The U.F.O. skeptics are in denial

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neoholographic
Throes.

You have one pseudoskeptic calling all Pilots unreliable idiots

Which one?

Arbitrageur

The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

This is a dated pseudoskeptic tactic. If he would have said not even most Pilots or some Pilots, that would have been a logical statement. I don't claaim that all Pilots are reliable. The problem here is that pseudoskeptics have to speak in absolutes.

He wanted to paint the picture that all Pilots are unreliable idiots. This is because the pseudoskeptic can't refute the descriptions of their encounters so they think people will stop thinking if they make it seem that all Pilots are unreliable therefore you can't listen to any Pilot account. You have to take their illogical opinion of the account and listen to that instead. That's just asinine.

It's an old tactic used by pseudoskeptics. They try to label every account but their opinion as unreliable. When Edgar Mitchell started talking about U.F.O.'s, Pseudoskeptics called him a senile old man. Why should I believe your illogical opinion over eyewitnesses description of what they saw.

People make this claim that eyewitness accounts are unreliable but what happens when a Police comes to a crime scene or a car accident? The first thing they look for is eyewitnesses.

If eyewitnesses accounts are so unreliable, why have sketches drawn of criminals that eyewitnesses saw?

I just saw a case where a woman saw a lady in a truck kind of slumped over next to her on the highway. A few days later she saw the girl was missing on the news and told the Police about the truck which helped them find a killer. Was this woman unreliable?

My point is, of course, all eyewitness accounts aren't good ones but pseudoskeptics speak in absolutes and they want to paint the picture that all eyewitness accounts are unreliable which is dishonest.

Like I said, it's an old tactic that has been used by pseudoskeptics since I've been on ATS. It just shows you guys are in the 1st stages of denial.

duplicate

a reply to: neoholographic

The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

As opposed to this, what you said:

You have one pseudoskeptic calling all Pilots unreliable idiots

but pseudoskeptics speak in absolutes

Your example did not demonstrate this.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neoholographic

The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

As opposed to this, what you said:

You have one pseudoskeptic calling all Pilots unreliable idiots

 

but pseudoskeptics speak in absolutes

Your example did not demonstrate this.

Sure it did.

It's a way of saying all Pilots are unreliable eyewitnesses so you can't trust any eyewitness account. Was there some hyperbole on my part? Yes because like I said I've been dealing with this asinine tactic since I joined ATS.

The fact you want to quibble over this instead of debating your asinine comments is very telling. He said:

The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

That's not true. The objective truth is some people aren't reliable observers while some people are very reliable observers. The goal wasn't to be honest, it was to paint all observers including Pilots as unreliable idiots so don't trust their accounts trust the opinion of the pseudoskeptic.

a reply to: neoholographic

That's not true.

It has been my experience that it is true. More than once.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neoholographic

That's not true.

It has been my experience that it is true. More than once.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LOL, you pseudoskeptics are so funny. Let me ask you a multiple choice question.

Which one of these statements accurately describes all observers or eyewitnesses?

A. The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

or

B. The objective truth is some people aren't reliable observers while some people are very reliable observers.

Will Phage be honest??

It's just too easy to show how illogical the pseudoskeptics position is because you want to speak in illogical absolutes and paint all eyewitness accounts as unreliable.

Waiting for your answer......

a reply to: neoholographic
You have presented a false dichotomy. As stated in my post of so many years ago.

And the same thing can happen with "trained observers". If an airplane pilot is trying to identify an airplane he can probably do a good job of it but if it isn't an airplane, if it's a meteorological or astronomical phenomenon with which he has had no prior experience, all bets are off. It happens, documented, confirmed cases.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neoholographic
You have presented a false dichotomy. As stated in my post of so many years ago.

And the same thing can happen with "trained observers". If an airplane pilot is trying to identify an airplane he can probably do a good job of it but if it isn't an airplane, if it's a meteorological or astronomical phenomenon with which he has had no prior experience, all bets are off. It happens, documented, confirmed cases.

LOL, you keep digging a hole. So now all Pilots become unreliable when describing anything that's not an airplane? So all Pilots are idiots that haven't learned anything about the things they see flying in the sky over the years as a Pilot if it's not another plane?

You have to see how idiotic you sound. I've debated you before and you seemed a little smarter than this. Again, answer the question.

Which one of these statements accurately describes all observers or eyewitnesses?

A. The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

or

B. The objective truth is some people aren't reliable observers while some people are very reliable observers.

Are all Pilots unreliable observers?

Just be honest Phage. You know the logical answer is B. Are you that deep into pseudoskepticism that you can't grasp simple logic?

a reply to: neoholographic

So now all Pilots become unreliable when describing anything that's not an airplane?

The reliability of any eyewitness is questionable. Particularly when interpreting a phenomenon with which they are unaccustomed.

Are all Pilots unreliable observers?

It depends on the circumstances.

