How Can Highly Trained Military Pilots Possibly Misinterpret Things They See?

[Leekster]

That was my intended point, and Dietrich's if I recall correctly. At one point she explained that someone had asked her if the thing she reported seeing on November 14, 2004 had a shadow (I assume because that could help indicate whether it really was initially close to the surface of the water, as the story goes), and her response being that she had not even considered paying attention to anything like that because she had not been trained to make that kind of observation. Because fighter pilots (at least in her era) train to identify things they expect to encounter - known aircraft - not to identify rare anomalous phenomena.

So the claim by True Believers that fighter pilots reporting wildly exotic things in the sky could not possibly be mistaken because they are/were "trained observers" is not backed up by what Dietrich (and other fighter pilots Mick's spoken to, like Brian Burke) has said.

Looking back at my post, I see that I could have expressed that more clearly, and I get why my post could be read as some kind of defence of Graves' organization and/or Dietrich's support of it. My intention at the time was actually to show the contradiction between what is claimed by non-fighter pilots about the (superhuman) observational abilities of fighter pilots and what (some) fighter pilots humbly admit about their limitations.

Correct.
As a former Navy fighter pilot I can tell you we don't have any special training as "observers". Whatever that means.
We have training in how to visually identify threat aircraft and estimate in close ranges based on known sizes of those aircraft. You need to be able to estimate when a threat aircraft is inside "gun range", for example.
We are trained on some forms of disorientation phenomenon that are associated with false visual cues. Things like that.

Other than that, I think the term, "trained observer" is misleading at best.

 

[Jack Mallory]

Other than that, I think the term, "trained observer" is misleading at best.

I've brought this up on other forums, and it's always something I've wondered about. We repeatedly hear this claim of "trained observers" when police and others make UFO reports/claims but I'd love to know just what exactly that's supposed to mean. Most police academies only last a matter of months so I'd really like to know how much of that time is dedicated to observation "training." Are those same programs available to the average citizen? And even if someone is trained to make note of appearances, type and color of vehicle and other potentially crime-related scenarios, how much of that time is devoted to "observing" anomalous lights in the sky?

It's become a catch-all phrase that's often used to validate claims of paranormal or "extra-terrestrial" activity just because someone is wearing a uniform. But I've never once heard anyone explain the exact training they received that allowed them to better asses whatever unusual event they encountered.

 

[Leekster]

I was also trained as an aircraft accident investigator while in the military and one of the most important points we were taught was that eyewitness accounts are extremely unreliable. There are loads of examples on YouTube and other websites that demonstrate how unreliable eyewitness accounts can be.

 

[Stryder]

One thing all fighter pilots have in common is that we are human. We are susceptible to all the same misinterpretation of optical illusions as anyone else.
Yes, we get training and experience in understanding phenomenon that can effect our perception of reality but even the best pilots can be fooled, completely misunderstand what they are being presented with. Sometimes with fatal consequences.

I worked with a number of F-14 crews in the 1980s when I worked for an aerospace contractor. I had an opportunity to improve an existing sensor platform on the F-14 called the Television Camera Set (TCS). As the civilian project lead, I had the opportunity to test the improvements out, first from a stationary platform at Pt. Magu NAS, and then through a series of test flights over China Lake. As part of the testing, I spent a good amount of time with both pilots and RIOs (Radar Intercept Officers) preparing for the flights and then debriefing from the flights. The TCS had been an operational system for years and yet I found I had to spend quite a bit of time educating the crews on how it worked. They had all used the sensor and had generally favorable opinions of it, but not a one of them had a good grasp of how it did what it did.

The reason I quoted Leekster above is to emphasize the situational awareness aspect of using a sensor platform in an aerial vehicle. As Leekster says, pilots are human and susceptible to optical illusions. They are in a highly complex environment. Non-pilots speak of flying as moving in three dimensions, but the reality is even more daunting. While moving in three dimensions (forward/back, left/right, and up/down), an aircraft is often also rotating in three dimensions (pitch, roll, yaw). Until you have experienced this, non-pilots can't really understand how much more difficult this makes understanding the environment. Add in poor visibility due to weather or lighting, a complex workload, and a target that is unfamiliar to the observer(s) and it is really easy to occasionally misinterpret what you are sensing.

