UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[FlexGunship]

I think the point of contention was that military reports do logically carry much more weight than do random reports on the internet, for example, but they are still anecdotal evidence for the claims made. In many cases we have professionals whose job it was to monitor our skies acting in an official capacity.

Ivan, I think you're right in saying that this is the "point of contention." However, I'd like to point to a different reason why the exact same thing can still be our point of contention.

I accept the premise that "not all reports are created equally." They come from different sources under very different circumstances. But, I deny the premise that "not all reporters were created equally."

I don't mean that in a shallow "we all see green as green" way. I mean that we are all biased by our own observations; we think that because we are seeing it, it must be the exception to the rule. The problem with military reports is that these are people who are trained ad nauseum to be confident in their observations. These are precisely the people most equipped to deal us a bad hand. Furthermore, even if they realize the error in their reporting, it would severely compromise their credibility if they were to admit it. It's a perfect storm of social and cognitive biases.

Statistics suggest that there should be tons of alien encounter stories, and in practice there are tons of alien encounter stories. This is known as Fermi's-Lack-of-a-Paradox.​

(Source: http://xkcd.com/718/)

(Note: Please pardon the fact that this comic is titled "The Flake Equation." It comes across as an insult, and I don't mean it as such. I just like the equation; I didn't add the title myself.)

 

[nismaratwork]

Ivan, I think you're right in saying that this is the "point of contention." However, I'd like to point to a different reason why the exact same thing can still be our point of contention.

I accept the premise that "not all reports are created equally." They come from different sources under very different circumstances. But, I deny the premise that "not all reporters were created equally."

I don't mean that in a shallow "we all see green as green" way. I mean that we are all biased by our own observations; we think that because we are seeing it, it must be the exception to the rule. The problem with military reports is that these are people who are trained ad nauseum to be confident in their observations. These are precisely the people most equipped to deal us a bad hand. Furthermore, even if they realize the error in their reporting, it would severely compromise their credibility if they were to admit it. It's a perfect storm of social and cognitive biases.

Statistics suggest that there should be tons of alien encounter stories, and in practice there are tons of alien encounter stories. This is known as Fermi's-Lack-of-a-Paradox.​

(Source: http://xkcd.com/718/)

(Note: Please pardon the fact that this comic is titled "The Flake Equation." It comes across as an insult, and I don't mean it as such. I just like the equation; I didn't add the title myself.)

I sent that 'equation' to my surviving great-aunt, who has an amazing sense of humor. I got this reply: "I wet myself!".

That's pretty good man!

I think it's human nature to feel assured that WE at least, or THEY, aren't subject to the same flaws in human observation and interpretation than 'WE' are. It seems the collective we also likes to ignore that the USA has 2 things:

1.) An unusually high incidence of pilots reporting UFO sightings!
2.) The only air-force that not only allows, but practically mandates the use of dextroamphetamine ("go pills"... right?).

So, our under-rested pilots who are on amphetamines (good for a fight, bad for UFO spotting!) and often entering or leaving a combat theater see things. What. A. Shock. It's a testament to the quality of training in the air force, and the controls on the use of "go pills", that so few pilots have reported seeing things.

As for RADAR operators... they represent a minority of the population who spends their work-day scanning a given region for SOMETHING. UFOs, on RADAR isn't unusual... is that a vulture or an eagle... well, it's not a threat and it doesn't appear to act in a physically impossible manner, so nothing. Like cold reading, the entire concept is rigged to remember and emphasize supposed hits, while ignoring a galaxy of misses. A SONAR operator would laugh!... of course the job of an operator is to screen for a signal in noise.

Too bad humans STINK at that... where there's noise we hear signals.

 

[FlexGunship]

Like cold reading, the entire concept is rigged to remember and emphasize supposed hits, while ignoring a galaxy of misses. A SONAR operator would laugh!... of course the job of an operator is to screen for a signal in noise.

Not all sonar operators would laugh.

http://www.alien-ufos.com/ufo-alien...fied-submerged-objects-usos-2.html#post365346

 

[nismaratwork]

Not all sonar operators would laugh.

http://www.alien-ufos.com/ufo-alien...fied-submerged-objects-usos-2.html#post365346

Wow... I just had a true face-palm moment there. No other description... face-in-hand... big sigh.

I shall rephrase for those sonar operators who are being hunted by water-aliens (aka sea life): All SONAR operators you'd actually WANT with you for 3+ months under enough water to crush you like a bug under a ship-plate.


We've BARELY mapped the life in the depths of the ocean some of which is BIG... and this is what we get?! @&@*^^!@*#!. Oh man... let me rephrase again: All SONAR operators not currently undergoing ECT for catatonic psychosis...

