So what constitutes a "Trained Observer" when talking UFO's?

You know over the years the most popular form of UFO "Debunk" seems too be the phrase " Not a Trained Observer".
I love how this line is dropped even when Military Pilots,Police,Commercial Pilots,Presidents,Officers,enlisted, scientists,etc.... report seeing things that are Highly uncommon in their experiences.
But once those all trusted above mentioned claim they have witnessed something like UFO's or Alien Contact folks with even less credibility as "trained observers" start the "They arent trained too observe" BS line?
Its truly Sad and Hillarious at the same time.
If a Pilot or Military personnel or Police Officers arent Trained observers Frankly I dont know what is.

Originally posted by VType
So what constitutes a "Trained Observer" when talking UFO's?

For pseudoskeptics, only someone who 'confirms' that what they say was explainable and everyone else who says differently is wrong and misidentified it.

Yikes. I guess this is a dead fish subject.
I thought what with the Impressive ATS UFO community here this thread could get a consensus on what we agree on or disagree on when debating sightings,etc...
What Makes a guy or girl whom witnesses some Phenomena a trained or valid observer.
Is there classes I can take? Scientists only? What then????




[edit on 22-1-2009 by VType]

You should read about Chris Gibson, a member of the British Royal Observer Corps (ROC) who can recognize pretty much any plane type by eye, saw something he had never seen before..

www.militaryextreme.com...

its not a dead subject, its just a great point on your part..
I never understood what a trained observer really was either. but when it comes to identifying something thats 1 mile wide and seems transparent i dont think theres anyone trained enough for that.

Its a "dead fish" subject, yes...

Because its often irrelevant to the actual UFO observation. They can be trained observers all they like, but they still wont be able to match the UFO with anything they have experienced before... Because that's what much of it is. You can take a UFO picture, tear it apart, analyze it in depth, have it tested, write a 100 page report and someone can still look at it and say "oh that's just a bird: I photograph them all the time".

[edit on 22-1-2009 by merka]

reply to post by VType


A "trained observer" would be an astronomer, pilot, policeman or other professional whose job it is is to observe things. They are usually more aware of what to look for, and in the case of a UFO, they supposedly would give better details.
For UFO reports, if an astronomer or airline pilot reports a UFO, it is given more weight than you or I. It may seem unfair, but they are more experienced with phenomena in the sky, and would be able to tell the difference of an aircraft, meteor, or other phenomena in the sky.

Of course military, police, and pilots ARE trained observers. It's facetious to believe they let people operate billion dollar stealth bombers and nuclear attack submarines or wield deadly force in intense situations without any training ?

That is probably the biggest misconception among non-UFO people, that UFOs are just vague mysterious lights in the sky.

I honestly don't think there is such a thing as a 'fully trained observer'.

First of all, if you want to go out looking for UFOs, you need to familiarize yourself with what is not a UFO, otherwise, how will you know a real UFO when you see one, or rather, how can you be *sure* that what you have seen is not a commonly seen object but under unfamiliar/unusual conditions?

So, what should a trained observer be able to identify and what should he/she be aware of? Here is a list of the things I think would be necessary:

stars/planets
meteors/comets
satellites/flares
re-entries/launches
aurora
Earth lights
giant-jets/sprites/lightning in all it's forms
cloud formations and types
halos/pillars/sun dogs
aircraft/UAVs/contrails
fireworks/flares/pyrotechnics/munitions
Chinese lanterns/kites/RC-aircraft/balloons/etc
birds/insects/etc

Most of these subjects could take a lifetime to fully master, and yet people think that a police man or navy officer have the training to understand as well as recognize these phenomena. Think about it.

Authority figures like these spend 2 or 3 years getting their training, and yes, they are trained to be good observers, but, and crucially, they might only be given a line or two of info about each subject, which is nothing!

If you don't have at least a fairly good understanding of the underlying physics behind these phenomena, then how can you recognize them under real-world circumstances, where not everything is 'text book'.

UFOs are generally atmospheric phenomena, so just like if you want to understand how a fish swims, you also need to know something about water and it's properties, and in the same way, to fully understand UFOs, you need to know something about the medium that they operate in; the atmosphere.

More importantly, knowing how the atmosphere and perspective can distort what you see, and how the brain interprets the signals it receives from the optic nerve. Knowing when to believe your eyes and when not is key IMHO.

