Too much cred given to military/police/pilots sometimes

[Creepy Green Light]

When I'm reading an article or watching a documentary about UFO's - sometimes I think the author or narrator gives too much automatic credit to military type personnel and pilots. I worked with and flew with a lot of people in the U.S. Navy where on a personnel level I would think to myself "This person is a moron & doofus - how'd he get into a position to pilot my plane?" Some personnel I worked with, people who didn't fly (referred to as ground pounders) were as bright as a bag full of rocks. One guy in particular was so "special" my bosses made it clear that he is in no way, shape or form to get near a weapon (we were in charge of and loaded all types of bombs, rockets, mines, nuclear depth bombs, etc.) or the aircraft itself. My boss would give him "office work" to do. So in this example, I would laugh if there was a UFO encounter and the person I'm talking about was the eyewitness. The narrator would go on to say "he makes an excellent eyewitness because he's been in the U.S. Navy for 5 years." And most people would buy that because it probably makes sense.

A good friend of mine that used to be an enlisted guy in the Navy (ground pounder) ended up retiring as a Blackhawk pilot in the Army and now he is a civilian medivac pilot. I asked him how he went from enlisted in the Navy to an Army helicopter pilot. He told me that he applied for Aircrewman Candidate School while still in the Navy (where I went). From there he was assigned to a helicopter squadron as a crewman. He said while not all of the time, but lots of times while flying he would say to himself "these two pilots that are flying us around right now are complete idiots. If they can become a helicopter pilot, then I sure as hell can." So he transferred to the Army, became a Warrant Officer, then helicopter pilot.

I guess my point is I worked with and met all types of people. Super smart, professional people - to complete idiot morons that could have been doubles for the cast of Animal House. So just because someone's military, I don't give it anymore credence then if it's the local UPS driver.

BTW - I always like how many narrators say "as a pilot or crewman they are 'trained observers.'" I spent over 2000 hrs in the P-3C and completed all types of training and schools, including nuclear weapons loading school in Brunswick, ME. I went through ZERO "observation training". And on top of that, my station in the P-3C was crew station 9. Which is labeled "aft observer" (along with crew station 10).

 

[Ron Away]

Same in the police.I worked with detectives who couldn't find their arse in the dark and an officer who mistook an m&m for an ecstasy tablet!

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Same in the police.I worked with detectives who couldn't find their arse in the dark and an officer who mistook an m&m for an ecstasy tablet!

Lol - I believe it. You just reminded me of Petty Officer first class that was drunk at my friends house during a party. He came out of the bathroom in a rage with something in his hand. He got everyones attention and announced "Who is going to fess up to this? I know what it is!" And we were like "huh, what?". He shows it to me and my friend and says "you guys think Im stupid? I found this behind the toilet." You don't think I don't know what this?"

My friend says, "Um, John....that's a dried out piece of defecation combined with dried out toilet paper. Our toilet clogged yesterday and we had to plunge it. We unclogged it but it ended up overflowing."

Everyone started crying laughing once they realized what he was holding in his hand. While he was still trying to bust someone for smoking pot, he held it up to his nose to smell it.

Good one John! You are an excellent "trained observer"! Keep up the good detective work!

 

[Ron Away]

Gives a new meaning to smoking some good shit!

 

[Randall]

Some good comments. Obviously each case needs to be taken into consideration based on its own merit. I look at it this way: All things being equal, a pilot is used to observing things in the sky whereas most people aren't. So we're looking at a general class of witnesses that are generally speaking more reliable. Despite your personal experiences, military pilots, particularly the "top gun" type have to go through intensive testing and training. Their reflexes, intelligence, and performance under stress are all tested to the limit. So sure, there are going to be some exceptions in the lower ranks someplace, but you would have a tough time convincing me that it represents the norm, or that we should assume that mine workers and pilots are equally as credible regarding what goes on in the sky.

 

[Ron Away]

Some good comments. Obviously each case needs to be taken into consideration based on its own merit. I look at it this way: All things being equal, a pilot is used to observing things in the sky whereas most people aren't. So we're looking at a general class of witnesses that are generally speaking more reliable. Despite your personal experiences, military pilots, particularly the "top gun" type have to go through intensive testing and training. Their reflexes, intelligence, and performance under stress are all tested to the limit. So sure, there are going to be some exceptions in the lower ranks someplace, but you would have a tough time convincing me that it represents the norm, or that we should assume that mine workers and pilots are equally as credible regarding what goes on in the sky.

