It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
a reply to: IMSAM
who say that Navy and other pilots are poor observers whose testimony cannot be trusted, Davis said that as combat experts, "these guys cannot afford to have poor observational skills."
Show me at least on peer reviewed scientific study that shows that "combat experts" or especially pilots have better observational skills than an average human....
When I first came on this thread I was a mindless TTSA cult zombie... I still support the overall/core of TTSA's message but there is something obviously not right with the organization. I need a break from ATS. I will be back on when the next NYTs article or Video is release from TTSA. Until then I sincerely wish every member of this thread the best in their future endeavors !!! Take care. I hope big beautiful lue can redeem himself..... lol
.....It would seem that, as a rule, the best witnesses are multiple engineers or scientists; only 50 percent' of their sightings could be classified as misperception. Surprisingly, commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses (though they do slightly better in groups ) . What we have here is a good example of a well-known psychological fact: "transference" of skill and experience does not usually take place. That is, an expert in one field does not necessarily "transfer" his competence to another one. Thus, it might surprise us that a pilot had trouble identifying other aircraft. But it should come as no surprise that a majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects.
Those sightings that were not classed as misidentified were classified as "unknowns" rather than "correctly identified". So even those could well have been identified with further data. I guess critics will say that Blue Book was a whitewash to ridicule the UFO topic and dampen down interest. Or that Hynek was a government operative trying to misrepresent things. Therefore the data is biased. However it is fairly common knowledge that he'd changed his views by the mid 1960s. First with the Socorro case and then after the ill fated "Swamp Gas" quote. Thiis report was written in the 1970s. So if he felt the data was biased then why would he use it?
The conclusions of the Battelle report and the material in the Pentagon press releases that followed were clearly designed to give the impression that science had administered the coup de grace to UFOs (the summary of the Condon Report, some years later, was fashioned to give the same impression) -except, of course,it wasn't science at all; only shamefully biased interpretation of statistics to support a preconceived notion. Once again, statistics which could have been used to illuminate were used instead to debunk the UFO phenomenon.
Had they adhered to the original recommendations of the O'Brien Committee and examined not whether UFOs were visitors from outer space but whether a phenomenon existed (regardless of origin) , which was worthy of scientific study, the final report might have been worthwhile. As it was, they became embroiled in discussing one specific theory of UFOs, namely that they were extraterrestrial spacecraft. In so doing, they broke a cardinal rule of scientific procedure - get the facts straight first before attempting to theorize.
Or that Hynek was a government operative trying to misrepresent things.
originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: Willtell
Tbh I'd say soft disclosure is happening, and it's not about aliens
originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: Willtell
Tbh I'd say soft disclosure is happening, and it's not about aliens