"Pilot" is not a proper noun which need be capitalized, btw.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neoholographic

So now all Pilots become unreliable when describing anything that's not an airplane?

The reliability of any eyewitness is questionable. Particularly when interpreting a phenomenon with which they are unaccustomed.

Are all Pilots unreliable observers?

It depends on the circumstances.

"Pilot" is not a proper noun which need be capitalized, btw.

Read what you just said:

The reliability of any eyewitness is questionable. Particularly when interpreting a phenomenon with which they are unaccustomed.

Why would Pilots be unaccustomed to things that fly?

You just said this:

If an airplane pilot is trying to identify an airplane he can probably do a good job of it but if it isn't an airplane, if it's a meteorological or astronomical phenomenon with which he has had no prior experience, all bets are off.

You just said Pilots were accustomed to things that fly in the sky. Explain why these U.F.O.'s move in a way that all of these Pilots can't describe?

Are you saying there isn't any Pilot that can provide a reliable description of what they saw if it's not another plane? WOW!

Answer the question Phage:

Which one of these statements accurately describes all observers or eyewitnesses?

A. The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

or

B. The objective truth is some people aren't reliable observers while some people are very reliable observers.

It's obvious why you don't want to answer the question.

If you answer A, you realize how illogical it sounds but you want to support your pseudoskeptic brother Arbitrageur.

If you answer B, then you have to admit that some U.F.O. accounts from Pilots are reliable.

The question is, Will Phage be honest???

Id love for Phage to answer my question actually.

What would it take?

Here's J.Allen Hynek's analysis of Project Blue Book cases and a breakdown of misidentification by profession.



People in general are poor observers when confronted by something they can't identify. With military pilots particularly prone to misidentification. Probably due to the fact that keeping full control of their aircraft takes priority.

Let's be honest here. This "We are unreliable witnesess" is a bit of a cop out, and is used to explain something we cannot explain.

EXAMPLE
A pilot sees a huge disc shaped craft near their plane, that suddenly shoots off st amazing speed,.He is able to remember the fine details of the craft he saw.

Certain people will see that Venus was in the same area in the sky as the ufo. Bang! It was venus and humans are the worst witnesess ( esp when it comes to ufos)

There is not holding their hands up and saying " well, you could have seen it, but we need evudence" there is also the fact that certain people cannot leave it as unknown. And thsts when the riduculous explanations come about, and we have seen some ridiculous explanations when it comes to ufos.

So, when debunkers and sjeotucs cannot explain a case, then unreliable witnesess is one thdy use pretty much all the time.

Thst is not to say that these people have not been right. Ehen you use the same explanations all the time, you are bound to be fight. But these are pretty much used everyone, and this is the sad thing about this subject.

We have people who want to believe everything is ET, and we have people in denial when it comes to the ufo subject, and we have the group's people like to be in, to be oart of sometbing.

It's annoying, but that's just the way humans are.

a reply to: mirageman

People in general are poor observers when confronted by something they can't identify. With military pilots particularly prone to misidentification. Probably due to the fact that keeping full control of their aircraft takes priority.

But using that as an excuse every time time, is not good. We have pilots who witnessed in detail a solid craft right by their plane. All it takes is for certain people to realise venus was in the sky, then band, thsts the explanation.

It's a cop out, and certain people just do not want to believe it, and that's when the stupid explanations pop up.

What better way is their to shoot down every case by saying we are poor observers.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Hynek & Blue Book did not "shoot down" every case. Over 700 were classed as 'unknown' and many more were recorded as having insufficient data and no definitive conclusion could be made.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Jay-morris

Hynek & Blue Book did not "shoot down" every case. Over 700 were classed as 'unknown' and many more were recorded as having insufficient data and no definitive conclusion could be made.

That's not my point. As you should know yourself, these excuse have been used on many ufo cases. Never never every skeptic does it, but you must admit, a lot do, hence the reason we have ridiculous explanations.

That explanation is thrown around too easily in my opinion.

originally posted by: mirageman
Here's J.Allen Hynek's analysis of Project Blue Book cases and a breakdown of misidentification by profession.

People in general are poor observers when confronted by something they can't identify. With military pilots particularly prone to misidentification. Probably due to the fact that keeping full control of their aircraft takes priority.

What?

You're going to go back to way back when to try and imply what? Let's play the game.

What year was this report?

What was the criteria for the report?

How is this relevant today when we have Pilots with better equipment and a better understanding of technology?

Who's defined as a technical person?

Are Pilots technical people?

Let's look at some of the "Technical" criteria today for being a Pilot. Here's what you're saying is unreliable:

Bravery and flying skills of the highest order have always been requirements for the flight test mission, but much more is demanded of today's flight test professionals: scientific and engineering knowledge, critical and reasoned judgment, and managerial skills of the first order. A well-devised flight test program, skillfully carried out, calls forth the absolute performance of the aircraft and its associated systems. Finding the people who are capable of planning and flying such a program is not easy, nor is the process automatic.

