Great Interview with Dr Richard Haines.

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by The Shrike
 



Pilots, in particular, have too much on their plate to possibly describe in detail what they may have witnessed. Not impossible but difficult.


You lend the impression that a pilot is working to the full extent of his capacity and any more stimuli simply couldn't be processed accurately. As arguments go, this one is quite novel. Certainly, it's new to me. Basically, pilots are that stressed they don't what they are looking at? It's a wonder that every nation has a military air force if any of that was true!

Modern pilots are trained to a far greater extent than those from the 50s and 60s. Sensory illusions are a chapter in the FAA Pilot Handbook. They have greater instrumentation than in the 50s and 60s and are educated to a higher general standard by requirement. This may not make them 'better' observers, but it doesn't make them worse observers than the general population. In areas like constellations, they are better observers than the general population and far less likely to be surprised by Venus. Astronomical phenomena are a part of pilot training in both commercial and military sectors.

Jim Oberg repeatedly cites the 60s Hynek study to support his argument that pilots are actually worse observers than Joe Public. I don't think he honestly believes that the study has contemporary relevance, but it's a great source for undermining pilot testimony of UFO or UAP sightings. There have been many examples where the pilots have misidentified a point light or phenomenon in the skies, but the accuracy of their descriptions were later used to identify the stimuli. In Jim's case, he identified a 1990 Russian re-entry of a Proton rocket using the pilot information. Seems that autokinetic illusions played a part. In recent years, the accuracy of pilot observations has been useful in uncovering sprites, elves etc.

Also, although easy, it shouldn't be ignored that there are many pilot sightings that involve multiple witnesses and multiple radars recording activity. There are cases with both ground and air-based observers, military and civil ATC radar reports.



Very good points you made on the fact and hard reality that pilots of the 50s/60s/70s revived a limited training due to the technical capabilities of their respected times. Pilots later have had to contend with much better technical and revive the training in due course that fits the technology they are working with.Cases with both ground and air-based observers, military and civil ATC radar reports cannot be dismissed if the argument of unreliability of pilot reports is cited.




posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by karl 12
 
Buenos días señor Karl, espero que la lluvia en España cae principalmente en la llanura? It's been falling mainly on me for the past week!


Hola Kandinsky and muchas gracias for the reply mate, you're not wrong about the rain falling mainly on the plain (good job I'm in the mountains
) -they also look to be some very interesting interviews you've gone and posted there, great stuff.





Originally posted by The Shrike
People, in general, put a lot of store in the testimony given by police officers, government employees, and the like. People don't seem to realize that these "specialists" are no different from the average Joe on the street.



Shrike, I'd have to disagree with your opinions there (as would Dr Hynek) - if you've not seen it before, there's a good article below about the police officer UFO witness and it makes some interesting points about the credibility and reliability of people highly trained and experienced in reporting what they see.




The Police Officer UFO Witness

Why is the police officer considered a special witness to UFOs? Why are police officers important to the investigation of UFOs?

Nowhere else in the UFO phenomenon is more attention given than to that of the UFO witness. The witness lies at the core of the phenomena, if indeed it isn’t the core itself.
In classic UFOlogy the witness is the sole source of data on the topic, providing the raw descriptions of sightings and experiences. Of all the studies and literature on the topic of UFOs, no subject dominates like reports from witnesses. Not all detailed witness reports are considered worthwhile however. More often than not the weight of the report will rest upon the credibility of the witness and the reliability of the witness to observe. Enter the police.

This section provides a review of what makes the officer such a critical observer at the core of UFO phenomenon, an introduction to the police witness/sighting saga, and touches on what progress has been made in providing a system to afford the officer-witness to come forward in order to contribute to the subject. As good a place to start as any, the witness experience provides a practical foundation on which to gradually expand.


