Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Great Interview with Dr Richard Haines.

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Originally posted by Kandinsky here, this is a great interview with Dr Richard Haines from the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP) and it does a good job of dispelling many of the misconceptions and stereotypes made about the UFO/UAP subject - Dr Haines goes into quite comprehensive detail about military/civilian pilot sightings, electromagnetic interference effects and the 3400 actual unknown reports collated from aviation professionals so if anyone hasn't heard it, it's well worth a listen (preferably before posting).



The Paracast - Dr. Richard F. Haines.






Dr. Richard F. Haines, Chief Scientist for the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP), speaks at length about airline sightings, airline safety, and his extensive research into these strange aerial mysteries.


Interview



Papers:

56 Pilot Sightings Involving Electromagnetic Effects
Aviation Safety in America: A Previously Neglected Factor
Other Technical Reports
edit on 1-2-2013 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 
Way to go Karl! The interview is amongst my all-time favourites on the subject. It's the best Paracast show imo...guest and hosts on great form.

There are times when hostile skeptics and unquestioning believers leave a sour taste in my mouth. My interest falters and stalls. I hear the UFO researchers bickering or dismissing other researchers ideas and just walk away at the negativity and BS of it all. They don't know.

Listening to this great interview revives my interest in UFOs and respect for an objective researcher.


During his 30 years of investigations Dr. Haines has established a percentage break down of what type of pilot has reported a UFO. From his 3000 odd reports from 1916 (WWI) to October 1996, military pilots have reported 52% of these sightings while commercial pilots represent 40%, private pilots 7% and less than 1% for test pilots. Of these sightings, most are seen in good weather and 30% are during the day while the remaining 70% account for the night. Approximately 3% of the total reports have experienced electromagnetic effects on instruments when a UFO is close to the aircraft; even dimming of the cabin lights has been reported. These effects have lasted for 5 seconds up to a staggering 180 minutes of flight time.
Pilot Sightings of UFO Phenomena: Review of lecture by Richard Haines

SnF in hoping the thread takes off and members take time out to listen. iPods, mp3 players, in the car...people will enjoy hearing Dr Richard Haines' sharp mind on top form.



[edit on 10-5-2010 by Kandinsky]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 



You're not wrong there buddy - it certainly is a fascinating interview and NARCAP have conducted some pretty darn interesting studies over the years - just been discussing 'under reporting bias' within the pilot community over on this thread and Ted Roe has compiled another very intriguing report below - NARCAP realy are up there when it comes to serious, professional research into the UFO/UAP subject.



Aviation Safety in America: Under-Reporting Bias of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and Recommended Solutions. Ted Roe



Have also always had a lot of time for NICAP and they've compiled quite a nice chart below.




What the pilots have seen.


This chart lists over 100 UFO sightings by pilots (AL=Airline pilot; M=Military; P=Private), the majority of whom reported typical geometrical objects such as discs and ellipses. The resulting patterns of the observations, and their strong similarity to reports by other reliable witnesses are readily apparent.

Link


Cheers.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Bumping the thread.

Haines relates the UFO/UAP sightings of commercial, military and private pilots over the years. Listen to the interview and see what you think



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
Papers:

56 Pilot Sightings Involving Electromagnetic Effects


This is respectable and important work, especially in view of the scientific requirement that theories be 'falsifiable'. I've had a longstanding difference with Haines over his use of Russian reports that have clear prosaic explanations that he omits -- such as the 1967 case cited in the above study of an aircraft having its engine conk out (even though the 'UFO' turned out to be a secret Soviet space warhead test).

See "Open Letter to Richard Haines Re Russian Ufology"
June 26, 1993
www.outtahear.com...

The problem, as I see it, is that we just don't KNOW how many items in the Haines lists are truly anomalous and how many are prosaic, because Haines apparently made little if any effort to filter them out.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Hi Jim, thanks for the reply - I know you got a bit of grief on this thread for just linking your homepage but it does appear that the incident(s) you mention from one of the links were missiles so good call.


