Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by NIGHTRID3R
Well, it is entirely possible that the post that you just put up for other ATS'ers to see is an entire fabrication of your opinion. How do we know you aren't lying about the opinion that you've posted? I mean, how we do we determine the credibility of another human being? Does being an astronaut lend that credibility(years of military experience, aviation education, piloting and extensive research into observation and analysis?) How about being a police officer, doctor, physicist, or a railway conductor? Define for me the parameters that gives one credibility?
Since I know that you will not be able to come up with an applicable definition, I will have to believe a guy who has been into space, highly educated, and decorated before I believe some random guy who critiques him just to have a voice.
Credibility is a matter both of skill at dispassionate witnessing, and of track record. Comparing Cooper's stories to that of more primary witnesses creates a dilemma between two theories: Cooper's version was garbled, or every one of all the other witnesses -- engineers, scientists, other pilots -- were all in agreement and wrong. Since Cooper's stories can be shown to be garbled even when full NASA records and tapes are available, my choice is towards the former theory.
As for skill at dispassionate witnessing, it may surprise folks to learn that even J. Allen Hynek (as well as the NTSB that investigates air accidents) consider pilots to be poor witnesses to sudden unusual aerial events -- mainly because they want to 'explain' what happened in familiar terms and subconsciously edit memories to fit their explanations.


you
really must be very naive to buy that right.
so I did make a correction, thanks Jim. 

