UFO book based on questionable foundation

[jkoci]

The Dylan Ratigan interview with Kean is found at the top of the article but commentary below the video is dated today. Oberg does make some reasonable points.

UFO book based on questionable foundation - Technology & science - Space - msnbc.com

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Oberg seems to really have a hard-on for this book. I've been seeing his name pop up all over the place in relation to it, even in response to Amazon reviews. And although he avoids being a smartass like Magaha or Klass would be I can't say I like the underlying message behind his thesis: If there's a remote chance a UFO might be prosaic (And isn't there always a chance?) than who cares? I'm more of the persuasion that if there's a good chance it might be something extraordinary people should care. Seems like the "Give me a body or a saucer or shut up" argument all over again but presented in a kinder, gentler tone.

 

[NTS]

Quoting from the Oberg article that jkoci linked:

"Accepting every UFO claim uncritically or rejecting every claim automatically would be equally unjustified. And quite possibly, equally harmful."

A very reasonable attitude. And Oberg's discussion of the hidden biases in pilot testimony seems equally reasonable. I don't see why some posters here are putting him down as a nay-saying debunker.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

He brings up excellent points, and I especially agree with his assessment that we should not be close-minded to all explanations. That seems to be the case among UFO proponents in that the only explanation, and Kean says it in the interview, that these objects are not "ours." We can't discount that a witness may have made an error.

Oberg makes an excellent case as to why he believes that a pilot is not as good a witness as some people think they are. No one is saying that you have to agree with him, but he puts forth two studies that show that they are not. It is interesting. I'm sure that Leslie Kean has studies showing the exact opposite that are probably just as valid as the ones Oberg looked at. They each have a stake in the argument, so they will do their best to prove their points.

Both of them make excellent points, and I'm going to err on the side of caution and say that we really don't know the answers.

---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:00 PM ----------

Quoting from the Oberg article that jkoci linked:

"Accepting every UFO claim uncritically or rejecting every claim automatically would be equally unjustified. And quite possibly, equally harmful."

A very reasonable attitude. And Oberg's discussion of the hidden biases in pilot testimony seems equally reasonable. I don't see why some posters here are putting him down as a nay-saying debunker.

No one should disparage Oberg. He's a scientist with years of experience working with NASA. They don't need to agree with him, but they shouldn't say anything bad about him.

 

[stphrz]

Reasonable points yes. Unexplained does not mean unexplainable. Every event has an explanation.

However that does not mean the explanation is necessarily mundane. Every possible explanation needs to be carefully falsified. Even simple ones. Occam's Razor is probably the most misunderstood and misused concept in the history of concepts. It is absolutely not "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one."

In practice it goes like this:

When making a hypothesis you must falsify those things that can most easily be falsified first. Once you do that, only then can you ascribe a more complex explanation. It is a defence against unwarrented complexity ensuring that the hypothesis is more likely to be accurate.

The author's stance against automatic dismissal is refreshing though.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Oberg demolishes the frequently crowed idea that pilots make the best witnesses for UFOs. He cites the work of Hynek, which demonstrates that the opposite may well be true: pilots may be the worst kind of witness in terms of accurately identifying unknown objects in the sky.

Somehow I doubt any of this will sink in.

Lance

Demolishes? Ha ha, and believers get accused of overstating things. He presented an argument, I'll give him that. But so is the dilemma UFO proponents find themselves in. The latter is to present nothing short of indisputable proof or shut up, the former is rewarded with congratulatory remarks like "demolishes" for throwing a few decently written paragraphs at the fan.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

You're right Wickerman!

"weakens" would be more accurate. I overstated it.



Lance

P.S. I have always felt slighted that you didn't acknowledge my "gently Johnny" reference to The Wicker Man in a long ago post, sniff!

To be honest with you I don't even know what that reference means. Does it refer to the movie? I haven't seen it. Nor am I really knowledgeable about the folklore of the Wicker Man. I simply chose this nick because of an Iron Maiden (My favorite band) song.

 

[tyder001]

To be honest I don't care cause I don't have a real passionate posistion to defend concerning u.f.o.'s. But as we say in the south (well, I do anyway) DAYUM! What's to debunk? The ladie wrote a frickin book with "testimony." She didn't say "Hey this proves it and wraps it up!" She simply "reported" and made a point. Seems to me that anybody who has such a hard on as to "debunk" it is kind of sad. I mean "write your own damn book." Make your own points. But running behind somebody else who has done the grunt work and yelling makes ya look silly and petty.

