Todd Feinman
Active Member
Scientific theory is actually quite speculative --and there is not always a way to test hypotheses based on those at the time.
Last edited:
How Can Highly Trained Military Pilots Possibly Misinterpret Things They See?
- Thread starter Slow Joe
- Start date
Here's an interesting tidbit I found about Russian UFO research. Apparently in the 80's they implemented what the UAPTF and AARO have so far failed to do: establish a unified way to report UFOs and analyze the resulting reports. As a result, they got a lot of reports of balloons and rocket launches. Some of the cases even involved attempted aerial interceptions.
http://www.jamesoberg.com/russian_report_says_most_ufos_are_rocket_launches.pdf
I'd love to read Platov's full report, but no luck finding it so far. I'll be doing some more digging into Platov's efforts, sounds like an interesting parallel to what the US is trying to do.
(Emphasis mine)In January 1980, the Soviet Ministry of Defense issued a directive to all military forces to report
"any inexplicable, exotic, extraordinary phenomenon". Sokolov described how this essentially
converted millions of military personnel across one sixth of the Earth's surface into a sensory
network for UFOs. "It is not likely that anybody could organize such a large-scale research," he
boasted, "and practically with no financing."
Over the course of more than a decade, Platov's and Sokolov's teams together collected and
analyzed about 3,000 detailed messages, covering about 400 individual events.
A pattern soon emerged.
"Practically all the mass night observations of UFOs were unambiguously identified as the effects
accompanying the launches of rockets or tests of aerospace equipment," the report concludes.
These sightings were mainly associated with activity at the secret rocket base at Plesetsk, north
of Moscow.
In about 10-12 percent of the reports, they also identified another category of "flying objects," or
as they clarified it, "floating objects." These were meteorological and scientific balloons, which
sometimes acted in unexpected ways and were easily misperceived by ground personnel and by
pilots.
Specifically, Platov and Migulin describe events on June 3, 1982, near Chita in southern Siberia,
and on September 13, 1982, on the far-eastern Chukhotskiy Penninsula. In both cases, balloon
launches were recorded but the balloons reached a much greater altitude than usually before
bursting. Air defense units reacted in both cases by scrambling interceptors to attack the UFOs.
"The described episodes show that even experienced pilots are not immune against errors in the
evaluation of the size of observed objects, the distances to them, and their identification with
particular phenomena," the report observes.
http://www.jamesoberg.com/russian_report_says_most_ufos_are_rocket_launches.pdf
I'd love to read Platov's full report, but no luck finding it so far. I'll be doing some more digging into Platov's efforts, sounds like an interesting parallel to what the US is trying to do.
Todd Feinman
Active Member
I am very interested in having them be I! That's why I appreciate the work here. I'm actually quite skeptical about aspects of the UFO phenomenon, including the abduction stories.
taurusclover21
Member
You referred to "science," not "scientific theory."
Scaramanga
Senior Member
"How Can Highly Trained Military Pilots Possibly Misinterpret Things They See?"
Ah yes....Nick Pope's 'trained observers'. I'd love to know what this 'trained observing' actually looks like.....insofar as does it really consist of training to BE 'an observer' or is it just 'here's a list of enemy planes...memorise them all'. No doubt any of you here who have been in the forces can answer this.
Ah yes....Nick Pope's 'trained observers'. I'd love to know what this 'trained observing' actually looks like.....insofar as does it really consist of training to BE 'an observer' or is it just 'here's a list of enemy planes...memorise them all'. No doubt any of you here who have been in the forces can answer this.
Ann K
Senior Member.
No, scientific HYPOTHESES are speculative. I think you're misusing the word "theory".
taurusclover21
Member
And misusing the word "science."
Mendel
Senior Member.
The issue is that the interpretation of the data is subjective. You have a radar return at 80,000 ft and the next second a radar return close by at 25,000 ft (or whatever it was), and you can either interpret this as two spurious returns, or a UFO that just took a physically impossible dive.
There is a way to say definitively that it has not happened. I did.
Given that it's impossible to prove a negative, that's as definitive as you're going to get.
And that is actually scientific: as Feynman explained, no scientific law is ever proven "correct"; it's only provisionally correct until proven wrong.
And that's you saying the opposite, just as definitely, with just as little evidence. Although here positive proof should be possible, it's absent.
Last edited:
Todd Feinman
Active Member
Is that statement actually controversial?