You are right,we should judge everyone individually.There is however a propensity for people to believe certain groups are more reliable than others.I agree a top gun pilot will certainly be above the norm but I hear people say police and others are trained observers.In 20 years I received no such training.Look for clues,patterns,body language etcetera but observing these things came with experience.If I saw an anomaly in the sky my observations would be no more accurate than your ordinary member of the public.Don't get me wrong I'm sure some people are seeing and describing accurately possible ufos I just think credibility isn't necessarily connected to how they earn a living.(some pilots as you've rightly pointed out being the exception)

 

[Randall]

You are right,we should judge everyone individually.There is however a propensity for people to believe certain groups are more reliable than others.I agree a top gun pilot will certainly be above the norm but I hear people say police and others are trained observers.In 20 years I received no such training.Look for clues,patterns,body language etcetera but observing these things came with experience.If I saw an anomaly in the sky my observations would be no more accurate than your ordinary member of the public.Don't get me wrong I'm sure some people are seeing and describing accurately possible ufos I just think credibility isn't necessarily connected to how they earn a living.(some pilots as you've rightly pointed out being the exception)

There's also a flipside on this. There are eminently well qualified individuals of high intelligence who are taken seriously for their criticism of the UFO phenomenon, when in fact those people may have insufficient knowledge in ufology to make an accurate assessment. Case in point: Edward Condon ( of the Condon Committee ). So a well versed ufologist can actually have more cred in the field than a so-called expert with no ufology background.

 

[Ron Away]

Very good point.It has to work both ways.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Case in point; a pilot with "20 years of aviation experience" was stumped by the great Morristown, NJ UFO Hoax. The best is Bill Birnes saying that it CANNOT be flares on balloons because they used balloons & flares in an experiment and it did not look like what was on video. And then Bill going on to say how he can make out a solid object between the points of lights - lol. No Bill, there is no solid object there. It's balloons & flares. Whoever said it's time to take off the sunglasses while indoors is correct.

 

[truthseeker]

When I'm reading an article or watching a documentary about UFO's - sometimes I think the author or narrator gives too much automatic credit to military type personnel and pilots. I worked with and flew with a lot of people in the U.S. Navy where on a personnel level I would think to myself "This person is a moron & doofus - how'd he get into a position to pilot my plane?" Some personnel I worked with, people who didn't fly (referred to as ground pounders) were as bright as a bag full of rocks. One guy in particular was so "special" my bosses made it clear that he is in no way, shape or form to get near a weapon (we were in charge of and loaded all types of bombs, rockets, mines, nuclear depth bombs, etc.) or the aircraft itself. My boss would give him "office work" to do. So in this example, I would laugh if there was a UFO encounter and the person I'm talking about was the eyewitness. The narrator would go on to say "he makes an excellent eyewitness because he's been in the U.S. Navy for 5 years." And most people would buy that because it probably makes sense.

A good friend of mine that used to be an enlisted guy in the Navy (ground pounder) ended up retiring as a Blackhawk pilot in the Army and now he is a civilian medivac pilot. I asked him how he went from enlisted in the Navy to an Army helicopter pilot. He told me that he applied for Aircrewman Candidate School while still in the Navy (where I went). From there he was assigned to a helicopter squadron as a crewman. He said while not all of the time, but lots of times while flying he would say to himself "these two pilots that are flying us around right now are complete idiots. If they can become a helicopter pilot, then I sure as hell can." So he transferred to the Army, became a Warrant Officer, then helicopter pilot.

I guess my point is I worked with and met all types of people. Super smart, professional people - to complete idiot morons that could have been doubles for the cast of Animal House. So just because someone's military, I don't give it anymore credence then if it's the local UPS driver.

BTW - I always like how many narrators say "as a pilot or crewman they are 'trained observers.'" I spent over 2000 hrs in the P-3C and completed all types of training and schools, including nuclear weapons loading school in Brunswick, ME. I went through ZERO "observation training". And on top of that, my station in the P-3C was crew station 9. Which is labeled "aft observer" (along with crew station 10).

I hear your point Creepy Green Light and I know there are all kinds of people when it comes to military aviation. But having said that, and granted I don't know the kind of selection and training Army helicopter pilots have to go through, to be come a NAVY or Marine carrier pilot is a daunting task to say the least, with years and years of training. It's not something you can fake, where in every carrier landing you're one mistake away from being dead. I'm not just talking about Top Gun guys, those are a whole class in itself. I'd certainly give a lot of credence to these guys when it comes to observing.

 

[Randall]

Case in point; a pilot with "20 years of aviation experience" was stumped by the great Morristown, NJ UFO Hoax. The best is Bill Birnes saying that it CANNOT be flares on balloons because they used balloons & flares in an experiment and it did not look like what was on video. And then Bill going on to say how he can make out a solid object between the points of lights - lol. No Bill, there is no solid object there. It's balloons & flares. Whoever said it's time to take off the sunglasses while indoors is correct.