Contrary to the romanticized view of old Hollywood films, test pilots are not "born" to their talents - they are painstakingly made. Natural ability in the air is necessary, of course, but a delicate touch on the controls and absolute precision on the air are needed - not slapdash bravado.

The test pilot will be following carefully-crafted flight profiles, not daring aerial maneuvers. They must be taught to handle his airplane with extraordinary precision: to control their airspeed to the nearest knot, and their altitude virtually to the foot--every time. Beyond this, the student test pilot must have a natural affinity for mechanical systems, an ability to "feel" the airplane and have a well-honed sense of what is happening at any given time. Mature and reasoned judgment is also vital - human lives, and millions of dollars, depend upon how carefully a test mission is planned and flown. But all of these skills would be useless without knowledge and training - systematic training in gathering flight data, and then interpreting it. Minutes spent in precision flying must be matched by hours of painstaking effort at computers, in the library, and around the conference table.

It is obvious that in the world of flight testing, there simply is no room for "second best." That is why the Air Force Test Pilot School (TPS) takes such pains to make certain that its graduates are the equal to any in their profession.

The U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School selection board convenes annually in July. Those interested in becoming a test pilot, test combat systems officer, test remotely piloted aircraft pilot or flight test engineer are encouraged to apply. Applicants from all aircraft types and backgrounds must have strong academic and technical experience.

www.edwards.af.mil...

Do you see why it makes no sense to talk about Hynek? Pilots today are Technical people. Look at the training. It goes far beyond just learning to read instruments and learning to fly.

Let's look at the Navy. First, When did Project Blue Book end?

Project Blue Book was one of a series of systematic studies of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) conducted by the United States Air Force (USAF). It started in 1952, the third study of its kind, following projects Sign (1947) and Grudge (1949). A termination order was given for the study in December 1969, and all activity under its auspices officially ceased on January 19th, 1970. Project Blue Book had two goals:

en.wikipedia.org...

What occurred with Pilot training in the Navy in the 70's?

Advances in computer technology had an impact on training at USNTPS beginning in the 1970s with the introduction of aircraft capable of variable stability including the Calspan Learjet, which remains a cornerstone of flight training at the school today. Advancements in technology during that decade required the school to expand its curriculum again to incorporate airborne systems and to lengthen the syllabus from eight months to the current 11 months, which the school deemed sufficient to allow more flight opportunities and time to absorb class instruction and apply it in the air.

navalaviationnews.navylive.dodlive.mil...

Pilots had to become more TECHNICAL. This updating of what Navy Pilots learned continued to become more TECHNICAL as technology advanced and Planes became equipped with new tech.

So what you have done is actually strengthen the eyewitness accounts from Military Pilots because now they will have to be classified as Technical Persons with all of their updated training in technology to fly today's planes.

I presume, the reason why technical persons were so good at identifying U.F.O.'s is because of technical training which Pilots didn't have at the time of Hynek. Today's Pilots have to be very technical so they will be excellent eyewitnesses of U.F.O.'s based on Hynek's work.

Thanks for the info! You have just shown why Pilots make some of the best eyewitnessess!

LOL, pseudoskeptics are trying to turn Pilots into unreliable idiots but by quoting Hynek, you have just strengthened Pilots as TECHNICAL PERSONS who are well trained to identify U.F.O.'s.

a reply to: neoholographic

It's taken from the Hynek Report. Which was printed in the mid 1970s. It was based on people who reported UFOs which were actually mis-perceptions of known phenomena. If there is a more recent survey you are aware of with wider data then please provide it.

I merely posted this to illustrate that, when people see things they can't explain, it more often is explainable.

This doesn't mean that there aren't genuine unknowns that can't be explained or that pilots are idiots.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: neoholographic

It's taken from the Hynek Report. Which was printed in the mid 1970s. It was based on people who reported UFOs which were actually mis-perceptions of known phenomena. If there is a more recent survey you are aware of with wider data then please provide it.

I merely posted this to illustrate that, when people see things they can't explain, it more often is explainable.

This doesn't mean that there aren't genuine unknowns that can't be explained or that pilots are idiots.

But that does not explain when pilots actually see the craft. They see the size, shape and colour, only for certain people to brush it off as Venus or some other ridiculous explanation, while saying we make terrible observers.

It's a complete cop out.

I am not saying that pilots have not misidentified something. They could see a bright star (venus) or a metrioite, but they through the same explanations around when the pilot/pilots have clearly seen something that cannot be explained, while saying pilots are terrible observers.

originally posted by: vance
a reply to: neoholographic

"...the existence of extraterrestrials and extraterrestrial visitation". Except there is no mountain of evidence... If there were, we would be on it. Cheers

I think we could trust the government about as much as we could trust a homeless schizophrenic on this subject.

This UFO stuff is a distraction away from the elite pedophilia and to bring about that one world government they all want.