Todd Feinman
Active Member
It often comes down to interpretation of evidence, personal experiences (in my case), and the same accounts over and over again over decades.
Todd Feinman
Active Member
Yes, I know how science works, and I understand this:
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method
Mendel
Senior Member.
So does this mean ghosts are real, given the same accounts over and over again over the 19th century? What about the Loch Ness monster, Nessie?
Mendel
Senior Member.
Also try this:
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
Richard Feynman, American physicist, Nobel Laureate in Physics (1918-1988), The Character of Physical Law, Cornell University Messenger Lectures (1964)Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said "I don't think there are flying saucers'. So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?"
But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, "Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence." It is just more likely. That is all."
Last edited:
Todd Feinman
Active Member
Folks are always asking me if I am related to him! Well, we'll see! Maybe you all are right and there is nothing to UFOs --or maybe there is. I'd just recommend keeping the possibility open that they are truly anomalous. My ideas and your skepticism are part of the record, and we will have to live with truth regardless of what that is. I will be watching to see what might come up in the future, and I know you folks will too
Mendel
Senior Member.
The point is that there can't be a legitimate expert on UFOs until we know there is.
And until then, psychology and sociology might be better suited to explain UFO sightings than "highly trained pilots", especially when it comes to the possibilities of misinterpreting stuff.
taurusclover21
Member
Aka, "highly trained observers." :>)
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
yeah, I was quoting the thread title. Pilots don't go to observer school, observers do.
taurusclover21
Member
Ward Carroll, F-14 RIO, USN, ret.
I also admit that I mistook the planet of Mars one time while flying in the Mediterranean at night for a UFO it was low on the horizon glowing green and red so after I landed I reported that to our intelligence officer, he right away knew what I was talking about because others had made the same report and they discovered that we were actually looking at Mars.
JAFO
Member
Can confirm as former Intelligence Analyst trained to identify known friendly and hostile equipment. Beyond a particular degree of certainty it may be an unknown.
Todd Feinman
Active Member
Any information you can divulge about characteristics of "unknowns"?
Duke
Senior Member.
Training is one thing, actions sadly sometimes another. Back in 1994, two USAF F-15C fighter pilots shot down two US Army UH-60s in a tragic "blue-on-blue" incident. This happened despite the fact the fighters were under the control of an AWACS a/c. It occurred in the "no-fly zone" established to protect Kurds from Iraqi attack in northern Iraq as part of Operation Provide Comfort.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_incidentThe 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident, sometimes referred to as the Black Hawk Incident, was a friendly fire incident over northern Iraq that occurred on 14 April 1994 during Operation Provide Comfort (OPC). The pilots of two United States Air Force (USAF) F-15 fighter aircraft, operating under the control of a USAF airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft, misidentified two United States Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters as Iraqi Mil Mi-24 "Hind" helicopters. The F-15 pilots fired on and destroyed both helicopters, killing all 26 military and civilians aboard, including personnel from the United States, United Kingdom, France, Turkey, and the Kurdish community.
So here's a case where highly trained American pilots flying the world's then best, most advanced air-to-air fighter aircraft, under operational control of the then world's best, most advanced airborne control aircraft manned by a highly trained American crew, shot down two American helos they all would have been trained to recognize. Lots of human errors to go around, but that's what humans do...make mistakes. Those mistakes cost the lives of 26 people.
JAFO
Member
Unknown is bad term. I guess unidentifiable may be more appropriate. Unidentifiable tracked vehicle, unidentifiable winged aircraft, etc. When putting together info regarding a certain area of operations or interest you want to know what equipment is there. Whether it's friend or foe and what capabilities it may have. Having as much of that information at hand is important to develop an appropriate course of action.
tobigtofool
Active Member
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA273972.pdf
Military and nonmilitary tasks alike often require the individual to acquire and maintaindynamic spatial awareness-that component of situational awareness which involves theability to conceptualize the dynamic location of multiple objects in three-dimensional space.
Misinterpreting a drone as a Tictac UFO is = to misidentifying a friendly for an enemy.For example,during an air intercept a fighter pilot plans most tactical maneuvers well before acquiringvisual contact with the target. Success depends critically upon the ability to construct aninternal representation, or mental model, of the problem space from which one can defineor constrain the situation, and plan, test, and evaluate potential solutions. This wouldsuggest that systems designed to train personnel for spatial awareness should address theperceptual and cognitive processes involved in the creation and use of mental models.
