UFO book based on questionable foundation.

Kean assets 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.

SOURCE

Here we go.
Are they battening down the hatches on the disclosure thing? Changing their mind on this?
Starting to push the idea away and find reasons not to believe the truly trained?

What thoughts have you?

reply to post by Demoncreeper


I'm not sure about that commentary, from where does he get his information that pilots aren't reliable? What about the ones who witness UFO for more than a split second?

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?

Failed to pinpoint phenomena? What does he mean by this? That because the pilots or investigators can't say what it is that is shouldn't be taken seriously?

Anything in this field will be "questionable", rightfully so, however I feel like this guy really dug deep to try and discredit Kean. I don't think the "foundation" of her book is just based on pilots testimony either...could be wrong though. But even then, is he assuming all of the pilots were wrong in there observations.

If anything is questionable, it is the topic and commentators of UFO's on MSNBC....

reply to post by kyle43


I know. This seems to be backwards in everything they've been slowly trying to build.
Even the other day, even Michio Kaku was interviewed about the possibility of aliens etc.
The msn interviewer wasn't taking the whole situation seriously either.

So it seems that this topic is turning back into a joke.

reply to post by Demoncreeper


Well they can try and spin it back into a joke, which is honestly what this "commentary" seemed to do. It is obvious that the topic is gaining ground at rate never seen before.

They are panicking and this rather shallow article only reinforces my belief in that.

Originally posted by kyle43
reply to post by Demoncreeper

 

Well they can try and spin it back into a joke, which is honestly what this "commentary" seemed to do. It is obvious that the topic is gaining ground at rate never seen before.

They are panicking and this rather shallow article only reinforces my belief in that.

Yes i agree with you 100% on what you said above.This reality of the unexplainable UFO cases is what i feel could be entering the main stream and possibly gaining ground on the usual hill billy reports covered, encouraged and manipulated by the MSM so readily over the more serious and credible reports by creditable witnesses, so long my it continue i say.

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
Are they battening down the hatches on the disclosure thing? ...
What thoughts have you?

My thoughts are that disclosure is an unrealistic expectation and viewing anything and everything related to UFOs through ‘disclosure colored glasses’ will, at best, distort the image of what already is very murky territory.

The less assumptions one makes, when investigating or thinking about a subject, the better. Disclosure only adds layers upon layers of assumptions and childish expectations.

Those are my thoughts.

Originally posted by Spangler

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
Are they battening down the hatches on the disclosure thing? ...
What thoughts have you?

My thoughts are that disclosure is an unrealistic expectation and viewing anything and everything related to UFOs through ‘disclosure colored glasses’ will, at best, distort the image of what already is very murky territory.

The less assumptions one makes, when investigating or thinking about a subject, the better. Disclosure only adds layers upon layers of assumptions and childish expectations.

Those are my thoughts.

Very realistic thoughts indeed.
I've entertained this whole thing as a "sci fi" fix. Like a movie. I don't believe disclosure is something that is viable in terms of how it is percieved to happen. The assumptions are like possibilities built on imagination. Just like a movie.

For the purposes of a conspiracy theory website, it is a fun topic to dabble in.

And I have noticed for a while, UFO reports were reported in a more "serious" manner, (Last year mostly)..as if the conspiracy theorists were right, and they were building to something.

But they've seemed to have reverted to treating it like a joke again. So it can really fuel the discussions here.

My beliefs are that if we encountered life it would either be "microbial", or kinda like what happens when you stumble upon an ant hill. You either move along uninterested or you stomp on it to anger the "natives" for mild entertainment sake.. haha.

Either way, the change in tune seems odd.

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
And I have noticed for a while, UFO reports were reported in a more "serious" manner, (Last year mostly) ...
But they've seemed to have reverted to treating it like a joke again. ...
Either way, the change in tune seems odd.

I believe this is a reflection of a nuanced interest and perception by the people doing the reporting rather than a sign of some behind-the-scenes plan to make people believe a particular narrative or make them look in a certain direction.

Different people will report, different UFO reports, well, differently — some will laugh at and reject all cases; some will believe some of those reports or accounts; and some will believe them all no matter how absurd.

Do you know of anyone who reported on some UFO case last year — one you say you feel the subject received a more serious reporting — and this year made fun of the topic?

And let's not forget that not all UFO cases/sightings — and respective claims by witnesses/experiencers — are equally credible. Some of the cases deserve serious attention, but most of them, unfortunately, do not and that's simply the reality of this so called ‘UFO field.’