 

[FlexGunship]

It just shows you that there's literally no end to how wrong we can be about something no matter how sure we are about it.

 

[nismaratwork]

It just shows you that there's literally no end to how wrong we can be about something no matter how sure we are about it.

This literally popped into my head upon reading your post; I have no excuse.

"True dat!"

Hooo boy... more sleep old boy... must get more sleep.

 

[FlexGunship]

"True dat!"

Hooo boy... more sleep old boy... must get more sleep.

Werd. Muh homez be lackin' Z's like an amatuer Scrabble game.

 

[nismaratwork]

Werd. Muh homez be lackin' Z's like an amatuer Scrabble game.

Yeah... I really have no excuse.

 

[alt]

It just shows you that there's literally no end to how wrong we can be about something no matter how sure we are about it.

Ah So !

And certainly, no one could be excluded from that - least of all you and Nismaratwork.

You know, I've often observed that the more one is convinced of some inalieable truth, the more likely they are to have some degree of bias and and error.

 

[nismaratwork]

Ah So !

And certainly, no one could be excluded from that - least of all you and Nismaratwork.

You know, I've often observed that the more one is convinced of some inalieable truth, the more likely they are to have some degree of bias and and error.

I'm sorry... did I claim some kind of observational powers that other humans don't have?

 

[alt]

I'm sorry... did I claim some kind of observational powers that other humans don't have?

No, you didn't. My reply was to Flex's which you seemed to agree with following his. But I shouldn't have included you in my reply. My bad - sorry.

 

[nismaratwork]

No, you didn't. My reply was to Flex's which you seemed to agree with following his. But I shouldn't have included you in my reply. My bad - sorry.

I don't believe Flex has ascribed superhuman powers of observation to himself either, but I won't get in the middle of that. Apology accepted... I've made much dumber moves here on PF... just ask a mentor. *wince*.

 

[alt]

I don't believe Flex has ascribed superhuman powers of observation to himself either, but I won't get in the middle of that. Apology accepted... I've made much dumber moves here on PF... just ask a mentor. *wince*.

OK - but please note, I didn't say Flex ascribed superhuman powers to himself. Those were your words. I replied to his ..

It just shows you that there's literally no end to how wrong we can be about something no matter how sure we are about it.

.. by pointing out that no one can be excluded from it (except me, of course) :-)

 

[FlexGunship]

Ugh, this conversation is degrading again! C'mon guys. I never got any answers, actually... has anyone else read this book other than Ivan and myself?

 

[alt]

Ugh, this conversation is degrading again ..

Agree. Check out post 569 for instance.

 

[FlexGunship]

Agree. Check out post 569 for instance.

Momentary departures from conversation for the sake of humor or as an expression of greater humanity are common place. The ability to recognize an opening in a conversation to inject some nuance of gaiety is not somehow implicitly anti-conversational!

However, dragging the conversation significantly off-topic to avoid a point is bad form. I asked a question to revive the discussion since we went into the weeds and you intentionally avoided it. My post followed the standard form of "<observation> <question>" and you responded to the observation instead of the question.

EDIT: How about, before the end of the day, we all post pictures of ourselves with our copies of the book?

 

[alt]

Momentary departures from conversation for the sake of humor or as an expression of greater humanity are common place. The ability to recognize an opening in a conversation to inject some nuance of gaiety is not somehow implicitly anti-conversational!

However, dragging the conversation significantly off-topic to avoid a point is bad form. I asked a question to revive the discussion since we went into the weeds and you intentionally avoided it. My post followed the standard form of "<observation> <question>" and you responded to the observation instead of the question.

EDIT: How about, before the end of the day, we all post pictures of ourselves with our copies of the book?

You said the conversation had degraded. I gave you an example where it had. The second part of your point about anyone having read the book, wasn't my consideration. But in any case, no, I haven't read it. If that was the matter that interested you specifically about me, I would have replied directly had you been more specific.

 

[nismaratwork]

OK - but please note, I didn't say Flex ascribed superhuman powers to himself. Those were your words. I replied to his ..

It just shows you that there's literally no end to how wrong we can be about something no matter how sure we are about it.

.. by pointing out that no one can be excluded from it (except me, of course) :-)

Where is the "except [Flex]"? I just see uses of "we" to specifically make the point that EVERYONE is included? I don't know if you two have some personal problem, but I don't think this is the place to hash it out.

 

[alt]

Where is the "except [Flex]"? I just see uses of "we" to specifically make the point that EVERYONE is included? I don't know if you two have some personal problem, but I don't think this is the place to hash it out.