Afer listening to the interview, what were your thoughts on all the many aspects of pilot UFO reporting like mulitple radar confirmations or cases in which two or more aircraft report the same thing?

Also, I know you don't usualy address 'actual unknown' incidents but what do you think could be causing the electromagnetic interference effects as reported in cases such as the Tehran or Coyne cases?

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
The biggest analytical chasm between me and Haines is that he considers pilots to be among the best and most reliable aerial anomalous event reporters, while I concur with Hynek's surprising conclusion that they are one of the poorest categories for accuracy.

There are good reasons for this, having to do with hazard recognition and timely reactions.

For similar reasons, NTSB investigators prefer to rely on witnesses who are NOT professional pilots -- again, based on the pilot trained mental processes to quickly reach an explanation in its most dangerous interpretation, so as to survive through the ensuing few seconds.

I'm still happy Haines did the cataloguing, but since I've seen him excessively gullible towards entire categories of standard pilot misperceptions, I am reluctant to accept conclusions based on a data set of unvetted oral recollections.

And I still think stuff of genuine interest -- and genuine flight safety implications -- lurk within the data bases. So I applaud the motivations behind the efforts.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I think the Tehran case has a plausible prosaic explanation of inexperienced rich kids in scary situations (night flying) with one notoriously malfunctioning avionics kit, under pressure from the head of the Iranian secret police (SAVAK) who demanded satisfaction regarding a fairly pedestrian 'UFO report' he phoned in.

The Coyne story has fairly typical pilot narratives that have clearly been repeated so frequently they have evolved into forms that contain internal inconsistencies -- and COULD (can't prove it) have evolved from a bright fireball overflight, with added elements (radio blackout) that are just as likely to be coincidences. We've seen such stews cooked up so often before. Again, such a scenario is plausible but never really provable.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
The biggest analytical chasm between me and Haines is that he considers pilots to be among the best and most reliable aerial anomalous event reporters, while I concur with Hynek's surprising conclusion that they are one of the poorest categories for accuracy...


Hi Jim, I know you've brought up Hynek's opinions before yet he also authored some extremely interesting reports into specific pilot cases in which misidentification of aircraft, ground structures and astronomical objects appear not to be the answer - if you've not seen it before he makes some revealing comments in this video about genuinely puzzling UFO cases and the need for serious, scientific enquiry into the subject.





Also, assumptions about pilot accuracy don't tend to factor in aspects like multiple radar confirmation or E.M. effects which indicate the actuality of reported objects - for a good example see 36:10 on the above video regarding the Minot AFB incident (link).




Originally posted by JimOberg
And I still think stuff of genuine interest -- and genuine flight safety implications -- lurk within the data bases. So I applaud the motivations behind the efforts.



Well, I'd agree there - as you know by posting on this thread there seems to be quite a number of visual/radar pilot incidents which remain completely unexplained so it's nice to see a scientist doing something constructive and actualy tabulating data for UFO/UAP subject.
edit on 26-7-2014 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I think we are in closer agreement about what to do now and in the future, and we can leave the unexplained residue -- which will exist whether or not there is any unexplainABLE stimuli -- for future dispute.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
Originaly posted by Kandinsky here, this is a great interview with Dr Richard Haines from the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP) and it does a good job of dispelling many of the misconceptions and stereotypes made about the UFO/UAP subject - Dr Haines goes into quite comprehensive detail about military/civilian pilot sightings, electromagnetic interference effects and the 3400 actual unknown reports collated from aviation professionals so if anyone hasn't heard it, it's well worth a listen (preferably before posting).


Hi karl 12, thanks for posting this very interesting interview [from Kandinsky] again buddy.

It is all really very fascinating [especially the story of that soldier] and important information.
I was already familiar with much of that information.

There is however one thing for me that I find quite remarkable, it looks almost in way amusing was is it not that it is in reality much too serious for that.
And that is that when it comes to the question what those UAPs in reality could be then, Dr Richard Haines said that they do not know that, and during the whole interview it was clear to me that regarding that he was always very evasive.