Now add in the sensor platform that is usually not pointing or even moving in the same direction (both laterally and rotationally) as the aircraft and it gets really tough. We (sensor designers) did our best to provide cues to the operators (the RIO in the case of the F-14) so that they could interpret where the sensor was looking, but even then it was a common mistake to interpret the aircraft's direction for the sensor's direction. Consequently, stationary targets appeared to be moving rapidly (especially with magnification) and when targets were being tracked, they seemed to be remarkably stationary when they were in fact maneuvering wildly.

The F-14 crews were trained extensively. They were also trained on about a 100 different systems and subsystems. My experience with F-15 and F-18 pilots (who I worked with on other projects) is exactly the same. Very good pilots, handling a complex aircraft in a complex environment trying their best to understand and operate a great number of systems and subsystems (that are often changing) that they have trained on, but are not truly expert on. Misperceptions are the norm, not the exception. It's just that in 99.9% of the cases, the misperceptions are small enough to not matter.

 

[Stryder]

I was also trained as an aircraft accident investigator while in the military and one of the most important points we were taught was that eyewitness accounts are extremely unreliable. There are loads of examples on YouTube and other websites that demonstrate how unreliable eyewitness accounts can be.

I was trained as an engineer to follow the KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid) principle for subsystem design, not because the users (pilots) weren't capable of understanding complex, but because every extra interaction or thought was one more when added all together becomes a potentially overwhelming workload. In fact, I was taught (by an ex-military pilot at a seminar) that CFITs (Controlled Flight into Terrain) was a leading cause of military aircraft crashes that were in turn caused by work overload and loss of situational awareness. Does that fit with your experience?

 

[Leekster]

I was trained as an engineer to follow the KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid) principle for subsystem design, not because the users (pilots) weren't capable of understanding complex, but because every extra interaction or thought was one more when added all together becomes a potentially overwhelming workload. In fact, I was taught (by an ex-military pilot at a seminar) that CFITs (Controlled Flight into Terrain) was a leading cause of military aircraft crashes that were in turn caused by work overload and loss of situational awareness. Does that fit with your experience?

CFIT accidents have gained a lot of attention over the last decade. They are almost always fatal/catastrophic.

The Recent F-18G crash in Washington State a couple weeks ago will most likely be classified as a CFIT if I had to guess but no data has been released so we don't know.
In my time in CAG1 we lost 8 aircraft. Two were CFIT and fatal to the crew.
Night vision goggles, GLOC training, new terrain avoidance software in the F16 and F35, and CFIT awareness training have greatly reduced the number of accidents, but it is still a threat.
Yes, you can be task saturated and be focused around a sensor, trying to fly formation, ect and lose situational awareness to terrain.

THE TCS was a wonderful piece of gear. I used it operationally for several TU-95 intercepts in the North Atlantic and it was quite useful. The evolution of electronic ID and other technologies was a game changer from the visual identification we had to deal with in the 80s-90s.

You are correct that sometimes a sensor can be difficult to interpret. Imagine an untrained person looking at an ultrasound or an MRI. Even with training it takes experience to interpret what you are looking at and take action. Having the jet move thru space in one direction and an object you are tracking moving in a completely different vector can create confusion and strange effects even for a "trained observer".

I am enjoying the Starlink threads because that is another example of "trained observers" having difficulty understanding what they are observing.

 

[Jack Mallory]

Just to follow-up briefly on the "trained observer" accreditation...

I stumbled across this UFO program last night. In the second half (time-linked below) we are told of a reported encounter that supposedly took place on Nov. 25, 2009 in Port Jervis, NY. The witness was a man named John Hudson.

