UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 7

Re: Case Studies In Pilot Misperceptions Of UFOs -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 18:29:16 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 06:53:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Case Studies In Pilot Misperceptions Of UFOs -

>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 13:37:58 -0300
>Subject: Re: Case Studies In Pilot Misperceptions Of UFOs

>>UFO UpDates - Toronto wrote:

>>Source: Peter Smith's Website


>>November 10, 2002

>>Case Studies In Pilot Misperceptions Of "UFOs"

>>4. The pilots reported seeing "circles, corkscrews, and 90-
>>degree turns" but the actual rocket did no such maneuvers.

>Ergo it wasn't the rocket.

If you'll look closely the "90-degree turn" only comes from the
sensationalist National Enquirer article and not from any other
source and was probably completely fabricated. Once you
eliminate that crap then it does fit a space decay or re-entry,
and there is no pilot "misperception" of sighting details such
as time, location, appearance, etc., only pilot
misinterpretation of the ultimate cause.

Pilots like other UFO witnesses cannot be treated like they are
PhD scientist investigators of their own UFO sightings, hence
their off-the-cuff _opinions_ as to what it was they saw are not
at the same level of reliability as their observational details,
and cannot be expected to be.

If quoted by the media shortly after landing pilots cannot
possibly have spent weeks investigating the cause of their
sighting as they've only had a few minutes. And again not being
PhD scientists nor having years of UFO investigative experience
they can't be expected to come up with the right explanation

Several years ago I did a study of witness observational
accuracy using IFO data buried in the Condon Report which the CU
Project deliberately refused to analyze even though it had been
a project goal. They apparently discovered as I did that using
IFO's where we know what it was a witness saw and how far away,
etc., that witnesses turned out to be an astonishingly high 97%
to 98% accurate. Astonishing only because of the widespread
debunking propaganda that devalues eyewitness data as worthless.

What was _not_ highly accurate were the witness interpretations
of their own sightings.

The Hynek study that supposedly found that pilots had the
highest rate of IFO's in the Blue Book files is completely
undocumented and unsubstantiated. It appears on one page of The
Hynek UFO Report and there is no source data on how many reports
were categorized, the criteria used, etc., and it appears the
methodology was utterly confused between "misperception" and
"misidentification," which are two different things. Given that
kind of fundamental confusion it is unclear whether the Blue
Book "IFO's" that were used were the actual "Known" IFO's and
not the "Possible" and "Probable" categories, to give one
example of deeply flawed methodology.

"Misperception" involves errors in the observational details and
my study shows there are very few of those in any category of
witness occupation. "Misdentification" involves erroneous
witness opinion of the ultimate cause of the sighting, which are
subject to great error because it is asking essentially for a
conclusion that only a PhD scientist investigation could
properly render and no such thing is available to the witness.
Yet if the witness gets that wrong he or she is slandered from
here to eternity.

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com