Arghh .. No, it was an attempt at humor, on my part. I didn't mean Flex - I meant me. Look;

.. by pointing out that no one can be excluded from it (except me, of course) :-)

See the smiley thing [ :-) ] ?

Meaning, kind of .. everybody thinks they're always right, but really, there's no end to how wrong they all can be .. except for me, ie, I'm always right ..

Self depreciating humor to make an ironic point ..

 

[nismaratwork]

Ah... the internet strikes again... it happens.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

For what it's worth, I worked for Col Charles I. Halt for a year several years after the incident recounted in Kean's book. The man's a good manager, not prone to flights of fancy, and is about as pragmatic as you could ask for. If he said he saw something that wasn't made or operated with any known technology, I'd bet on him and not any nay sayers.

 

[mugaliens]

For what it's worth, I worked for Col Charles I. Halt for a year several years after the incident recounted in Kean's book. The man's a good manager, not prone to flights of fancy, and is about as pragmatic as you could ask for. If he said he saw something that wasn't made or operated with any known technology, I'd bet on him and not any nay sayers.

Having spent 20+ years in our military's service, and having seen many things, 99.99999 explainable, I wish you and Col Charles I. well as he huddles around his deck-bound fireplace.

Who else doesn't recognize this fatalistic pattern, here? "Nope! I know what I saw! I'll not recant, neither will I provided any additional information by which you might prove me wrong!"

Phooey. Beware those who attempt to capitalize on their "sighting." History long ago confirmed they're simply out there to make a buck.

For what it's worth, I worked for Col Charles I. Halt for a year several years after the incident recounted in Kean's book. The man's a good manager, not prone to flights of fancy, and is about as pragmatic as you could ask for. If he said he saw something that wasn't made or operated with any known technology, I'd bet on him and not any nay sayers.

Fair enough, but bad bet. I hope you didn't put any money towards it.

 

[nismaratwork]

Having spent 20+ years in our military's service, and having seen many things, 99.99999 explainable, I wish you and Col Charles I. well as he huddles around his deck-bound fireplace.

Who else doesn't recognize this fatalistic pattern, here? "Nope! I know what I saw! I'll not recant, neither will I provided any additional information by which you might prove me wrong!"

Phooey. Beware those who attempt to capitalize on their "sighting." History long ago confirmed they're simply out there to make a buck.



Fair enough, but bad bet. I hope you didn't put any money towards it.

Indeed... its like betting against everyone you know never cheating on a lover or spouse; you dont' want to think it's going ot happen... it's going to happen. Good people are not saints, and pragmatic people still fall to the extraordinary. This is what makes Skepticism so critical to a meaningful investigation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I had a few minutes to pop in and in saw this.

Having spent 20+ years in our military's service, and having seen many things, 99.99999 explainable, I wish you and Col Charles I. well as he huddles around his deck-bound fireplace.

Who else doesn't recognize this fatalistic pattern, here? "Nope! I know what I saw! I'll not recant, neither will I provided any additional information by which you might prove me wrong!"

There were multiple witnesses and official military reports. Are you suggesting that a [then] Lt Colonel in charge of a nuclear weapons base, filed a false report so that he could capilalize on it thirty years later; having no way to know the information would even be public? We didn't even have the Freedom of Information Act at that time, so he had no way to know it ever would or could later be public information.

Do you actually know anything about this case or are you just spouting opinions? Based on your response, you seem to be speaking out of ignorance.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no need to assume deception or greed, Ivan - it is more reasonable to assume the vast majority of people who claim they have seen or may have seen alien spacecraft are simply mistaken.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is no need to assume deception or greed, Ivan - it is more reasonable to assume the vast majority of people who claim they have seen or may have seen alien spacecraft are simply mistaken.

He never makes any such claim.

Again we see the fallacy that UFO means alien. Let's stick with the facts please.

 

[russ_watters]

Besides being wrong, Ivan, way to miss my point.

"I believe the objects that I saw at close quarter were extraterrestrial in origin..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I._Halt

Again we see the fallacy presented backwards!

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree with Russ on this one...

 

[Dr_Zinj]

Well of course he's trying to make a buck. I'm not going to begrudge him that. So's the kid who broke the unwritten rules against hiking and climbing solo and had to hack his own arm off after being trapped for a few days. At least the Colonel isn't capitalizing on an act of abject stupidity.