1. THE WITNESS PROFILE

It cannot be stressed enough that police rank as amongst the highest of credible and reliable witnesses in the UFO field, in literature being compared to astronauts, pilots, and engineer-scientists. Dr J Allen Hynek, in his 1975 FBI briefing, goes so far as to suggest his belief that police are the best witnesses, when he states:

“Experience definitely shows that the best reports, those with the greatest information content, come from technically trained, professional people, especially law enforcement personnel.”


Bill Birnes, chief editor of UFO Magazine, makes the case explicitly in the television show “UFO Hunters – Cops vs UFOs”, that “Police officers are the most credible witnesses who are trained to observed.”

In terms of rating our witness sources, when we talk of the ‘police witness’ we are profiling. Like law enforcement agencies, UFOlogist have long known the importance of witness profiling, but reports, reviews and catalogues on the subject are difficult to obtain because of the security involved in protecting the witness.

However the casual assertion that police are the best UFO witnesses has become so prevalent that it has almost assumed a sense of cliché amongst the UFO research community. Questions and discussion do arise, and since the police witness is so critical to our inquiry, it seems fitting to elaborate on those two basic assumptions: That the police officer is credible, and that the police officer is a reliable observer.


2. Credibility

The public will admit the obvious authority that comes with the uniform, and also in a court of law. Many have argued that should the UFO debate ever make it to a fair court of law, the issue would have been resolved long ago. There are obviously those who do not agree that authority in itself is enough to consider the officer to be a credible witness.

What comes with the authority however, is a deep requirement for responsibility and accountability. Experienced officers have a lot to loose in coming forth with their amazing stories, or as Hynek calls, “credible people with incredible stories”, in the eye of the public, professionally and in the eyes their peers. We have mentioned earlier the culture of policing in general, and so it is not lightly that the officer makes a report. Outside of formal research, this credibility quickly comes into question. Bill Birnes, in the same UFO Hunters episode, makes the case that, "These are the people whose eyewitness testimony we trust is credible, 'except' when it comes to UFOs, and that's what's so frightening to me."

And yet their stories continue to go on record, and this in itself leads one to consider that something extraordinary is going on. What profound and very real experiences are these officers having?

And it is for this reason more than any other, one might ultimately confess, that the officer does, albeit in general, make a rather credible witness.


3.The Reliable Observer

Does the officer make a good UFO observer? The police officer is definitely a trainer observer, and many police can rightly claim also to be experienced observers, so we are half way there. But does this qualify the officer as the best observer, and more remarkably, a good observer of unusual aerial phenomena? The answer is not straightforward.

We must take into account the experience of the particular officer. For example an officer with many years of night surveillance, maybe near an airport, or perhaps even a previous history in avionics, would certainly make the case for a good UFO observer.

The public has not considered all the avenues, if it has assumed that the officer is not a special observer of unusual aerial phenomena. There is another characteristic of the officer that makes the case for a strong observer. When Hynek was referring to his list of good observers, including law enforcement personnel, the point he was making was that the experienced professional mind was most capable of articulating the observation in detail. And therefore, it is the ability and experience of the officer to reliably report the observation that makes the reliable observer.

There is, further, yet another important aspect that must be considered. If by “reliable observer” we were to interpret that the officer is in a position that is fortunate for the observation of UFO phenomena, then this too clearly suits our nocturnal police patrols, or fits the bill, one might say. It must be acknowledged that the night-shift officer on the beat is certainly at a statistical advantage for witnessing strange nocturnal happenings.


link


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



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Dr Richard Haines discussing the reasons why he concentrated his studies on pilot UFO sightings.



See 1:44




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Pilot UFO reports and eyewitness testimony:




"This thing had to be going double-digit mach making turns that I didn't think were possible, breaking all the rules of physics,
The man that visited me later told me in no uncertain terms to keep quiet. He told me I would lose my pilot's license and it would be the end of my flying days, so for 30 years I've said nothing"
Retired Air Force pilot Milton Torres discussing his F-86D Sabre fighter jet UFO incident in 1957 in which he was ordered to shoot down a UFO hovering over the British countryside.
Air Force Times Interview, Oct 22nd, 2008.