@12:08 the "Primary Investigator" Richard Lang states: "We were able to verify his employment at a local hospital, and he was employed in a position of high-credibility."

Okay, and?

Later, @19:10, author and UFO Investigator Chuck Modlin tells us that Hudson was a, "medical professional. Most hospital individuals pay attention to details." Which is apparently enough for Modlin to decide that he didn't think, "anything John said was untrue."

But if you blink you'll miss the brief intro where it is stated that John Hudson was a nurse attendant at a local psychiatric hospital.
So we have a witness of "high-credibility" in a profession where "most individuals pay attention to details." Apparently that makes him an expert UFO witness, although we never hear from Hudson himself in this piece.


Source: https://youtu.be/QFv7vRasOiQ?t=669

 

[Hevach]

I'm pretty sure malpractice rates in the US put paid to the idea that medical professionals can be trusted to pay attention to details.

Even in the best of cases, professional attention to detail falls apart when you get out of the profession in question. An orthopedic doctor is going to be of limited use diagnosing a skin condition but they're going to be absolutely useless identifying the exact species of cricket you caught.

 

[Duke]

I'm pretty sure malpractice rates in the US put paid to the idea that medical professionals can be trusted to pay attention to details.

Even in the best of cases, professional attention to detail falls apart when you get out of the profession in question. An orthopedic doctor is going to be of limited use diagnosing a skin condition but they're going to be absolutely useless identifying the exact species of cricket you caught.

Unless of course your hypothetical orthopod has an undergraduate degree in entomology, or is a keen amateur entomologist. Even a school boy could research and identify an exact species of cricket because, unless he has found a previously undiscovered species, science has already proven and documented its existence. No such scientific proof exists for alien life or their craft. So no pilot, your orthopod, nor my school boy will be able to use any credible source to identify an alien craft or its point of origin.

To take this a step further, specifically with regards to pilots/aircrew, there are any number of instances where they misidenify craft they are trained to identify. In WWII American pilots reported fighting German Bf-109 in the Pacific. No Bf-109s flew combat in Japanese service. Japanese pilots claimed to have shot down Spitfires over Ceylon, when they actually engaged much larger, two seat Royal Navy Fulmar reconnaissance fighters.

 

[Mendel]

I'm pretty sure malpractice rates in the US put paid to the idea that medical professionals can be trusted to pay attention to details.

Even in the best of cases, professional attention to detail falls apart when you get out of the profession in question. An orthopedic doctor is going to be of limited use diagnosing a skin condition but they're going to be absolutely useless identifying the exact species of cricket you caught.

or an orthodontist identifying what's wrong with a fake mummy

 

[JMartJr]

All I know is, my training over many years in flying all sorts of kites leaves me able to observe a lot while looking at one -- what type it is, if the bridle is tuned properly for wind conditions, is the anchor dragging, has an internal line snapped in an inflatable kite, has there been an error in assembly that could be fixed quickly to make it fly better, etc.

This observer training does not carry over to, say, airplanes, where I can just about say "Yep, that's an airplane, I think it is a jet!" But I could learn more about planes if I wanted to invest the time -- I am not sure how one goes about learning more about whatever "real UFOs" are supposed to be, particularly when those who believe in them no longer have a consensus on that!

 

[elvenwear]

I've brought this up on other forums, and it's always something I've wondered about. We repeatedly hear this claim of "trained observers" when police and others make UFO reports/claims but I'd love to know just what exactly that's supposed to mean. Most police academies only last a matter of months so I'd really like to know how much of that time is dedicated to observation "training." Are those same programs available to the average citizen? And even if someone is trained to make note of appearances, type and color of vehicle and other potentially crime-related scenarios, how much of that time is devoted to "observing" anomalous lights in the sky?

It's become a catch-all phrase that's often used to validate claims of paranormal or "extra-terrestrial" activity just because someone is wearing a uniform. But I've never once heard anyone explain the exact training they received that allowed them to better asses whatever unusual event they encountered.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Police are trained to identify and remember clothing, hair colour, vehicle make, vehicle colour etc. They aren't trained to observe alien space ships.

