that they exist. Futher, the British Gov report, the so-called Condign Report, also asserts that UAP exist and are likely a hazard to aviation. They claim its "indisputable" that UAP exist...
You will have to confront all of those efforts as well as CEFAA and GEIPAN to promote the idea that there is nothing to UAP.

You will also have to overcome the reasons why nobody believed pilot reports of red sprites, blue jets and other phenomena that were ignored for years while the AF, you and others claimed that all such observations arise from common and prosaic sources... Pilots were correct in their observations about those phenomena and science and you decided that they were not seeing anything unique... turns out they were seeing VERY unique things and reporting them quite accurately...



With respect to the quotes by Dr. Haines regarding the possible sources of UAP reports let me advise you all that after ten years working on NARCAP we have come to a bit of a different conclusion. UAP probably arise from a variety of sources including natural ones, and some cases are quite provocative in that they seem to demonstrate behaviors and attributes that imply efficient energy management and intelligence. We have a lot more work to do sorting through the various subspecies of UAP until we can get to the point that the data will tell us what it will about the ETH. We can't prove that a ball of light is behaving intelligently, not sure how anyone could, but there are provocative cases and more work needs to be done.

The idea that ET are visiting has not been proved, no definitive work has been done and the possibility remains open that some of these things may be technical in nature. We don't know but the data is provocative. We will continue, as we have for the past ten years, to document and analyze potential UAP cases as a potential hazard to aviation.

Finally, let me call the attention of the list to our latest study:

Spherical UAP and Aviation Safety: A Critical Review


Thanks for your time

Ted Roe
Executive Director
NARCAP.org

Originally posted by 1deepstar
Hi All,
Let me address this list without an alias. I am Ted Roe, Executive Director of NARCAP.org. Dr. Haines and I founded this org ten years ago.

Thanks for your reply Mr. Roe, I really appreciate that.

Just to inform you, it could be that karl 12 who started this interesting thread is not able to react soon on it because he will be not present for some time here, but I am shore that as soon as he is back he sorely will react on it.

Originally posted by 1deepstar
With respect to the quotes by Dr. Haines regarding the possible sources of UAP reports let me advise you all that after ten years working on NARCAP we have come to a bit of a different conclusion.

UAP probably arise from a variety of sources including natural ones, and some cases are quite provocative in that they seem to demonstrate behaviors and attributes that imply efficient energy management and intelligence.

We have a lot more work to do sorting through the various subspecies of UAP until we can get to the point that the data will tell us what it will about the ETH.

We can't prove that a ball of light is behaving intelligently, not sure how anyone could, but there are provocative cases and more work needs to be done.

The idea that ET are visiting has not been proved, no definitive work has been done and the possibility remains open that some of these things may be technical in nature. We don't know but the data is provocative.

Mr. Roe, you really surprised me by talking about even despite those investigated UAPs mentioned in that excellent rapport “e Preliminary Study of 300 cases of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)” as nothing more than “a ball of light which is behaving intelligently”.

A Preliminary Study of 300 cases of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)
Reported by Military and Civilian pilots1

www.narcap.org...

I find it really a quite unfitting and belittling name for such kind of obvious extreme highly advanced objects which are “flying” around here for so long and cannot in my opinion be other explained then due the ETH. The Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis.

To still pretend as if we really do not know even still in 2010 with all the other available information there is about it what those UAPs/UFOs/Objects really are shows so clearly how unbelievable powerful the people behind the cover-up are that keeps this information secret.

Just my two euro-cents of course.

Thanks again.



[edit on 8/6/10 by spacevisitor]

Thanks for all the comprehensive replies - will certainly hope to continue discussion on this thread at a later date as there's been some extremely interesting points raised.

reply to post by karl 12
Buenos días señor Karl, espero que la lluvia en España cae principalmente en la llanura? It's been falling mainly on me for the past week!

Paratopia have a few great interviews and our NARCAP friends are two of them.

Dr Richard Haines (right-click save as)

Mr Ted Roe (right click save as)

Ted Roe's interview is about the Project Sphere into pilot sightings of, commonly, spherical UAPs. Dr Haines covers the features of UAP and reports in a more general approach.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by karl 12

 

Buenos días señor Karl, espero que la lluvia en España cae principalmente en la llanura? It's been falling mainly on me for the past week!

Paratopia have few great interviews and our NARCAP friends are two of them.

Dr Richard Haines (right-click save as)

Mr Ted Roe (right click save as)

Ted Roe's interview is about the Project Sphere into pilot sightings of, commonly, spherical UAPs. Dr Haines covers the features of UAP and reports in a more general approach.

Thanks for making me aware of these interviews Kandinsky,
The guys at paratopia do really a great job there and do make very good interviews in my opinion.

Richard Haines is a stand-up gentleman.