Misinterpreting the physical location and position and direction of an object you're interacting with your own fighter jet =/= equal to misidentifying a friendly for a target, acquiring and shooting down that target.
Last edited:
Somewhat related, form the Starlink thread.
Note the very strong argument from authority attempt. Which is because they themselves think that they are such experience pilots that they could not be wrong.
NOT Starlink.
But it was Starlink.
Highly trained military pilots can make mistakes. Even Fravor should not be considered immune to this.
Note the very strong argument from authority attempt. Which is because they themselves think that they are such experience pilots that they could not be wrong.
NOT Starlink.
But it was Starlink.
Highly trained military pilots can make mistakes. Even Fravor should not be considered immune to this.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Exactly as @Duke tragically described above in post #141. Two separate F15 pilots misidentified, acquired and shot down 2 USA UH60s:
Thinking they were Soviet made Iraqi Mi-24 Hinds:
Sitting here looking at a computer it's pretty easy to tell them apart, but just sometimes highly trained pilots make mistakes.
tobigtofool
Active Member
Exactly as @Duke tragically described above in post #141. Two separate F15 pilots misidentified, acquired and shot down 2 USA UH60s:
Thinking they were Soviet made Iraqi Mi-24 Hinds:
Sitting here looking at a computer it's pretty easy to tell them apart, but just sometimes highly trained pilots make mistakes.
Again spatial relationships are not = to the shape of a helicopter cockpit.
If they were shooting 2000 feet in front or behind it over and over again because they couldn't tell where the helicopters were, that is what we're talking about.
Miss Identifying a drone, for a tictac ufo with no propellers, is more akin to miss identifying the shape of a hind vs a black hawk.
Mendel
Senior Member.
If you think about this, it means that the pilots' expectations shape their performance in any encounter. They provide the cognitive framework to interpret the actual observations.
It is obvious that if these plans/expectations turn out to be wrong/inaccurate, the pilots' perception of the situation will degrade and no longer be correct, either. (That is why the "element of surprise" has always played an important role in military tactics.)
See above for examples of misidentifying Mars or meteors = physical "location and position".
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Yes, there are different kinds of being mistaken, and they can lead into each other. If the pilot misjudges the distance, then they could interpret the details incorrectly. Or you could frame it the other way around. I don't think this is what you're trying to get at though?
Speaking as a neuroscientist I have to say that this approach is erroneous.
Multiple people can witness the same event and differ in subjective matters such as perception of time. A more nervous person will experience time slower. Look for what they agree on.
Also worth noting that memories of actual events change over time. It doesn't imply bs. It just implies that memories change over time.
Duke
Senior Member.
We were taught this exact premise/approach. We were told by interviewing multiple witnesses to a mishap, we were seeking to establish a basic foundation of events that occurred, not necessarily a 100% factual narrative. If multiple people told the exact same story, that was a concern, especially for criminal investigators. We were also taught to interview witnesses individually (if possible) to prelude a group dynamic effect that could influence/change the testimony of individuals.
Nemon
Active Member
I suspect that you have misunderstood me. My approach is aimed at highlighting which deviations there are and in which details. In the Nimitz incident, we are faced with the problem of the different versions. If we were to superimpose them, we would get a picture of similarities and differences. What implications this would have for assessing the plausibility of individual statements and the overall narrative should be obvious. I assume? If, for example, it turns out that Fravor's report is initially incompatible with the statements of the other pilots, but the statements converge over time, that would be very interesting, wouldn't it?
Above all, it seems to me that all reports do not agree in all relevant details. what value does the "official version" have? In order to be able to counter myths and hearsay with as factual a basis as possible, it would at least be important to be able to name the deviations and sticking points.
This is from a talk by Iya Whiteley on why she thinks that pilots are expert observers.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR09GHQ5AwA
Pilot's unique cognition - fit for purpose & developed through training over decades
Professional cognitive processes:
Unparalleled sensory (data) mapping:
- situational awareness / collecting data about the environment & relevant objects' behaviour
- continuous anticipation of problems
- classifying & discarding known objects
- dynamic problem solving
- rapid decision making
- continuously trained sensory perception
- perceptual (preverbal) knowing/calculating trajectories & anticipation / accurate prediction of behaviours
- engaging perceptual sensors & translating these data points into consequential precise movements
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Pilots are probably fairly good observers, generally, but perhaps this leads to some overconfidence with discarding known things "I know what Starlink is, it's those long lines of dots"
On average they are probably good, it's the relatively low percentage of times they are wrong that stick out, it's classic we only hear about it, because it's unusual problem with UFOs.