So the police academies:-
1) Use the widely available reams of data on clothing, colours, car designs etc.
2) Use this data to create a training program.
3) Enact the training program.

For anyone to make the 'expert observer' claim re alien space ships, it seems to me step 1) would be a bit of a stumbling block.

We could use the craft from Star Wars or Star Trek to start with, but to my knowledge, no one has ever claimed to have seen Tie-Fighters off the coast of San Diego.

 

[Mendel]

For anyone to make the 'expert observer' claim re alien space ships, it seems to me step 1) would be a bit of a stumbling block.

The drawback of having a field of study with nothing to study (aka "tooth fairy science").

 

[elvenwear]

The drawback of having a field of study with nothing to study (aka "tooth fairy science").

The tooth fairy is a testable hypothesis. I have personally placed all of my baby teeth under the pillow and received payment each time.

 

[Mendel]

The tooth fairy is a testable hypothesis. I have personally placed all of my baby teeth under the pillow and received payment each time.

you've not proven that the tooth fairy exists.
for more, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/science-if-bigfoot-is-there-it-could-be-a-bear.13328/post-325757

 

[Rationalman]

The tooth fairy is a testable hypothesis. I have personally placed all of my baby teeth under the pillow and received payment each time.

What is the physical mechanism? Please explain

 

[Ann K]

What is the physical mechanism? Please explain

I'm not sure, but if we reverse-engineer the process it appears that an essential step is to tell your parents that you're putting the tooth there.

 

[Mendel]

The tooth fairy is a testable hypothesis. I have personally placed all of my baby teeth under the pillow and received payment each time.

You've observed an effect, not the cause.
That's like saying "UFOs are real" because you see a light in the sky.

If you go outside and get wet, it could be raining. Or the neighbor's kids could be playing with the garden hose. It's not enough to see the effect you expect, you need to confirm the cause exists.

 

[JMartJr]

I think perhaps the point is not that the tooth fairy is real that the tooth fairy hypothesis is testable and can, with careful research, be shown to not be the correct hypothesis for how coins get under pillows in exchange for teeth. UFO hypotheses lack this sort of test.

 

[John J.]

What is the physical mechanism? Please explain

Well, it's a bit like relativity or quantum physics; I don't fully understand it so I take the word of respectable grown-ups who I believe to be trustworthy.

...if we reverse-engineer the process it appears that an essential step is to tell your parents that you're putting the tooth there.

Obviously a grown-up has to arrange access to your home; faeries aren't supernatural, they need a door.

"Rescue plan for Irish fairy door company approved", Irish Times 23 June 2023

-Quoting Fortean Times 441, February 2024.

 

[Mendel]

I think perhaps the point is not that the tooth fairy is real that the tooth fairy hypothesis is testable and can, with careful research, be shown to not be the correct hypothesis for how coins get under pillows in exchange for teeth. UFO hypotheses lack this sort of test.

the point is that there's a lack of UFOs (flying saucers etc.)
it's useless to form hypotheses about them if they may not even exist
the same kind of useless as hypothesizing what the tooth fairy is wearing on her nightly rounds
it's entertaining, but not useful

 

[JMartJr]

the point is that there's a lack of UFOs (flying saucers etc.)

For that meaning of UFOs, agreed. There are plenty of UFOs, strictly defined -- and there are lots of kids reporting the tooth fairy brought 'em, wait, what do teeth fairy even bring any more? Was a quarter when my kids were little! But whatever the going rate of payment is, there are plenty of reports.