"An object 'like an oblong pearl' drew steadily closer until perhaps a mile away when, right under my gaze as it were, it suddenly vanished. . . .But it reappeared close to where it had vanished. . . .It drew closer. I could see the dull gleam of light on nose and back. It came on, but instead of increasing in size, it diminished as it approached! When quite near, it suddenly became its own ghost. For one second I could see clear through it and the next. . .it had vanished."
Sir Francis Chichester -June 10, 1931 ,Flying in the Gypsy Moth over the Tasman Sea.






"It is impossible for any man-made machine to make a sudden appearance in front of a jumbo jet that is flying 910 kilometers per hour and to remain in steady formation paralleling our aircraft. ... Honestly, we were simply breathtaken."
Japan Airlines pilot Kenju Terauchi in 1986






"Headquarters wouldn't let us go after it and we played around a little bit. We got to watching how it made 90 degree turns at this high speed and everything. We knew it wasn't a missile of any type, so then we confirmed it with the radar control station, and they kept following it, and then it crashed somewhere off between Texas and the Mexico border."
Colonel Robert Willingham, USAF from an Sworn Affidavit in the 1970's when discussing a sighting of a UFO whilst he was navigating an F94 jet on September 6th 1950.






"It appears to be a metallic object...tremendous in size, directly ahead and slightly above.I am trying to close for a better look."
Captain Thomas Mantell, USAF,1948. Last words.






"From their maneuvers and their terrific speed I am certain their flight performance was greater than any aircraft known today".
Colonel Carl Sanderson
USAF, commenting on his sighting of two circular silver UFOs in close proximity to his plane over Hermanas, New Mexico. The UFOs were said to make a series of seemingly impossible maneuvers before disappearing at an astonishing speed and showing up again over El Paso, Texas.







"We had many adventures flying under primitive conditions in the frozen north, but none compared with this." "I looked back and saw something that didn't make sense," "It was nothing like flying machines of that period," "It was hexagonal, flat, and seemingly made of aluminum or some other metal, with no breaks in the surface and no rivets." "At the time, I had a spooky feeling. I can't explain it. It was as if I 'felt' the presence of whoever was inside that craft--and the feeling was hostile."
Lieutenant Colonel Peter Grunnet-Royal Danish Air force, describing incident in H. E. 8 seaplane over Greenland,1932.






"I don't know whether this story has ever been told or not. They weren't called UFOs. They were called enemy helicopters. And they were only seen at night and they were only seen in certain places. They were seen up around the DMZ in the early summer of '68. And this resulted in quite a little battle. And in the course of this, an Australian destroyer took a hit and we never found any enemy, we only found ourselves when this had all been sorted out. And this caused some shooting there, and there was no enemy at all involved but we always reacted. Always after dark. The same thing happened up at Pleiku at the Highlands in '69."
USAF Chief of Staff General George S. Brown
DoD Transcript of Press Conference in Illinois (10/16/1973).







"Based on my experience in fighter tactics, it is my opinion that the object was controlled by something having visual contact with us. The power and acceleration were beyond the capability of any known U.S. aircraft".
F-94 pilot, after encountering a UFO, 1952.






"As we approached this glow it turned to a monstrous circle of white lights on the water. Then we saw a yellow halo, small, much smaller than whatever it was launched from, about 15 miles away. As the UFO approached my plane and flew alongside it, we could see the domed craft which had a corona discharge."
Commander Graham Bethune, U.S. Navy -sighting from military flying from Iceland to Newfoundland,February 10, 1951.






"Pilot of helicopters wished to stress fact that object was of a saucer like nature, was stationary at 2000 ft. And would be glad to be called upon to verify any statements and act as witness".
Emergency Report from Maxwell Air Force Base on air space violation by UFO, 1954.