 

[Ron Collins]

Demolishes? Ha ha, and believers get accused of overstating things. He presented an argument, I'll give him that. But so is the dilemma UFO proponents find themselves in. The latter is to present nothing short of indisputable proof or shut up, the former is rewarded with congratulatory remarks like "demolishes" for throwing a few decently written paragraphs at the fan.

Not to mention that he quotes the Russian study but doesn't provide a link to it. Just an article written by him on space.com again quoting the the study. I want to see it before I take his word on it's veracity. I would also like to see the breakdown of the numbers that Hynek used. I have also sent this article to the editor for AOPA magazine and asked him how he would respond to the notion.

 

[Ted Roe]

Oberg misses or ignores many important details. He doesn't discuss cases involving multiple witnesses and radar detections. He doesn't acknowledge that the UK MOD have resolved that UAP as described by witnesses exist based upon their analysis of their own cases that include radar and military detections. Nor does he acknowledge the various government research teams of the world or their expertise in these matters. He doesn't acknowledge that while the pilots of the 40s, 50s and 60s are not college educated and maybe are less reliable witnesses, todays pilots are college educated, for the most part, and there is no difference in the quality or the types of reports from the 40s right to the present. He fails to acknowledge that pilots have accurately reported unidentified aerial phenomena that science has since verified after a long and disdainful attitude about the reports themselves (Blue Jets). He certainly doesn't acknowledge the research that has validated the existence of UAP at Hessdalen and other sites nor the research that supports the existence of transient light phenomena probably related to siesmic activity. He simply attacks the witnesses while ignoring the evidence that supports their observations.

He isn't a pilot himself, he has no background in aviation or as an aviation accident investigator nor does he have an education or experience with perceptual psychology and human factors. He is not the last word on this by any stretch. His claim that Leslies book is based on a "questionable foundation" is pure theater intended to make his weak arguments relevant and buy him some time in the media. Obviously they are in agreement that these cases should be looked at further, he says as much, so what is the argument really about?

from my contribution to Project Sphere:

Pilots as Witnesses
The issue of the “quality” of a pilot as a UAP witness versus other types of UAP witnesses
is occasionally raised.
The nature of professional aviators has changed since WWII and today’s aircrew tend to be
both college educated and better trained. Indeed, a college degree is required to participate in
U.S. military aviation programs.
In reviewing interviews with pilots as UAP witnesses it is clear that they are aware of their
own perceptual shortcomings. Often they will refrain from presenting a clear estimate of
distance from the UAP or its size, for example, because they know that their ability to judge
distance and size while in the air is suspect. Pilots are aware that they are subject to perceptual
failings and that awareness seems to make them more conservative in their engagement of UAP
observations and reports
One might expect that higher education combined with a tangible fear of on-the-job
recrimination (Roe 2003) would produce a “quality” witness with a bias against reporting any
UAP observation or incident. Indeed, NARCAP has received many reports from aviation
professionals after they retire.
In reality, there is no real difference between a pilot witness and other types of witnesses. It
is the standardized approach to aviation incident investigations that are often supported by
radar data, voice and other recordings, air traffic controller involvement, etc. that make aviation
cases involving UAP particularly compelling.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Ted,

For issue being discussed, your post underlines the basic contention--pilots do not make better witnesses of UFOs than civilans. And yet we often hear the opposite among folks talking about UFOs (note the recent threads here).

Your entire first 2 paragraphs are unrelated to this issue.

Indeed Oberg cites actual studies that indicate the opposite may be true. Implying that he claimed to be the final word on the matter when he actually only cited evidence takes us into the realm of rhetoric (something I thought you eschewed).

Lance

Can you not at least admit that being in the air would put a pilot closer to a UFO? It seems to me that anyone in the air has a much better chance at getting a good look at one than someone on the ground does. Furthermore, if one elects to (But this would relate to military pilots more than commercial ones) they can move the jet/plane to get closer to it so long as the UFO doesn't maneuver away from them. And if it did wouldn't that in and of itself argue against a natural phenomenon?

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Yep. I can admit that.

It also takes them into clearer skies where common astronomical objects can work their illusions more effectively.

Let's get this straight: A clear sky makes something more difficult to identify than a muddled one does? Hmm, seems like a stretch to me.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Maybe. I don't know how people mistake Venus for a controlled craft. But they do. And they do it a lot.

While I don't have charts and graphs sitting in front of me to prove it I would guess that jumps-to-wild-conclusions regarding Venus are probably committed much more often by the general public than by pilots. It's not like Venus is new or rarely comes out to play. It's been there for billions of years and waves at us pretty frequently. Why would a pilot with years or even decades of experience suddenly get all excited about it to the extent that he files a report or contacts a UFO investigator? I don't doubt that it has happened but I just can't believe that it happens often. And Venus can't even begin to explain pilot sightings corroborated by radar. Unfortunately we don't have nearly as many radar/visual sightings as we should because of that damned filtering software that radar equipment uses.