But what does it take for any official to at least, acknowledge these claims? Okay, let's put 9-11 off to the side because that's too controversial. But c'mon! I thought the government works for us? We have a RIGHT to have someone at LEAST pretend to acknowledge this! There are millions of us asking for acknowledgment. Again, not disclosure rather; ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
Man, even if they have to bull-chit us, DO SOMETHING!! But no. In the meantime we get lame levity like this:






But we all know this pretty much sums up how they feel about it...........

reply to post by JimOberg


think the Tehran case has a plausible prosaic explanation of inexperienced rich kids in scary situations (night flying) with one notoriously malfunctioning avionics kit, under pressure from the head of the Iranian secret police (SAVAK) who demanded satisfaction regarding a fairly pedestrian 'UFO report' he phoned in.

Sorry , yet another of Jim's total and utter spurious postings based on absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever. The Iranian air-force's pilots at the time of the sighting, were almost to a man trained by the British and considered to be very good at their job. This is just typical of the way you try to dismiss sightings Jim and it's exactly the same totally unfounded rubbish as the people you claim to dislike so much. Why is it you Americans have this unbelievably arrogant attitude to everyone else's armed forces?

Let me give you a classic example. Before the first gulf conflict it was, quite rightly, decided they needed to run an exercise, that took into account the possibility that Iran could be dragged into the conflict and the Naval forces in the gulf could find themselves under attack. What happened ..oh yes.... The Brits, in antiquated Buccaneers, flew in 30 feet off the sea and took out 5 American capital ships before the Americans had even fired a shot. . The Americans were furious and accused the Brits of *cheating*. At which point the Brits pointed out.... We trained the most of the Iranian pilots under the Shah's regime, their commanders even now are mostly ex RAF trained.

What do we make of case after case on the supposedly already-investigated pilot reports list turning out to have prosaic explanations that Haines and Roe and company never found? How many such cases are needed to establish the possibility that the list isn't so nearly reliable as evidence of truly unexplainable stimuli?

How many? What percentage?

I am gratified to see that Roe does NOT claim that pilots are any better as UFO observers as anyone else.

reply to post by JimOberg


You're absolutely right Jim and that goes for members of NASA, seems they all have a disease called *collective selective blindness" . So let me make sure I'm quoting you properly because i shall be spreading this far and wide across the net. Jim Oberg says, just because you do something for a living does not make you any better than anyone else at making a judgment about something you see?

Originally posted by JimOberg
The biggest analytical chasm between me and Haines is that he considers pilots to be among the best and most reliable aerial anomalous event reporters, while I concur with Hynek's surprising conclusion that they are one of the poorest categories for accuracy.
(snip)

Not just pilots. People, in general, put a lot of store in the testimony given by police officers, government employees, and the like. People don't seem to realize that these "specialists" are no different from the average Joe on the street. A cop is not given special training in being more observant. One has to become aware of details in order to remain calm and make valuable observations when encountering an unusual situation. One has to look and take in all that's possible for later comparisons. Color, height, width, weight, altitude, drift direction, etc.

I remember that in junior high school we'd be in the auditorium enjoying a performance and all of a sudden all hell would break loose, people would run up on the stage, perform all kinds of crazy acts, etc. After everything quieted down, the principal would address the audience and ask for witness descriptions of what transpired. You'd be surprised to hear how many missed explicit particulars. The bottom line is that be a good witness you have to remain cool and pay attention to what you are witnessing. Pilots, in particular, have too much on their plate to possibly describe in detail what they may have witnessed. Not impossible but difficult.

reply to post by The Shrike

Pilots, in particular, have too much on their plate to possibly describe in detail what they may have witnessed. Not impossible but difficult.

You lend the impression that a pilot is working to the full extent of his capacity and any more stimuli simply couldn't be processed accurately. As arguments go, this one is quite novel. Certainly, it's new to me. Basically, pilots are that stressed they don't what they are looking at? It's a wonder that every nation has a military air force if any of that was true!

Modern pilots are trained to a far greater extent than those from the 50s and 60s. Sensory illusions are a chapter in the FAA Pilot Handbook. They have greater instrumentation than in the 50s and 60s and are educated to a higher general standard by requirement. This may not make them 'better' observers, but it doesn't make them worse observers than the general population. In areas like constellations, they are better observers than the general population and far less likely to be surprised by Venus. Astronomical phenomena are a part of pilot training in both commercial and military sectors.

Jim Oberg repeatedly cites the 60s Hynek study to support his argument that pilots are actually worse observers than Joe Public. I don't think he honestly believes that the study has contemporary relevance, but it's a great source for undermining pilot testimony of UFO or UAP sightings. There have been many examples where the pilots have misidentified a point light or phenomenon in the skies, but the accuracy of their descriptions were later used to identify the stimuli. In Jim's case, he identified a 1990 Russian re-entry of a Proton rocket using the pilot information. Seems that autokinetic illusions played a part. In recent years, the accuracy of pilot observations has been useful in uncovering sprites, elves etc.

Also, although easy, it shouldn't be ignored that there are many pilot sightings that involve multiple witnesses and multiple radars recording activity. There are cases with both ground and air-based observers, military and civil ATC radar reports.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
In recent years, the accuracy of pilot observations has been useful in uncovering sprites, elves etc.

This is a good point and I'd like to see some citations regarding pilot contributions, from other than the UFO literature. Links, anyone?