Last I heard, Mr Halt was a general manager of a gated retirement community down south. I doubt he's merely huddling somewhere, and certainly not around a deck-bound fireplace. I said I worked for, not that I was his close drinking buddy. I'm a bit disappointed in you mugaliens, the fact that you take a swipe in what amounts to an ad hominem attack on him seems to indicate a lack of sincere scholarship and objectivity on your part.

It's human nature to tell stories about things that happen to you. And yes, often times they have embellishments added; although in this case, at least it's not about hoop snakes, a big blue ox, or a cowboy riding a cyclone. It's a well known and respected tradition for a retired military guy to be bought a drink as he recounts stories of his service days. Which is about what Col Halt is doing.

I'm convinced there was something actually at and around Bentwaters/Woodbridge those nights. That there were lights in the woods and in the air not attributable to landmarks like the Oxford lighthouse, or to aircraft. I'm even willing to accept that Penniston and his partner actually encountered the craft they describe, and that it didn't match any widely known technology AT THAT TIME.

I doubt the craft was extra-terrestrial in origin. What I really think is that they encountered an advanced, un-piloted drone surveillence platform that wasn't functioning properly that had been sent into spy on the installation. No jet engines, no propellers, triagular, metallic skin, some lights on it. May or may not have left radioactive traces on the landing site. May have caused burn marks on the trees next to the landing site.

How about a craft powered by a nuclear source to provide electricity such as used for satellites? Remember the one that crashed in Canada a couple decades ago? And what if this particular craft used a Biefeld–Brown effect for levitation and propulsion? Discharges into the trees would cause burn marks. If I lost control of the craft, and noticed two enlisted guys were next to it. I'd probably wait to power it up only after they had gotten far enough away to take off without electrocuting them. And I'd fly that thing out of there as soon as possible to prevent it from falling into their hands permanently. Purely human activity with advanced technology not seen or understood by more than a handful of people at the time, being used for cold war spying on nuclear facilities. Yeah, sounds like a James Bond story, but a lot more beleiveable than ETs. AND definitely a threat to national security.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well of course he's trying to make a buck. I'm not going to begrudge him that. So's the kid who broke the unwritten rules against hiking and climbing solo and had to hack his own arm off after being trapped for a few days. At least the Colonel isn't capitalizing on an act of abject stupidity.

Hmmm... is there any response to that which WOULDN'T sound like an insult?

Last I heard, Mr Halt was a general manager of a gated retirement community down south. I doubt he's merely huddling somewhere, and certainly not around a deck-bound fireplace. I said I worked for, not that I was his close drinking buddy. I'm a bit disappointed in you mugaliens, the fact that you take a swipe in what amounts to an ad hominem attack on him seems to indicate a lack of sincere scholarship and objectivity on your part.

Or experience...

It's human nature to tell stories about things that happen to you. And yes, often times they have embellishments added; although in this case, at least it's not about hoop snakes, a big blue ox, or a cowboy riding a cyclone. It's a well known and respected tradition for a retired military guy to be bought a drink as he recounts stories of his service days. Which is about what Col Halt is doing.

It's also human nature to lie, even when it isn't rational.

I'm convinced there was something actually at and around Bentwaters/Woodbridge those nights. That there were lights in the woods and in the air not attributable to landmarks like the Oxford lighthouse, or to aircraft. I'm even willing to accept that Penniston and his partner actually encountered the craft they describe, and that it didn't match any widely known technology AT THAT TIME.

You've now told us what you believe, but with nothing new to support it. You reveal your fundamental argument to be an appeal to authority which confirms your beliefs.

I doubt the craft was extra-terrestrial in origin. What I really think is that they encountered an advanced, un-piloted drone surveillence platform that wasn't functioning properly that had been sent into spy on the installation. No jet engines, no propellers, triagular, metallic skin, some lights on it. May or may not have left radioactive traces on the landing site. May have caused burn marks on the trees next to the landing site.

How about a craft powered by a nuclear source to provide electricity such as used for satellites? Remember the one that crashed in Canada a couple decades ago? And what if this particular craft used a Biefeld–Brown effect for levitation and propulsion? Discharges into the trees would cause burn marks. If I lost control of the craft, and noticed two enlisted guys were next to it. I'd probably wait to power it up only after they had gotten far enough away to take off without electrocuting them. And I'd fly that thing out of there as soon as possible to prevent it from falling into their hands permanently. Purely human activity with advanced technology not seen or understood by more than a handful of people at the time, being used for cold war spying on nuclear facilities. Yeah, sounds like a James Bond story, but a lot more beleiveable than ETs. AND definitely a threat to national security.

Meaningless speculation unless you have anything like a source or even hint to support that. I'd go so far as to say that you're pushing guidelines or breaking them.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

Not off topic as this is a thread discussing a book on UFO sightings.