"It was made and flown by intelligent beings."
Major Shiro Kubuta, of Japan's Air Self-Defence Force (I think). Kubuta and his pilot, Lt. Colonel Toshio Nakamura, were scrambled in an F-4EJ to intercept what they were told was a Soviet Bomber.Once Airborne they were informed that their target was actually a UFO which had been sighted by ground and was being tracked on radar.
When they closed upon the red, disk-like UFO, it began to manoeuvre around the plane, causing Nakamura to take evasive action.







"[Object] described as flat on top and bottom and appearing from a front view to have round edges and slightly beveled ... No vapor trails or exhaust or visible means of propulsion. Described as traveling at tremendous speed.... Pilot considered by associates to be highly reliable, of mature judgment and a creditable observer".
Air Force intelligence report, following UFO sighting by F-51 pilot, 1951






"There was something definite in the sky...If it had proved to be hostile we would have destroyed it."
Major Gerald Smith, USAF--One of the F-106 pilots scrambled under orders from NORAD (North American Air Defense Command) to investigate a UFO over West Palm Beach, Florida on September 14, 1972. The UFO was viewed through binoculars by the FAA supervisor, George Morales, sighted by an Eastern Airlines captain, police and several civilians, as well.






"Suddenly, the lights went out. There appeared a yellow halo on the water. It turned to an orange, to a fiery red, and then started movement toward us at a fantastic speed, turning to a bluish red around the perimeter. Due to its high speed, its direction of travel, and its size, it looked as though we were going to be engulfed.
It stopped its movement toward us and began moving along with us about 45 degrees off the bow to the right, about 100 feet or so below us and about 200 to 300 feet in front of us. It was not in a level position; it was tilted about 25 degrees.
It stayed in this position for a minute or so. It appeared to be from 200 to 300 feet in diameter, translucent or metallic, shaped like a saucer, a purple-red fiery ring around the perimeter and a frosted white glow around the entire object. The purple-red glow around the perimeter was the same type of glow you get around the commutator of an auto generator when you observe it at night.
Captain of Navy R5D aircraft,February 8,1951.
Captain,crew members and passengers on a Navy R5D aircraft witness UFO whilst flying over the North Atlantic ocean,February 8, 1951.







"I was the pilot of the plane when we saw the UFO. Also on board were Governor Reagan and a couple of his security people. We were flying a Cessna Citation. It was maybe 9 or 10 o'clock at night. We were near Bakersfield, California when Governor Reagan and the others called my attention to a big light flying a bit behind my plane. It appeared to be several hundred yards away. It was a fairly steady light until it began to accelerate, then it appeared to elongate. Then the light took off. It went up at a 45-degree angle-at a high rate of speed. Everyone on the plane was surprised. Governor Reagan expressed amazement. I told the others I didn't know what it was...The UFO went from a normal cruise speed to a fantastic speed instantly...If you give an airplane power it will accelerate-but not like a hot rod, and that's what this was like"
Bull Paynter, a pilot with thousands of logged hours, in Sacremento California


More


edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Free E-book version of Richard Haines study into Korean UFO reports issued on the 13th anniversary of the NICAP web site:



ADVANCED AERIAL DEVICES

reported

DURING THE KOREAN WAR

Richard F. Haines







The period covered in this book, namely the first half of the Decade of the Fifties, should be of special interest to such readers. Dr. Haines has taken the intriguing and unusual vantage point of the Korean War, a conflict that placed thousands of Americans in a faraway land. Will we find that their experiences with flying disks of unknown origin matched those of the folks back home? With the enormous detection and tracking power at their disposal, what did the U. S. Armed Forces learn about the elusive objects? The answers are clearly important for our understanding of the overall phenomenon..

