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.

 

UFOs: Are Pilots Credible Witnesses?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
UFO’s have been reported by pilots for years. Many UFOlogists point out that pilots are some of the most credible witnesses supporting the position that UFO’s exist. We are not dealing with mental projections or hallucinations on the part of the witness, but with the real physical phenomenon.
And if so, the evidence is deep and hard. From the beginning of modern Aviation, Pilots, world-wide, have seen UFOs!
One of my favourite: The Japan Air Lines incident above Alaska in 1986.

The sketch from the Pilot Kenju Terauchi of The Mothership...

The interesting Article: UFOs and Aviation - A Closer Look flyawaysimulation.com...
We are not talking about a few random occurrences.

And the point of view from Seth Shostack (SETI)

Extra-Terrestrials No Threat

Seth Shostack says that he has no problem if you believe in UFO’s and extraterrestrials. In his view, even if they are real we may not be in much danger:

“…I'm not here to argue with you. I'd like to make a different point -- one that somehow seems to have escaped notice in the seemingly endless debate about UFOs. Namely, if the aliens are here, you have to admit something remarkable: They're about as harmless as kittens on Xanax.

Consider: The premise is that Earth is being visited. But are these invaders a mortal threat? You can read occasional claims that aliens are mutilating our cattle (a decidedly unwelcome pastime, if true), but homicide seems to be off limits for ET. They don't kill people. Your chances of being snuffed by a moose are higher.”

flyawaysimulation.com...




posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Thats one big ass UFO



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Hi,

Pilots, military and non-military are probably the best UFO witnesses out there because of their time in the skies.

I don't think any would stick their head out to make claims about UFOs which could effectively damage or even end their careers. I'm guessing this will be a reason why many do not report such sightings.

I certainly believe pilot reports of UFOs.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Pilots that report these things usually get ridiculed by their fellow pilots.Why would they lie just to endure the humiliation of being called insane?I think most pilot reports are true and they have seen something unexplainable to them.
edit on 28-4-2011 by thatonedude because: clarification



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
I don't see why they wouldn't make excellent "observers" since they spend such a great deal of time looking around the sky just to keep from having a mid-air with another "vehicle"! I pretty sure that if your flying at 32,000 feet or so at about mach.7 or so that getting to close to another "vehicle" is one thing you'd definitely want to avoid no matter were it might have come from !! ! ! !
Yeah, I would say that "good" pilots make "good" observers pretty much hands down !



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by thatonedude
I think most pilot reports are true and they have seen something unexplainable.


Unexplainable? Or unexplainable to them? Perhaps a metoerologist would easily make sense of something a pilot finds baffling.

The OP's arguement is far to simplistic. People are excellent at recognising ordinary things - we've evolved that way. It what makes our testimony so reliable in courts of law. However, when we see something we can't fathom, our brains find a best-match to try to make sense of it. Exactly what that best-match is depends on each individual - a UFO fanatic will probably see a UFO, a meteorologist will see a strange atmospheric effect, a deeply religious person might see an angel or demon etc. This is why personal testimony in this area isn't reliable.

So, to the OP, the only thing a pilot is more reliable at is identifying things they already know about. No more.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by healthysceptic
 
Good points and accurate.

Pilots would therefore have more templates at their disposal than untrained observers. They would be more able to identify more meteorological phenomena, aerial behaviour and craft than most other observers. Likewise, it's a military and civilian requirement of pilot training that they can identify sensory misperceptions and hallucinations. These are chapters in the pilot handbook. For night flight, pilots are trained to recognise constellations and stars. Under a worst-case scenario, they are able to navigate by stars.

None of which makes them infallible as trained observers, but means their reports shouldn't be dismissed as easily as some like to believe. It makes them credible witnesses.

One of our regular posters is James Oberg, he's identified space debris from the accuracy of pilot descriptions. Whilst he'd prefer to focus on a Hynek study from way back that purported that pilots were actually worse than an average guy, Hynek retracted those opinions and expressed regret.

We should hope that the judgement and training of pilots makes them credible witnesses and accurate observers. After all, military pilots are flying craft worth milllions of £/$. Civilian pilots are transporting millions of people every year in craft worth millions too.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
In the world of Ufology for the so-called skeptics/debunkers no amount of evidence will ever be enough to convince them.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   
I'm just curious, for the people that responded to the original post, if you'd care to answer, when and if you fly, is it:

A. comfortable for you?
B. Have you ever been on an aircraft for more than just travel from point "A" to point "B"?
C. Have you ever been on an aircraft that is being pursued by another aircraft?
D. have you ever been on an aircraft that has been engaged by an anti-aircraft system?
E.. Have you ever flown on an aircraft that was built to collect intelligence of some sort?
F.. When you fly, do you prefer an "aisle" or a "window" seat?
G. Have you ever flown an aircraft?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmosKid
 


1-No I don't feel quite right up there
2-yes I have taken air tours over a few countries
3-no
4-no
5-no
6-window of course
7-no
Now I am curious as to why you ask?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
A serious and productive discussion of this very theme is under way here:
devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by thatonedude
 