Meaningless speculation? Au contraire monsieur! UFO debunking requires that we prove the witnesses saw nothing, or misinterpreted what they saw. We are technology students given a situation and required to reproduce that situation using known technology. Since nobody is saying that Halt & Co. didn't actually see anything, then we must proceed with the postulate that they misinterpreted what they saw.

Was what they saw a hoax? Possibly. One man even admits to configuring the lights on his truck as a joke. Which, while that might explain lights in the woods, does nothing to explain lights in the air or radar traces. Add to the fact that the timing of his "prank" can't be tied chronologically to the Rendlesham events, and that makes him an unlikely candidate. Were the two airmen hallucinating? I don't know. I'd love to know if they were subjected to any drug testing. Since the security police had frequent random drug tests, I'm inclined to discount illegal drug use induced hallucinations on their part. Highly doubtful they would have called the colonel away from the party if they were doing something they shouldn't have been that night. Which you should know from your own military experiences.

So what does that leave us? ETs just doesn't cut it with Occam's Razor. Which leaves us with technology, possibly not widely known or exploited as our weapon. As for motive, this was the cold war, plenty of motive then.

Of course there's nothing new to support it. Testable evidence about a transient past event always decreases with the passage of time. There was a fatal car crash at the end of my street several years ago. Lots of people saw it. But go back there today and you won't find any evidence of it. Even the woman's body buried in a cemetary somewhere doesn't count as absolute proof of that particular accident anymore. Evidence only exists in written reports and the memories of the authorities there at the time. Truly, only an appeal to authority works.

I am fully aware of the guidelines and the fact that the Biefeld–Brown effect is NOT a valid space-propulsion effect, does not work in a vaccuum, and has no proven gravitational effect. However, electrohydrodynamics (EHD) IS proven technology. It does work quite well in the atmosphere, and especially at air densities close to sea-level, as the Bentwaters/Woodbridge area enjoys. People have been building model airplane-sized lifters all over the world. And what is a small, unmanned surveillence drone other than a souped up model airplane?

Why build one that way for spying? Probably because it isn't what anyone would expect or prepare against. I haven't built one myself, but the designs of it look like it ought to be quieter than an internal combustion engine or a normal jet engine, no matter how small you scale it.

This IS a Physics Forum. Provide real examples of why something could or could not occur. Well sirs, I stipulate that I have presented a situation that could be constructed by any university students today, and could have been constructed by an interested government several decades ago that would have accounted for the incident at Rendlesham Forest.

 

[nismaratwork]

Not off topic as this is a thread discussing a book on UFO sightings.

Meaningless speculation? Au contraire monsieur! UFO debunking requires that we prove the witnesses saw nothing, or misinterpreted what they saw. <SNIP>

Please research: Burden of Proof, in law, science and skepticism. I'll read the rest of your post later.

edit: To your last point, you're right, but the person making the claim is the one who has to prove things. Sorry, but you should read the guidelines for this forum in general, and S&D in particular. Only you are hurting yourself now.

 

[berkeman]

Not off topic as this is a thread discussing a book on UFO sightings.

Meaningless speculation? Au contraire monsieur! UFO debunking requires that we prove the witnesses saw nothing, or misinterpreted what they saw.

(snip)

This IS a Physics Forum. Provide real examples of why something could or could not occur. Well sirs, I stipulate that I have presented a situation that could be constructed by any university students today, and could have been constructed by an interested government several decades ago that would have accounted for the incident at Rendlesham Forest.

No, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the ones debunking the claim. As nismar says in his reply. I find your proposed scenario interesting, but without proof (which I think we all acknowledge will be hard to come by), it is still just speculation.

Please research: Burden of Proof, in law, science and skepticism. I'll read the rest of your post later.

edit: To your last point, you're right, but the person making the claim is the one who has to prove things. Sorry, but you should read the guidelines for this forum in general, and S&D in particular. Only you are hurting yourself now.

 

[Physics-Learner]

it is only speculation ? the whole thread is about a topic that requires some speculation.

it is titled "Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record".

there are a few of these officials who claim to have seen aliens. while it is the opinion of some other officials that they are of et origin.

 

[nismaratwork]

it is only speculation ? the whole thread is about a topic that requires some speculation.

Yes... your point?

it is titled "Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record".

WHAT?! I thought this was the "cheese-cream soup" thread. I've been hoodwinked!

there are a few of these officials who claim to have seen aliens. while it is the opinion of some other officials that they are of et origin.

Right, but I'm still not getting your point. This is S&D, where speculation comes to die or pass on to the next phase of its existence.