Is the tooth fairy putting the coin there and taking the teeth? That is testable, you can set up a camera or stay awake all night while making convincing snoring sounds, and see who comes through the door with the money, and leaves with the tooth.

it's useless to form hypotheses about them if they may not even exist

Broadly, yeah, but individually (by case) we do all the time, and try to test our hypotheses. "Could this UFO report/pic/video have been generated by flaring Starlink satellites," that can be tested at least to the point of seeing if it is possible/plausible -- are there Starlinks there, aligned to flare, at the time and place, etc?

the same kind of useless as hypothesizing what the tooth fairy is wearing on her nightly rounds
it's entertaining, but not useful

Agreed, in terms of what do teeth fairy wear or is this UFO aliens, or are any UFOs aliens* -- Short of getting one to land and come with you to The Media and the Learned Professors of Science, it does not seem to me to be testable. Maybe the CE5K folks should move on from trying to get them to hover in the far distance, or react to lasers, and instead try to get one to come home for dinner and a quick news conference.


* or demons, time travelers, entities from "another dimension," etc. There are now multiple unknown phenomena in the discussion than there used to be -- none defined to the extent that they produce a testable hypothesis!

 

[Mendel]

Broadly, yeah, but individually (by case) we do all the time, and try to test our hypotheses. "Could this UFO report/pic/video have been generated by flaring Starlink satellites," that can be tested at least to the point of seeing if it is possible/plausible -- are there Starlinks there, aligned to flare, at the time and place, etc?

yes, because it is a hypothesis about satellites, which we know exist

 

[JMartJr]

yes, because it is a hypothesis about satellites, which we know exist

I agree, things that we know exist are going to be in line ahead of things that we do not know exist when considering explanations! ^_^

And I'd agree that the difficulty of proving that a thing observed is in fact something not previously known to exist is that it also requires proving the new phenomenon exists, as well as that THIS case represents an example. This can be done simultaneously, such as proving that a new species exists by bring a specimen to the attention of science. UFO promoters have not been able to do anything analogous in over 50 years of "study."

 

[Mendel]

Maybe the CE5K folks should move on from trying to get them to hover in the far distance, or react to lasers, and instead try to get one to come home for dinner and a quick news conference.

I'd take a tissue sample, an in-flight magazine, or even one of their snacks.
Heck, even a stool sample would do.

 

[elvenwear]

I think perhaps the point is not that the tooth fairy is real that the tooth fairy hypothesis is testable and can, with careful research, be shown to not be the correct hypothesis for how coins get under pillows in exchange for teeth. UFO hypotheses lack this sort of test.

So we can rule out aliens taking the teeth.

 

[elvenwear]

I'd take a tissue sample, an in-flight magazine, or even one of their snacks.
Heck, even a stool sample would do.

Scat would prove or refute bigfoot, aliens, escaped panthers, the tooth fairy and so many more things as it contains DNA. We never see this proof.

 

[NightCat1337]

It would be interesting if somebody who knew about game coding and such could come up with a patch (or whatever the correct word is) that would insert some balloons into one of those simulations... in their copious free time...

I'm giving this a shot, since my reply started to get far too extended, I created it's separate thread/topic: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/building-a-balloon-mod-for-microsoft-flight-simulator-2020.13756/

 

[Rum]

I may need to re-listen to Alex Dietrich's chats with Mick to find quotes, but I could swear that she explained that the reason she supports the efforts of Ryan Graves is in large part because naval aviators like them and their colleagues are specifically not trained observers.

Apologies for taking so long to provide timestamps.

At 46:55 of Dietrich's first chat with Mick ("Alex Dietrich - The Nimitz Event Summary, Time Differences, and Other Accounts") she covers some of the things she now wishes she had been trained to observe in case she should ever find herself in such an unexpected situation.

At 58:00 is of Dietrich's 2nd chat with Mick ("TFTRH #57 - Alex Dietrich: Clouds, Critical Thinking, and UFOs") she details the lack of procedures/training provided by the navy (in her time) in order to prepare aviators specifically for unexpected encounters.

There's also a passage from about 12:57 of Dietrich's conversation on the "Alex Dietrich, US Navy Pilot Lt. Cmdr (Ret) - Hearings Reaction" episode of That UFO Podcast in which Dietrich covers similar ground.