So whilst generally decent at identifying things (not as many "white tic tac planes" from pilots as from their passengers for example) but with something new and with a different already known form (launch trains vs deployed flares) there's a reflexive emotional immediate counter, with people saying it's Starlink now there was a time when not many people knew what launch trains were, now they know Starlink they KNOW. And thus it can't be Starlink because they've learned that one.
It's a hard educational nut, because they already think they've learned that lesson, and maybe some of them got a bit burned by Starlink trains before and it has a emotional connection. Oh and there's also a motivated cabal of famous people ready to accept them at their word without real analysis.
On average they are probably good, it's the relatively low percentage of times they are wrong that stick out, it's classic we only hear about it, because it's unusual problem with UFOs.
So whilst generally decent at identifying things (not as many "white tic tac planes" from pilots as from their passengers for example) but with something new and with a different already known form (launch trains vs deployed flares) there's a reflexive emotional immediate counter, with people saying it's Starlink now there was a time when not many people knew what launch trains were, now they know Starlink they KNOW. And thus it can't be Starlink because they've learned that one.
It's a hard educational nut, because they already think they've learned that lesson, and maybe some of them got a bit burned by Starlink trains before and it has a emotional connection. Oh and there's also a motivated cabal of famous people ready to accept them at their word without real analysis.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Maybe she doesn't realize that the type of experience limits the scope of the expertise. Much like a neural network AI's performance depends on the training data it was exposed to, human expertise is founded on familiarity with the subject matter. So all of the points Whiteley cites apply to familiar situations—but when pilots encounter a "UFO", they're in an unfamiliar situation, and their performance as observers isn't going to be the same.
Last edited:
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
I had a look at Iva Whiteley, there are twitter connections to Ryan Graves and initially Diana Pasulka via Kelly Chase of the UFO Rabbit Hole Podcast which is how she seems have become attached to this current UFO flap.
Edit: "Her name is Dr. Iya Whiteley and she is a space psychologist who is featured in Diana’s upcoming book due out in November entitled, Encounters: Experiences with Nonhuman Intelligences." This line seems to indicated Pasulka was the 1st contact.
She was on the UFO Rabbit Hole podcast here: https://uforabbithole.com/podcast/e...-dr-iya-whiteley-feat-dr-diana-walsh-pasulka/
I think this is the same person as well, so she is also an alternative medicine practitioner and has been for some time.
https://www.stillpointbath.co.uk/therapies/south-korean-medicine-services-in-bath/dr-iya-whiteley/
@Mick West GIven she's been on a show called UFO Rabbit Hole, maybe she'd like to be on a show called Tales from the Rabbit Hole?
Edit: "Her name is Dr. Iya Whiteley and she is a space psychologist who is featured in Diana’s upcoming book due out in November entitled, Encounters: Experiences with Nonhuman Intelligences." This line seems to indicated Pasulka was the 1st contact.
She was on the UFO Rabbit Hole podcast here: https://uforabbithole.com/podcast/e...-dr-iya-whiteley-feat-dr-diana-walsh-pasulka/
I think this is the same person as well, so she is also an alternative medicine practitioner and has been for some time.
https://www.stillpointbath.co.uk/therapies/south-korean-medicine-services-in-bath/dr-iya-whiteley/
@Mick West GIven she's been on a show called UFO Rabbit Hole, maybe she'd like to be on a show called Tales from the Rabbit Hole?
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
This is from a talk by Iya Whiteley on why she thinks that pilots are expert observers.
...
One wonders how she would correlate this with the consistent misperceptions we've seen with Starlink.
Who's the source?
A StartPage search yields this about Iya:
You know what woo warning signs I saw there.https://taplink.cc/driyawhiteley
Dr Iya Whiteley - Space Psychology to enhance our Life on Earth
With background in Clinical Psychology & practice in Korean Medicine, I would like to offer to tap into your hidden self-healing potential & grow from strength ...
Who are the Sol Foundation?
https://thesolfoundation.org/about/Science, Policy, and Public Education for a Post-UAP World
Why a UAP-Focused Foundation and Center of Research?
The time has come for serious, well-funded, and cutting-edge academic research into the nature of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and their broad cosmological and political implications. Such a claim would have been beyond the pale of respectability just five years ago, but the U.S. government’s recent and continued acknowledgments of UAP have changed them from a subject unworthy of academic consideration into a scientific and intellectual problem of unfathomably broad stakes. Now that UAP are considered real enough by Congress to be addressed with federal legislation, we are forced to consider the broad consequences of this for the future of science, technology, economy, politics, law, religion, culture, and all other human institutions and endeavors.