Many of the cases he cites are fascinating, but the reader will want to study with special care the sighting near Chorwon in the Spring of 1951 mentioned in Chapter Two, an event in which an entire artillery unit fired at a hovering disk displaying remarkable properties. In my opinion it is one of the most significant reports in the entire literature because of the rich combination of physical and physiological facts it provides.

Many other periods in the tumultuous history of UFO reports should be analyzed in the manner used here by Dr. Haines. Now that he has shown us how to conduct such an analysis, it is my hope that others will undertake this interesting and rewarding task.

Jacques Vallee


Table of Contents


Thread



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Dr Haines describes a very interesting pilot UFO encounter investigated by Dr Hynek:



From 19:30

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



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
NARCAP sign official research agreement with the Chilean Government's Aviation Department's CEFAA organisation who in turn have signed one with the Uruguayan Air Force's CRIDOVNI office (link) to 'maintain high standards of research with the intent of presenting the most reliable data possible on unidentifed aerial phenomena' and there's some great research posted at the link below concerning pilot transmissons on the LAN Flight 045 incident and other UFO cases.



NARCAP:






We are pleased to announce that NARCAP has signed an official research agreement with the UAP research team of Chile, CEFAA - The Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena. Both organizations have recognized that we share common observations and concerns and that a formal research pact could be mutually beneficial. In mid-December 2010 the documents were signed by the Chilean Director General of the DGAC - Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil, General Jose Huepe and Director of CEFAA, General Ricardo Bermudez, and by NARCAP Chief Scientist Dr. Richard Haines and NARCAP Executive
Director Ted Roe.

CEFAA and NARCAP both seek to maintain high standards of research with the intent of presenting the most reliable data possible on unidentifed aerial phenomena (UAP). The specific concern for aviation safety by NARCAP is recognized by CEFAA and was also in consideration as we prepared stipulations for the agreement. It is recognized that both organizations are concerned with presenting transparency and will publish all research when both organizations are in agreement.

General Bermudez is to be commended for taking this very important step in initiating a multinational effort to directly address the UAP issue. We hope that this will be the first step in encouraging the official UAP research teams of the world and private efforts to collect and present documentation worthy of engagement by both the aviation and the scientific community. Further, we want to encourage those nations that have not yet established serious and effective scientific inquiries into UAP activity within their borders to do so and assist us in resolving the true source and nature of UAP.


link




English subtitles:



LAN Flight 045, Puerto Montt, Chile, June, 1988:





Punta Arenas, 3rd March 2011:





DAP12 Telephone Report:




More



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Quality thread and thanx for posting this


Haines really knows his stuff and out of all the researchers on the scene the cases he's covered definitely have most the substance when it comes to the consideration of an E.T. presence in our skies.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Good interview between Don Ecker and Ted Roe about aircraft UFO encounters:


Audio link


Ted Roe is the co-founder and Executive Director of the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Haines really knows his stuff.


He's certainly interviewed a great many pilot UFO witnesses mate and conducted some great scientific research.


Here he is (again) discussing a multiple pilot witness case over Michigan - it's a bit of a crazy one as the object was said to have just appeared 'full size' in front of the aircraft, it then executed a high speed turn (calculated at about 30g's) and left behind a whispy, dark smoke trail.




Cheers.






Originally posted by 1deepstar

Hi All,
Let me address this list without an alias. I am Ted Roe, Executive Director of NARCAP.org. Dr. Haines and I founded this org ten years ago.


Hi Ted, can you shed any light on why the NARCAP.org website has gone off-line?

Have been trying to link the Technical Reports page but can't find it anywhere.

Cheers.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12

Hi Ted, can you shed any light on why the NARCAP.org website has gone off-line?

Have been trying to link the Technical Reports page but can't find it anywhere.

Cheers.


Not to worry, it's back on line.


Technical Reports



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Dr Haines gives presentation to the French Air and Space Academy on UAP and aviation safety -Paris, September 26th, 2012.