But I have nevertheless the strong impression that he very well knows what it is, but can’t just freely speak out about it.

My two euro cents.


But it’s no doubt as you said well worth a listen.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 
Hiya Space, I think Haines privately suspects that UFOs are ET. The evasiveness you sense is maybe an outcome of his conflict between being publicly objective and neutral yet privately being less certain?

In the interview, he's clear about wanting to remain distanced from the 'UFO' terminology and all the crap that goes with it. He prefers UAP. He also points out how difficult it would be to get meaningful information from the aviation industries if they thought he was a 'UFO nut.'

To my mind, he isn't a 'UFO nut,' just a guy trying to work out an explanation based on the evidence as he sees it.

The anecdotes about the soldiers shooting at an object that later returned fire is an insight into his suspicions. It'd be difficult to believe that account without drawing conclusions that the technology wasn't ours. I looked for other sources for the account last year unsuccessfully.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by spacevisitor
 
Hiya Space, I think Haines privately suspects that UFOs are ET. The evasiveness you sense is maybe an outcome of his conflict between being publicly objective and neutral yet privately being less certain?


Hi Kandinsky, that is exactly my point, because I think also that he privately suspects that UFOs/UAPs are ET crafts, and let’s face it what else then that can it be?


Originally posted by Kandinsky
In the interview, he's clear about wanting to remain distanced from the 'UFO' terminology and all the crap that goes with it. He prefers UAP. He also points out how difficult it would be to get meaningful information from the aviation industries if they thought he was a 'UFO nut.'


I agree with you that in the UFO field there is a lot of crap, but definitely not all.
Timothy Good named it a minefield out there.
Not everyone who believes that UFOs are ET is a 'UFO nut', it’s a word easily used for nothing more than bringing those people in discredit of making them look foolish.

But it works.

I think it really doesn’t matter if you call those “flying“ crafts UFO’s or UAPs’, what matters is that from the moment people like him or other investigators or scientists or whoever come forward by saying that they cannot be anything else then ET crafts they become confronted with a brick wall at all fronts such as in this case the aviation industries.

And that works to.


Originally posted by Kandinsky
The anecdotes about the soldiers shooting at an object that later returned fire is an insight into his suspicions. It'd be difficult to believe that account without drawing conclusions that the technology wasn't ours. I looked for other sources for the account last year unsuccessfully.


I know there are more examples like that, but I must look them up.
But the GI Haines interviewed said that he was back then stationed in Korea in 1951.

So I think that because of that date it is very logical to assume that that technology wasn't ours.

Just found the case Haines mentioned.


Korean War battlefield UFO encounter; physiological effects

Date, 1951 Location Chorwon, Korea, Republic

Summary: "We suddenly noticed on our right-hand side what appeared to be a jack-o-lantern come wafting down across the mountain... It had an orange glow in the beginning... But then this object approached us. And it turned a blue-green brilliant light... and then, we were attacked. We were swept by some form of a ray that was emitted in pulses... then I saw it shoot off at a 45 degree angle, that quick, just there and gone."



"This event that I am about to relate to you is the truth, so help me God. It happened in the early Spring of 1951 in Korea. We were in the Army infantry, 25th Division, 27th Regiment, 2nd Battalion, 'Easy' Company. We were in what is known on the military maps as the Iron Triangle, near Chorwon.

"It is night. We are located on the slopes of a mountain, below [which] there is a Korean village. Previously we have sent our men into this village to warn the populace that we are going to bombard it with artillery. On this night, we were doing just that. We had aerial artillery bursts coming in.


You can read the whole encounter here.

www.ufoevidence.org...

[edit on 16/5/10 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 16/5/10 by spacevisitor]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Spacevisitor, thanks for the reply matey - Dr Richard Haines also authored an interesting book about UFO sightings during the Korean war below and there's more on that 'light beam' incident at this thread.