I've done some flying that didn't involve travel, were you were escorted or pursued by other aircraft or engaged by anit-aircraft systems on board an airframe that was specifically designed to collect intelligence and although I( like flying and prefer a window and have flown an aircraft I think that people who do it for a living i.e., "professional" pilots, have what it takes to observe and accurately record what they are seeing outside the window because they work up there and the whole "being up in the air" is not an issue with them. I'd say that if you don't particularly like flying or have other problems with being up in an aircraft like fear or airsickness, then you'll probably not be as good an areial observer as trained pilots or aircrew. So in the end, people who make a living in the air, in my opinion, make the BEST observers when it comes to strange things encountered in flight or in the process of flying. It also helps if you have seen "something" in the air yourself and have never been able to attibute it to a known airframe or apparatus
edit on 28-4-2011 by CosmosKid because: spelling - content



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmosKid
 


That seems very plausible I can see how nerves could effect perception in flight.I would agree that pilots are much better observers.I have even had a pilot say "if you see a ufo while we are up there don't mention it to me" I thought that was a weird thing for him to say.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Pilots would therefore have more templates at their disposal than untrained observers. They would be more able to identify more meteorological phenomena, aerial behaviour and craft than most other observers. Likewise, it's a military and civilian requirement of pilot training that they can identify sensory misperceptions and hallucinations. These are chapters in the pilot handbook.


But that in no way means they can identify every such phenomenon or aircraft in every circumstance, nor should it be assumed they can. Nor should it be assumed that in every life situation outside of an aircraft that a pilot's observations are 100% accurate, as is sometimes attempted to be argued (a recent hoax in NJ comes to mind).


Originally posted by Kandinsky
None of which makes them infallible as trained observers, but means their reports shouldn't be dismissed as easily as some like to believe. It makes them credible witnesses.


I don no think anyone is dismissing pilot reports. The problem is a straw-man and red-herring argument used by UFO believers; pilots are treated as infallible, therefore their reports are 100% accurate, and in a failing of logic, therefore UFOs are alien craft. Then, anyone who questions the pilot's report is attacking for doubting the pilot's infallibility. Supposed pilot infallibility is often used as a way to insulate a report from any criticism.









posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Flying, especially at night can be very disorienting, and there are quite a number of optical illusions that even experienced pilots can fall pray to. Here are some examples on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...

So in answer to the question, yes pilots would generally be better at identification of other aircraft; however, at the same time pilots are also prone to optical illusions and misidentifications. The most classic cases of this, in regards to the OP, is when fighter pilots have been known to chase after bright stars thinking they were either another aircraft or UFO.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by thatonedude
Pilots that report these things usually get ridiculed by their fellow pilots.Why would they lie just to endure the humiliation of being called insane?I think most pilot reports are true and they have seen something unexplainable to them.


You are using a tactic popular among UFO believers, attempting to dismiss skepticism by reducing it to a false dichotomy. It is not a choice between the witness either telling the truth or lying; someone may be telling the truth insofar as they believe it to be true and still be wrong.

As to why pilots would report such events even if it meant ridicule of their fellows, pilots do have an obligation and duty to report anything that may be a threat to our airways.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
So in answer to the question, yes pilots would generally be better at identification of other aircraft; however, at the same time pilots are also prone to optical illusions and misidentifications. The most classic cases of this, in regards to the OP, is when fighter pilots have been known to chase after bright stars thinking they were either another aircraft or UFO.


Thomas Mantell, a very experienced pilot who flew during WWII, died while chasing what may have been a Skyhook balloon, mistakenly believing it to be a craft.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 

Any tactic you have noticed in my text is unintentional i can assure you.I really don't care if they are real or not but if the pilot that said that to me had a duty to report it like you said maybe he didn't wan't to do the paperwork.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by thatonedude
 


I suppose that the term "UFO"s being linked to "LGM" (Lil Green Dudes!) is automatically an expectation that the pilot or aircrew had seen something "ET" and not something just "UI". There are alot of unidentifieds but most all, I think, 90% end up getting ID'd, but the remaining 10% that remain unknown still represents a number that is significant enough to warrant further investigation, if not for any other reason than flight safety.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 



But that in no way means they can identify every such phenomenon or aircraft in every circumstance, nor should it be assumed they can. Nor should it be assumed that in every life situation outside of an aircraft that a pilot's observations are 100% accurate, as is sometimes attempted to be argued (a recent hoax in NJ comes to mind).


It'd be foolish to think otherwise; as pointed out, they aren't infallible.



I don no think anyone is dismissing pilot reports. The problem is a straw-man and red-herring argument used by UFO believers; pilots are treated as infallible, therefore their reports are 100% accurate, and in a failing of logic, therefore UFOs are alien craft. Then, anyone who questions the pilot's report is attacking for doubting the pilot's infallibility. Supposed pilot infallibility is often used as a way to insulate a report from any criticism.


Define 'UFO believers.' You paint with a broad brush there.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join