U.A.P and Flight Safety: There is a Relationship

Abstract: Lecture organised by the Section I of the "Académie de l'Air et de l'Espace" and the "Groupe Ile-de-France de l'Association Aéronautique et Astronautique de France". Lecture in english by Dr. Richard F. Haines, Sr. NASA Research Scientist, retired and currently Chief Scientist, National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, USA





This presentation will document a number of encounters by air-crew with unidentified aerial phenomena that strongly suggest a flight safety concern because of electro-magnetic effects on aircraft systems, a breakdown in cockpit coordination and communication, physical impeding of the airplane's flight path, and/or causing the pilot to execute an abrupt and unplanned collision avoidance manoeuvre. Positive and achievable recommendations are made regarding how to cope with these phenomena from a flight crew standpoint as well as official government policy and administrative standpoint.


link



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Thanks for this Karl. Once again, you provide extremely relevant and intriguing links. I know that many in here really appreciate your efforts to keep supplementing old threads with new information.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Hey mate, appreciate the post and that new French Air and Space Academy presentation certainly is a relevant one -as for the original interview in the first post I'd say the more people that listen to it the better so a good bump now and again can't hurt anyone (it also seems like fixing video links is becoming a full time job
).

Think Dr Haines maybe onto something when it comes to publicizing the aviation safety factor as a way of getting more people to actually sit up and take notice of the UFO subject -there are quite a few cases I can think of where it must have been genuinely scary to be on board the aircraft so I'd say the subject is definitely a legitimate one, also thought General Bermúdez made a good point below when he said 'to ignore it is irresponsible'.




“I believe all possibilities of risk to air operations, no matter how incredible, must be investigated; to ignore it is irresponsible.”

General Ricardo Bermúdez, Chilean Civil Aviation Agency


Cheers.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Doc Haines cites 54 recommended actions taken from pilots, government officials, military leaders, academics etc. to improve current climate of denial within the Aviation World about U.A.P.



Recommended Actions to Improve the Current Climate of Denial within the Aviation World about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.


This paper presents fifty four completely independent recommendations and related comments made by fourteen national and international government officials, military leaders, pilots, academics and others responding to the following basic question: What actions are needed today to improve the current climate of denial about unidentified aerial phenomena in aviation?


Pdf File



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Thanks for all the informations. Thats a ton for view and listening.
Ill begin to hear this man, so many info. thank you very much.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I'm glad he's collecting this data because it seems to be in a systematic way.

My concern is in how thoroughly he has checked around for possible prosaic causes.

I've expressed to him, in the past, his apparent unwillingness to delete reports that
do seem to have some documentable missile/space visual stimulus.

I can't honestly say how big a problem this is, or is not, for analysis based on
assuming that all his cases ARE vetted, and explainable ones removed.

How 'polluted' would a data base have to be, to make it untrustworthy for analysis?

How much effort ought to be expended in rechecking these kinds of stories?

I don't mean to reopen the question of pilot 'reliability', a factor that I now think we cannot
determine because we don't have reliable statistics on how many strange stimuli are
accurately perceived, and how many not. The cautionary advice I feel justified in giving is
that when pilots DO make misperceptual interpretations [and they do -- there are plenty
of examples] they tend to do it based on cuing up past experiences from their flying careers
[an entirely normal process].

Every human-compiled data base should be counted on to have SOME error rate greater than zero.
You base your analysis on an estimate of the maximum error rate. How about these files?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm glad he's collecting this data because it seems to be in a systematic way.

My concern is in how thoroughly he has checked around for possible prosaic causes.

I've expressed to him, in the past, his apparent unwillingness to delete reports that
do seem to have some documentable missile/space visual stimulus.

I can't honestly say how big a problem this is, or is not, for analysis based on
assuming that all his cases ARE vetted, and explainable ones removed.

How 'polluted' would a data base have to be, to make it untrustworthy for analysis?

How much effort ought to be expended in rechecking these kinds of stories?