The Sol Foundation is accordingly establishing itself as a premier center for UAP research. Under the direction of academic and government experts already professionally engaged in the study of UAP, the Foundation is assembling teams of noted specialists in the natural sciences, the social sciences, the humanities, and engineering, information science, and other technology-focused disciplines. Collectively, these teams will undertake rigorous, methodical, and cutting-edge inquiry into UAP and their implications as well as help set the agenda for UAP Studies.
So they're basically invested in the UFO narrative, so this video is just support for other invested in the narrative, not an independent appraisal.
It's its own layer of bunk around the core bunk we're already familiar with.
Oh - shit! I missed this... this is the nuclear response...
https://thesolfoundation.org/people/
Only follow that link if you want to see Garry Nolan's and David Grusch's smug mugs.
Summary: It's the propaganda wing of known bunkspreaders.
An interesting talk, of particular note was the her position that we must take into consideration subjective anecdotal evidence and use it as data. Isn't that one of the common indications of pseudo-science...?
Quoting Garry Nolan here suggesting that the human experience of events is a highly reliable source of data.
Jacques Vallee here suggests that "Inner Data" is another dimension into the investigation of anomalous phenomena. Hmm.
And also the quote here from Christopher K. Mellon - suggesting that more information is better.
This suggests that he doesn't understand the difference between signal and noise. Any scientific experiment should try and increase the signal-to-noise ratio, but here by adding the dimension of the 'inner universe' (?) and using peoples emotions, thoughts and feelings as data they are actually reducing it.
This does not sound very scientific at all.
Mendel
Senior Member.
"Your experience is valid. Come join our cult."
Eburacum
Senior Member.
As a passenger I once saw a 'white tic tac plane' far below me as we flew over a local airfield. The plane I was in was travelling at about 37,000 feet; the outline of the local airport far below could be seen quite easily, and so could a small, detail-less aircraft approaching the airfield as we passed. To my surprise the 'tic tac' flew along the length of the runway and left at the other end without landing.
Perhaps the pilot of my plane would have been able to recognise the type of plane concerned, even though it appeared completely detail-free to my eyes. The pilot could have used contextual information to identify the aircraft far below, information which I did not have; but as far as I could see, this object might have been a small light aircraft, a glider, a helicopter or even a drone of some sort, and I had no way to distinguish between these options.
It is also possible that the pilot would have been unable to identify this craft as well; but it was almost certainly terrestrial in origin. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras.
Or unicorns.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
I notice the video referenced by @Mick West was only posted a day ago, which suggests this may be a "bandwagon" study hoping to cash in on riding the coattails of the recent government hearings.
In the video's comments, "BradyA1124" provides a summary of the video, chock full of red flags and woo:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR09GHQ5AwA
In the video's comments, "BradyA1124" provides a summary of the video, chock full of red flags and woo:
- Iya begins with a reference to "2001: A Space Odyssey" and the idea of encountering phenomena beyond human comprehension.
- It discusses the challenge of articulating experiences when lacking the vocabulary or tools to express them, using the example of expert surgeons who can't fully explain their intuitive knowledge.
- The speaker highlights the personal and transformative nature of experiences, emphasizing the importance of paying attention to them.
- Anecdotes about astronauts experiencing phenomena like flashes in space are shared, revealing their reluctance to report due to fear of being removed from flight.
- The speech touches on synesthesia, the blending of sensory perceptions, and how it's utilized differently across cultures.
- It discusses experiments suggesting that human intention can affect physical systems, challenging notions of unbiased scientific observation.
- The concept of unintentional blindness is explained, where individuals may overlook phenomena if not directed to pay attention to it.
- The unique cognition of pilots is emphasized, along with their continuous problem-solving and sensory perception in the cockpit.
- The speaker stresses the importance of listening to pilots' experiences to enhance safety and understanding in aviation.
- There's a call to expand the understanding of human perception beyond the traditional five senses.
- The speech concludes with a discussion on the film "Solaris" and its exploration of communication with non-human intelligence, urging further exploration into such phenomena.
- Collaboration with a psychologist to empower pilots in integrating transformative experiences into their lives is mentioned as a future endeavor.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR09GHQ5AwA
Similar threads