So, to sum up, there are very few people that would be able to make outstanding observers, if any. The best observers IMHO tend to be specialists in their field, but they are only useful in a certain percentage of cases that may relate to what they specialize in.

Rather than have one trained observer who is borderline-adequate all round, I personally think it's better to have many individuals each of whom specialize in no more than 2 or 3 areas, and know them inside out.

Even so, this still does not guarantee that every phenomena can be identified, and the 'true' UFOs sorted from known phenomena, since there are still phenomena which have not been documented by science yet, and it's impossible to be able to predict exactly how some random set of conditions could interact in a way not seen before.

Other important qualities needed include, impartiality, ability to think things through in a rational and logical fashion, attention to detail, and probably most important of all, real world experience observing under various conditions.

Humans are not perfect, and our knowledge of the environment/space around us is incomplete. We make mistakes, and base judgments on inaccurate (though it may be the best we have at the time) info, so there will probably always be something we do not fully understand, at least for the foreseeable future.

poppycock.

I've seen a good deal of things on your list, and NOT ONCE had any illusion it was a UFO. But if/when the day comes a giant black triangle flys silently over my head, I'll remember your list & laugh..

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
I honestly don't think there is such a thing as a 'fully trained observer'.

First of all, if you want to go out looking for UFOs, you need to familiarize yourself with what is not a UFO, otherwise, how will you know a real UFO when you see one, or rather, how can you be *sure* that what you have seen is not a commonly seen object but under unfamiliar/unusual conditions?

So, what should a trained observer be able to identify and what should he/she be aware of? Here is a list of the things I think would be necessary:

stars/planets
meteors/comets
satellites/flares
re-entries/launches
aurora
Earth lights
giant-jets/sprites/lightning in all it's forms
cloud formations and types
halos/pillars/sun dogs
aircraft/UAVs/contrails
fireworks/flares/pyrotechnics/munitions
Chinese lanterns/kites/RC-aircraft/balloons/etc
birds/insects/etc

Most of these subjects could take a lifetime to fully master, and yet people think that a police man or navy officer have the training to understand as well as recognize these phenomena. Think about it.

Authority figures like these spend 2 or 3 years getting their training, and yes, they are trained to be good observers, but, and crucially, they might only be given a line or two of info about each subject, which is nothing!

If you don't have at least a fairly good understanding of the underlying physics behind these phenomena, then how can you recognize them under real-world circumstances, where not everything is 'text book'.

UFOs are generally atmospheric phenomena, so just like if you want to understand how a fish swims, you also need to know something about water and it's properties, and in the same way, to fully understand UFOs, you need to know something about the medium that they operate in; the atmosphere.

More importantly, knowing how the atmosphere and perspective can distort what you see, and how the brain interprets the signals it receives from the optic nerve. Knowing when to believe your eyes and when not is key IMHO.

So, to sum up, there are very few people that would be able to make outstanding observers, if any. The best observers IMHO tend to be specialists in their field, but they are only useful in a certain percentage of cases that may relate to what they specialize in.

Rather than have one trained observer who is borderline-adequate all round, I personally think it's better to have many individuals each of whom specialize in no more than 2 or 3 areas, and know them inside out.

Even so, this still does not guarantee that every phenomena can be identified, and the 'true' UFOs sorted from known phenomena, since there are still phenomena which have not been documented by science yet, and it's impossible to be able to predict exactly how some random set of conditions could interact in a way not seen before.

Other important qualities needed include, impartiality, ability to think things through in a rational and logical fashion, attention to detail, and probably most important of all, real world experience observing under various conditions.

Humans are not perfect, and our knowledge of the environment/space around us is incomplete. We make mistakes, and base judgments on inaccurate (though it may be the best we have at the time) info, so there will probably always be something we do not fully understand, at least for the foreseeable future.

Originally posted by atsbeliever
I've seen a good deal of things on your list, and NOT ONCE had any illusion it was a UFO.

Exactly my point... you've seen some but not all, and no doubt, your experience in those "some" is limited.

You may not have "had the illusion of seeing a UFO" yet, but how do you know you will not in the future? Can you, in your infinite wisdom predict every possible set of circumstances that you are likely to, or even not so likely to come across, in the future?

Are you claiming to be omnipotent or were you just born arrogant?

You *might* (although I seriously doubt it) be a good observer for all I know, but can you say the same for everyone else ?