Oh man, don't get me going on BB. There were some interesting spots in some of the UFO Hunters episodes, but he's also a perfect example of why just because someone has some background in ufology, doesn't mean that everything they say should be believed either. This is why I tend to get criticism from both sides. The UFO deniers make me out to be a "UFO nut" and the believers make me out to be too much of a skeptic. I suspect you run into the same issue from time to time, but it's also one of the reasons I like your posts.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Oh man, don't get me going on BB. There were some interesting spots in some of the UFO Hunters episodes, but he's also a perfect example of why just because someone has some background in ufology, doesn't mean that everything they say should be believed either. This is why I tend to get criticism from both sides. The UFO deniers make me out to be a "UFO nut" and the believers make me out to be too much of a skeptic. I suspect you run into the same issue from time to time, but it's also one of the reasons I like your posts.

You're correct, I do get a lot of the same comments. When I used to watch UFO Hunters with my wife, I'd complain to her that BB would believe anything. I could throw in the air one of my Vans sneakers and a handful of ball bearings, film it, and BB would be convinced it's a mother ship releasing tiny orbs out of it. The guy has always been (IMO) way too gullible. Sometimes I'd think to myself "Gosh, he doesn't REALLY believe that, right? It must just be for TV that he's saying that...."

I wish there was a serious UFO Hunters-type show on the air now. Something that was believable & credible without the typical "reality show" type editing and narrating.

 

[Randall]

You're correct, I do get a lot of the same comments. When I used to watch UFO Hunters with my wife, I'd complain to her that BB would believe anything. I could throw in the air one of my Vans sneakers and a handful of ball bearings, film it, and BB would be convinced it's a mother ship releasing tiny orbs out of it. The guy has always been (IMO) way too gullible. Sometimes I'd think to myself "Gosh, he doesn't REALLY believe that, right? It must just be for TV that he's saying that...."

I wish there was a serious UFO Hunters-type show on the air now. Something that was believable & credible without the typical "reality show" type editing and narrating.

Couldn't agree more. The one MUFON has going is OK sometimes, but IMO nobody has done it right yet. One of the biggest problems remains the lack of funding and really solid stories. There are maybe a handful of really interesting and seemingly credible stories, that together with the right dramatization, special effects and realism, could make for the best documentary ever made, but it would take guys like us ( including Chris and Gene ) to be in charge! LOL You know that idea is actually less crazy than it sounds. Gene would make an excellent narrator, Chris is nobody's fool, and we've got the right attitude. Now we just need Mr. or Ms. Moneybags to get it off the ground.

 

[DaveM]

I was always put off by the 'Bill Birnes persona.' First was those stupid sunglasses. Second was the attitude, 'I know more than you do.' I always chocked it up to 'small man syndrome.'

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Couldn't agree more. The one MUFON has going is OK sometimes, but IMO nobody has done it right yet. One of the biggest problems remains the lack of funding and really solid stories. There are maybe a handful of really interesting and seemingly credible stories, that together with the right dramatization, special effects and realism, could make for the best documentary ever made, but it would take guys like us ( including Chris and Gene ) to be in charge! LOL You know that idea is actually less crazy than it sounds. Gene would make an excellent narrator, Chris is nobody's fool, and we've got the right attitude. Now we just need Mr. or Ms. Moneybags to get it off the ground.

Ditto. You know somethings wrong when the best documentary out there is from 1979 (UFO's Are Real). The one ground rule for any new documentary would be "DO NOT even whisper the word ROSWELL". I've mentioned this before, but one case that I wish there was more documentation on and more reenactments on is the Coyne helicopter case.

And BTW - anybody else have their bubble burst when the show "Chasing UFO's" finally aired? What a let down that thing was. When I first started seeing the commercials for it, I was excited. The premise sounded great. But once it actually aired....ugh.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I was always put off by the 'Bill Birnes persona.' First was those stupid sunglasses. Second was the attitude, 'I know more than you do.' I always chocked it up to 'small man syndrome.'

Agreed. The only thing I can think of (regarding the sunglasses) is that he's got something wrong with his eyes. I noticed when they are off, he blinks his eyes in an awkward way. But between the aviator sunglasses, leather flight jacket with patches, ball cap......c'mon, gimme a break.

 

[Randall]

Ditto. You know somethings wrong when the best documentary out there is from 1979 (UFO's Are Real). The one ground rule for any new documentary would be "DO NOT even whisper the word ROSWELL". I've mentioned this before, but one case that I wish there was more documentation on and more reenactments on is the Coyne helicopter case.

And BTW - anybody else have their bubble burst when the show "Chasing UFO's" finally aired? What a let down that thing was. When I first started seeing the commercials for it, I was excited. The premise sounded great. But once it actually aired....ugh.

Roswell is a good case, but it's already been done to death. I don't know how much more it would benefit anyone to see another re-enactment. The Coyne case is definitely interesting, as are a number of obscure cases, like the daylight radar/visual/interceptor chase Ruppelt mentions, and the classic '52 DC interceptor chase. But my fear would of course be that it would all start out great and then the budget would get slashed and we'd end up with lousy 3rd rate special effects, fake sets, and Grade B actors, and it would suck as much as the rest. Still fun to imagine though