UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 8

Re: Case Studies In Pilot Misperceptions Of UFOs -

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 00:55:56 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 07:27:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Case Studies In Pilot Misperceptions Of UFOs -

>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 00:17:19 -0400
>Subject: Re: Case Studies In Pilot Misperceptions Of UFOs

>>Source: Peter Smith's Website


>>November 10, 2002

>>Case Studies In Pilot Misperceptions Of "UFOs"

>>James Oberg
>>voice/fax 281-337-2838

>>How good are pilots' "UFO reports"? There is some dispute over
>>whether the features they describe are imaginative
>>interpretations of raw visual stimuli (based on their own
>>aviation experience) or are sound renditions of raw perceptions.

>>Experienced UFO investigators realize that pilots, who
>>instinctively and quite properly interpret visual phenomena in
>>the most hazardous terms, are not dispassionate observers. Allen
>>Hynek wrote: "Surprisingly, commercial and military pilots
>>appear to make relatively poor witnesses..." The quote is from
>>"The Hynek UFO Report", page 261 (Barnes and Noble reprint).
>>(271 in original Dell, Dec 1977) He found that the best class of
>>witnesses had a 50% misperception rate, but that pilots had a
>>much higher rate: 88% for military pilots, 89% for commercial
>>pilots. the worst of all categories listed. Pilots could be
>>counted on to perceive familiar objects - aircraft and ground
>>structures - very well, Hynek continued, but added a caveat:
>>"Thus it might surprise us that a pilot had trouble identifying
>>other aircraft, but it should come as no surprise that the
>>majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical
>>objects." Dell page 271

>>Here are two "test cases" that are illustrative: the November 5,
>>1990 re-entry of the Gorizont/Proton rocket body across northern
>>France and Germany, and the January 28, 1994 launch of Progress
>>TM-21 from Kazakhstan. Both events were observed by airline
>>crews. Arguably, in both cases, the pilots over-interpreted
>>their perceptions and subconsciously introduced "deductions" and
>>"conclusions" to shape their remembered perceptions.

>Here we find Oberg assuming the answer and then "force fitting"
>the data to the answer by rejecting any portions of the
>desriptions that might contradict the assumed explanation.
>Oberg, for example, is willing to ignore descriptions like
>"sharp turn" without further questioning' of the pilot to
>establish the exact nature of the turn. INstead, Oberg argues
>that the pilot invented the turn to explain the disappearance of
>the object.

>Maccabee's First Rule For Debunkers: Any explanation is better
>than none.

And lets not forget, Oberg isn't an aviation expert. He worked
on the Shuttle as an engineer. Sure the Shuttle enjoyed flight
charateristics while in glide as a just barely lifting body -
and even that's not accurate - but comparing that to everyday
flight is like comparing elevators to to the Saturn rocket
because they both go up.

Many debunkers rely on the public's ignorance of the aviation
field to bowl them over with non-applicable science.


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