I wonder if this guy also thinks that confirming some of these objects on radar is grounds for "questionable foundations"

Originally posted by Spangler


Different people will report, different UFO reports, well, differently — some will laugh at and reject all cases; some will believe some of those reports or accounts; and some will believe them all no matter how absurd.

Do you know of anyone who reported on some UFO case last year — one you say you feel the subject received a more serious reporting — and this year made fun of the topic?

And let's not forget that not all UFO cases/sightings — and respective claims by witnesses/experiencers — are equally credible. Some of the cases deserve serious attention, but most of them, unfortunately, do not and that's simply the reality of this so called ‘UFO field.’

I agree with you. I'm just being Joe Conspiracy Theorist today.

They are reported differently by different people. That is a sensible observation.
But reporters should report, the news without influencing the story subjectively. That COULD look like an attempt to manipulate mass opinion. I didn't say it was.

There was a case last year, from MSNbc.(I'm still looking for it) Where two teens saw moving lights in the sky. They were interviewed, they didn't report anything that sounded extraordinary from mistaking planes. Just that they've never seen planes in that skyward direction, or words to that effect.

The report was very serious from the field reporter, and not mocked or received any of those "yeah, right" smiles. when the video returned the main news anchor.

But here's a more serious look at a report:

UFO in texas

Then recently, this interview with Michio Kaku, who stated 95% percent of UFO's are explained, but there are 5% that we haven't found explanations for. The interviewer was appearing to mock the whole idea of 5%, and asked if they could be aliens. When KAKU replied his "ant hill" theory...you could just feel the joke the interviewer believed it to be.

Thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That pilots are inclined by their training and situation to treat any unexpected encounter in the air as potentially dangerous, is just good sense. It would not seem to diminish their ability to discern details in the appearance or motions of objects in the air, but to enhance this ability. Pilots, by training and experience are better able than most to identify normal aircraft, and predict their likely range of motion, and so are in a good position to detect when an object in their view is not a normal aircraft. Careful consideration of long- accumulating pilot reports of unidentified objects in the air has led to the conclusion that some of these are are technological objects which far exceed human-designed capabilities. Ross

ah, look at the source...Oberg's been all over this from day one, it has fallen into the "doth protest too much" category...

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.

While this argument my be plausible, it discounts the many, many reports by pilots that were not "split-second" observations but were lengthy encounters. Oberg's reasoning and knee-jerk reactions have increasingly become laughable, if you pay attention you see him time and again doing exactly what he accuses others of doing...

Yes, I could provide sources and links to back up my opinions, but I'm really over the back and forth mud-slinging contests here...


BTW, I have learned a bit about NASA and the shuttle missions from some of Oberg's posts, so I try to never discount anyone here no matter what I think their motives or opinions are. I'm always open to learning...

Originally posted by Toxicsurf

While this argument my be plausible, it discounts the many, many reports by pilots that were not "split-second" observations but were lengthy encounters. Oberg's reasoning and knee-jerk reactions have increasingly become laughable, if you pay attention you see him time and again doing exactly what he accuses others of doing...

Yes, I could provide sources and links to back up my opinions, but I'm really over the back and forth mud-slinging contests here...


BTW, I have learned a bit about NASA and the shuttle missions from some of Oberg's posts, so I try to never discount anyone here no matter what I think their motives or opinions are. I'm always open to learning...

Nice, reply.
Again, it definitely could be plausible, but also along the same lines of discounting the lengthy observations...You don't see them "overestimating" their gauge readings, distance to runway, etc etc. Things that also matter as much as any emergency situation on a plane, as well. So yeah, I agree with you.

You don't need to have "links" to back up your opinions. And no need for mudslinging contests.
That's the beauty, your opinions are yours for your own reasons, and can't be wrong if you believe them.