I don't mean to reopen the question of pilot 'reliability', a factor that I now think we cannot
determine because we don't have reliable statistics on how many strange stimuli are
accurately perceived, and how many not. The cautionary advice I feel justified in giving is
that when pilots DO make misperceptual interpretations [and they do -- there are plenty
of examples] they tend to do it based on cuing up past experiences from their flying careers
[an entirely normal process].

Every human-compiled data base should be counted on to have SOME error rate greater than zero.
You base your analysis on an estimate of the maximum error rate. How about these files?



That's a fair point but even if just one of the cases that Haines has covered have elements that are unexplainable (and with the number of cases he has covered, I would say there is), then surely it does prove there are things going on the sky which have no rational explanation
edit on 25-4-2013 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

I'm glad he's collecting this data because it seems to be in a systematic way.


Well, he is a scientist Jim.




Originally posted by JimOberg

My concern is in how thoroughly he has checked around for possible prosaic causes.

I've expressed to him, in the past, his apparent unwillingness to delete reports that do seem to have some documentable missile/space visual stimulus.


Fair point and it states at the interview link in the first post that Dr Haines has collated over 3400 UAP reports from aviation professionals, that was back in 2009 so I suppose there would be quite a few more by now.

Can you go into specifics about your concerns and describe the nature of (and list the number of) the cases you're talking about?

When it comes to objective science then I'd assume Dr Haines would agree that definitely debunked cases should be struck from the database (if only for the intellectual honesty of future research) and if these cases you mention are documentable then it wouldn't be about him simply distrusting your impartiality or debunking agenda.




Originally posted by JimOberg

How 'polluted' would a data base have to be, to make it untrustworthy for analysis?


Good question, I suppose we've learnt a lot from the shocking way the official unknown statistics were manipulated by Project Bluebook and the 'variously misleading, false or inaccurate' conclusions of the Condon Report -I also wonder just how much of a chump you have to be to mindlessly accept (or fail to criticize) some of the USAF's official UFO explanations and when it comes to data trustworthy of analysis then maybe only BB Special Report 14 got it right when it stated that 'the better the quality of the sighting report, the more likely it was unexplainable'; that 'UNKNOWNS were observed for longer than KNOWNS' and that less than 2% of reports fell in the hoax category.

If you're interested there's also a file here which states that about 30 or 40 per cent of UFO cases may have been 'miscategorized' by the USAF as 'identified' and the true number of credible cases grossly underestimated -there's also a post underneath explaining how the true number of unexplained cases in the Condon report is 50% (not 30%) so I'm glad you appreciate the importance of data that is trustworthy of analysis.




Originally posted by JimOberg

The cautionary advice I feel justified in giving is that when pilots DO make misperceptual interpretations [and they do -- there are plenty of examples] they tend to do it based on cuing up past experiences from their flying careers
[an entirely normal process]..


I'm sure pilots do make mistakes in perception but when you come across cases like this where there are multiple witnesses describing very specific flight UFO characteristics or cases like this one or this one where close range testimony is backed up by ground radar confirmation then it becomes all the more difficult to simply dismiss these incidents as human error (or pilots just daydreaming about past flying experiences).

As well as independent radar confirmation, there's also the EM Effect factor in incidents like the Bethune case where the proximity of the unknown object to the aircraft caused the electromagnetic compass to go haywire -there are plenty of other examples here and I found it interesting that it's not only avionic systems that are effected as UFOs have also been reported on the ground causing interference with vehicle motors, car headlights, house lights, pumping machinery, radio/television reception, compasses, watches and even DVD players.




Originally posted by JimOberg

Every human-compiled data base should be counted on to have SOME error rate greater than zero.


Yes, I'd assume that goes without saying and it's also fair to say that hypotheses taken from assumptions about raw data are also open to error or misinterpretation - I'd be interested to read your reply to this post by Ted Roe about the 'null hypothesis' - are you going to write one?





top topics
 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join