Advanced aerial devices reported during the Korean war / Richard F. Haines - foreword by Jacques Vallee






This is a presentation of data of 42 UFO sightings in or near Korea from 1950 through to 1954. Thirty one are official reports from American pilots taken from military records and ten are ground observations taken from Project Bluebook files. One is an interview, conducted thirty six years later with a GI who fired on a UFO in 1951. The descriptions of the events vary considerably in length and detail. The sighting reports are preceded by a brief description of both sides combat planes and capabilities.


Review (pdf)

Listed Korean UFO sightings (pdf)



Cheers.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Jim, I completely disagree with you but thanks for sharing your opinions on the two cases - as you will know by reading through the thread by Internos (link), the testimony for the Coyne incident was pretty consistent and there were also separately located witnesses -as for the Tehran case, well, the Pentagon statement does make for some extremely interesting reading and there are some comments made about the government documents in the video below (around 10:45).






U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency:

"An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon." The analysis called the UFO performance "awesome," noting that the objects displayed "an inordinate amount of maneuverability"


Link
edit on 1-2-2013 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I think we are in closer agreement about what to do now and in the future, and we can leave the unexplained residue -- which will exist whether or not there is any unexplainABLE stimuli -- for future dispute.



Hi Jim -are you still a champion of the Null hypothesis?

To my mind it takes denialism to a whole new level - what about incidents where objects are confirmed on multiple radar or leave physical trace evidence?




The "Null Hypothesis" for UFO reports, of which I am one of a handful of champions, states that no extraordinary stimuli are required to produce the entire array of public UFO perceptions in all their rich variety, wonderment, and terror. Known phenomena have produced all types of what is commonly known as "UFO reports", including apparitions of flying disks, radar and radio interference, terrifying chases and "intelligent maneuvers", telepathic messages, "missing time" and hypnogenic narratives, recollections of participation in military UFO retrievals, actual "secret documents", and so forth. There seem to be no types of reports which have not been, on record, produced at some point or another by prosaic stimuli and/or circumstances.


Link



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Nice clip from the 1979 UFO documentary " UFOs Are Real " featuring a very young Dr Richard Haines and further information and testimony about the Coyne incident.





posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Hiya Space, I think Haines privately suspects that UFOs are ET. The evasiveness you sense is maybe an outcome of his conflict between being publicly objective and neutral yet privately being less certain?



Kandinsky, I think you may be right about that but here's what Dr Haines had to say about the 'core identity' of the UFO/UAP subject.




“Although I do not yet have enough reliable information concerning the relevant characteristics of the UFO phenomenon with which to form a scientific judgment of its “core” identity, I do believe that the phenomenon is objectively real; i.e., I believe that the many thousands of eyewitnesses around the world are experiencing UFO phenomenon in a manner very similar to the way any other human with normal sensory capabilities would perceive it if they happened to be present.”

Dr Richard Haines, NASA scientist, UFO researcher, author of several books on UFOs, expert on pilot UFO sightings


link


Cheers.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I've often wondered how many "anecdotal" reports are required before the skeptics stop dismissing them out of hand because they don't fall under our traditional understanding of physics. I'm strongly inclined to accept these phenomenae as ETs or EDs (extradimensionals) because of the reports everywhere on the globe, even from less than sophisticated societies. The only other scenario that makes sense to me is that these objects are products of the collectiver unconscious. Reality is indeed stranger than we can imagine. What I would love to see happen is for one to land in Phil Klass' front yard. He goes out and "kicks the tires" and then explains on CNN how it was "swamp gas" or a temperature inversion.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 
That quote sums up an aspect of my views on the subject. I believe a lot of people actually see what they claim to have seen. What people interpret from the sighting is what causes all the scorn, debate and shenanigans.

Recent months have seen my interest waning away. Not through lack of fascination in the phenomena...it's the people who have put me off. Many researchers and fans have left me cold and desensitised to the discussion. Again, my admiration of Haines is partly because he's put distance between himself and the guys I mention above.





new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join