A survey have been cited, which seems to reflect poorly on the witness reliability of pilots. Reference has been made to certain incidents in which distant things, like astronomical objects or space launches from Earth have been mischaracterized as unknowns. Clearly, there are limits to pilot knowledge. Mistakes are made. It would be unreasonable to expect that it could be otherwise. In many well reported cases, however, pilots have told of large, nearby, structured objects, which moved all about their aircraft, interfered with their instruments, and were sometimes detected by their radar. It does not appear that these could reasonably be misinterpretations of the known phenomena cited above. Ms. Kean has stated that about 5% of UFO reports are of genuine unknowns. This seems a rather low figure, but let it stand. Suppose that of this 5%, pilots were mistaking known phenomena for unknowns, 80% of the time. That would still leave one per cent as persistent unknowns. Scientific breakthroughs have been made over far smaller discrepancies in data. Ross

reply to post by Ross 54
Yes that's a reasonable analysis, though your 80% rate is a little lower than the statistics Hynek published of 88-89 percent misperception rate by pilots.

But that's not the foundation of the book that's being questioned. It's whether pilots really make better observers of UFOs as the book claims, or are they really worse as the article states?

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."

Also, the book's characterization of the Weinstein list is apparently not correct:

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

But as the article points out that's simply not true that it contains only those “cases for which adequate data is available to categorize the [cause] as unknowns.” The article lists 10 cases where adequate data IS available to categorize the cause and that's just the cases in the author's area of expertise, I'm sure there are others.

I'm sure there are still plenty of cases on that list for which no explanation is known however and the article doesn't imply otherwise. I think it's just pointing out some of the numerous inaccuracies in the book.

Does the fact that pseudo skeptics blame all evidence presented and based on perception as fallible? This is the OLDEST and cheapest debunker trick in the book. This is the same poop brown color that they have been painting the exceptional evidential outspoken likes of the late GREAT Gordon Cooper for the last 30 years. Don't be put off by this sort of nonsense. It's just a typical anecdotal counter from the pseudo skeptical debunker crowd. Nothing new.

It's funny how in a court of law when deciding person's life or death fate, expert testimony, even that which is sight unseen, is the most effective form of evidential testimony a defense or prosecution can offer or have considered. Too bad the pseudo skeptics don't maintain as much with any REAL degree of continuity eh?

blah, blah, blah...

Originally posted by MasterOfSparkz
expert testimony, even that which is sight unseen, is the most effective form of evidential testimony a defense or prosecution can offer or have considered.

From that perspective, isn't the article deferring somewhat to the "expert testimony" as you put it, of Allen Hynek? After all, who has investigated more UFO cases than Hynek did?

The new UFO book makes claims that contradict Hynek's statistics.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by Arbitrageur]

I can't speak to military pilots, who probably have the best and most comprehensive training in the world, but I am a pilot myself. I have taken pilot training through the commercial level and I have to tell you that the training does not turn you into a gifted observer nor make you into a "better" witness.

It IS a fair statement to say that pilots are more observant. A good pilot is ALWAYS looking for a place to land (a freeway, an open field) and assessing his environment. You ARE trained to do that. Also, there's a lot of stuff to pay attention to, and it's not all outside. Constant instrument scans mean your eyes and neck are moving all the time. You can't scan 360, but you can do more than 180.

It is ALSO a fair statement to say that commerical pilots, especially, are fairly even-keeled individuals who do not easily panic and are trained to follow exact procedures. You don't want an emotional and excitable person as a pilot and airlines try very hard not to hire people like that.

The problem here is that most people simply assume pilots are more accurate in all their observations and that you can put more trust in a pilot's observations than an "untrained" observer.

I believe most pilots are professional in their demeanor and observant in their work, but given that I've been through pilot training, I can tell you there are no "special observation skills' taught in non-military flight training. So I believe there is some truth to the original statement. You can't just accept whatever a pilot says as gospel truth based on these non-existant 'special observation skills.' Pilots can mis-identify as easily as anyone else.

90% misidentifications, in round numbers, leaves one half of one percent unexplained, instead of one percent. I've read studies giving a baseline of several times the 5% figure for unidentifiable objects that is now being discussed, so the net figure might be 1% after all, or even 2%. The fact that there are ten errors in a list of 1300 UFO reports does not strike me as a terribly serious deficiency. We are not justified in assuming that there are more than 10, unless there is specific evidence to back this up. I am not yet familiar with the basis of Ms. Kean's assertion that pilots are better witnesses than the public at large. Even if this is not the case, even if she merely assumed, as many would tend to do on general principles, that it was so, this does not constitute a convincing criticism of the thrust of her book. Whether the percentage of true unknowns is 5% or 1% or 0.5% is not of the essence. It might even be argued that the lower percentages make a more convincing case. Too many real unknowns could tend to make Earth look like the crossroads of the galaxy, which it clearly is not. Ross