It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Revisiting The Coyne UFO Helicopter Case Of 1973

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 10:29 PM

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
Hynek said it, how can you argue with a man who later admitted that...well, you should know.
Hynek never recanted that pilots were the worst class of observers he analyzed as far as I know, and he very likely spent more time analyzing UFO reports than you or me or anybody else we know. He did come to believe that some UFOs were not from here but as far as I know he never changed his mind about pilots having the highest misperception rate of any class of observers he analyzed (actually I think it was tied for the highest).

Aside from that, there's a series of ATC recordings of pilots reporting UFOs to air traffic control, which is supposed to be some exciting information about the credibility of UFOs, but in fact this recording actually supports Hynek's assertion because some of the UFOs can be identified just from listening to the recordings. Heck in one incident another pilot jumps in to the conversation to explain that the UFO the pilot is describing is a planet, but the pilot reporting the planet as a UFO doesn't get that and that's exactly the type of thing that Hynek said pilots suck at, so it's not just Hynek saying that to me, there's independent confirmation from other sources such as ATC recordings and other pilots trying to correct the "UFO" misidentification. Other UFO misidentificaions on the ATC recording can also be understood just from listening to the recording, further confirming Hynek's assertion that some pilots do not understand many of the natural causes of UFO sightings. Hey but at least the other pilot jumped in to try to explain it. Sometimes what the pilot says the UFO is NOT is exactly what it is.

"It definitely wasn't a satellite re-entry because I've seen those before and this didn't look like that so that's not what it was"

It was a re-entry despite the pilot's denial.

'It wasn't a meteor because it wasn't going down"

Meteors can enter the atmosphere at any angle and what the pilot described sounded exactly like a meteor.

I could go on all day and while I can't confirm Hynek's numerical analysis I see so many pilots so completely wrong in their understanding that I have no reason to doubt it, at all.

originally posted by: Nickless
Analysis of TTSA 2015 Go Fast UFO video

Simply put, a relatively slow object high up (which it was) looks more or less identical to a fast object flying low (misperception by at least the TTSA, possibly by the pilots and AATIP too). It still does, even if you are a pilot. It requires additional information to recognize what actually is the case, such as the rangefinder info and calculations in that case, but in many cases that just isn't available. Coyne for example just saw a light against a dark background while both that and he himself were moving both horizontally and vertically. Most of us just don't encounter so challenging situations for making such perceptions.
There you go, another example of confused pilots to add to the many other examples of confused pilots. So I have seen many examples like this but I still have nowhere near the volume of data Hynek cited.

So, BeefNoMeat, as I see it the bottom line is that whether Hynek's claim that pilots have the highest misperception rate is 100% accurate or not is not so important when there's plenty of evidence that they are not such great observers and certainly don't deserve to be placed on any pedestal for their observational skills of astronomical objects, meteors, atmospheric phenomena such as mirages for which many receive absolutely no training, etc. Another question is, who has better data than he does on that? Nobody that I know of, and your or my "common sense" don't count as data. But if you think you have better data from another source, let's take a look at it.

edit on 2018428 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 04:12 AM

originally posted by: Cravens
So, you've completely debunked the incident and have a blog and an ATS thread to show for it, why wouldn't you put your name to your blog?

People who are more interested in who wrote it than what it says is already good enough reason to keep it anonymous, let alone those whose first reaction is to make accusations or conspiracy theories about it.

What actually matters is that so far every objection to that explanation would have been already answered by reading what I wrote there. If you want proof I wrote it, try to find something in that case it doesn't account, and I will update the post. Otherwise I have no reason to do that.

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in