 

[Ted Roe]

Pilots are often aware of their perceptual weaknesses. Investigators, particularly at the level of gov research teams like CEFAA and our group at NARCAP, are very aware of the common perceptual illusions and delusions suffered by aviators and routinely discard cases that lean towards that explanation.

The fact that the aviation industry is better trained and educated now than ever before and the investigative processes for engaging aviation incidents are mature as well has made no difference in the actual reports themselves. Pilots are reporting lights and objects today with the same qualities that were reported 40-60 years ago. So while the observer demographic has changed the stimuli for UAP reports remains the same.

It seems to me that Oberg wants to argue that pilots don't see these things while ignoring the evidence that UAP exist, thus my comment about Hessdalen, transient light phenomena, etc.

He also seems to put himself ahead of the various gov research teams of the world that are quite well versed in aviation incident investigations and perceptual examinations of the witnesses. He doesn't mention cases supported by radar data, etc... Sure, there are a variety of incidents that have prosaic explanations and that is not in question. At the same time pilots accurately reported Blue Jets before science acknowledged the accuracy of their reports, why would it be any different with any other UAP? Does a 1-2% case inaccuracy in a catalog of 1300 cases mean that the entire data set is useless?

So what is the argument? He doesn't acknowledge that UAP of various types exist while the evidence is established that they do (Hessdalen, for example). He declares pilots to be unreliable witnesses but doesn't mention cases where where instrumentation and radar and multiple witnesses supported the pilot's claims.... It seems like a ridiculous argument when its understood that many incidents are anecdotal and more than a few have not only qualified witnesses but are supported by radar. The real issue is engaging the topic and finding out if and what the facts really are.

If Oberg asserts that pilots are not reliable witnesses while ignoring, overlooking or misrepresenting data that is evidence that UAP exist then what is he saying? Is he saying that UAP don't exist or is he implying that UAP exist and pilots can't reliably report observations and incidents that might reflect a UAP encounter? Is a pilot observation, supported by radar and, perhaps other witnesses unreliable as well?

 

[Ron Collins]

from my contribution to Project Sphere:

Pilots as Witnesses
The issue of the “quality” of a pilot as a UAP witness versus other types of UAP witnesses
is occasionally raised.
The nature of professional aviators has changed since WWII and today’s aircrew tend to be
both college educated and better trained. Indeed, a college degree is required to participate in
U.S. military aviation programs.
In reviewing interviews with pilots as UAP witnesses it is clear that they are aware of their
own perceptual shortcomings. Often they will refrain from presenting a clear estimate of
distance from the UAP or its size, for example, because they know that their ability to judge
distance and size while in the air is suspect. Pilots are aware that they are subject to perceptual
failings and that awareness seems to make them more conservative in their engagement of UAP
observations and reports
One might expect that higher education combined with a tangible fear of on-the-job
recrimination (Roe 2003) would produce a “quality” witness with a bias against reporting any
UAP observation or incident. Indeed, NARCAP has received many reports from aviation
professionals after they retire.
In reality, there is no real difference between a pilot witness and other types of witnesses. It
is the standardized approach to aviation incident investigations that are often supported by
radar data, voice and other recordings, air traffic controller involvement, etc. that make aviation
cases involving UAP particularly compelling.

Perhaps it is my failing as a pilot to believe that I would not be fooled by venus, the moon, Mars, or a weather balloon. I admit that I may put too much faith in the ability of seasoned pilots. But, I can't shake the feeling that this is wrong. I think it is remarkably hard to fool these guys. I do understand how heading and speed of two aircraft can alter you perceptions. Every pilot has seen this. But, this is also why I think they make better observers. I think they would study it and call upon their experience to evaluate it. I honestly want to understand why I am wrong on this if I am.

 

[jkoci]

He doesn't discuss cases involving multiple witnesses and radar detections.

That was my thought as I was reading this. Those cases are more difficult for him to reason away.

 

[Ted Roe]

Ron,
When I say that pilots are no more or less reliable than other witnesses I am speaking about the group as a whole. Certainly pilots are not likely to be fooled by Venus, its a simple matter to sort that one out. I have seen Venus looking like a second sunrise but a quick glance at an astronomical almanac can resolve that directly.
The real point is that some pilots have the education and background to be able to bring analytical skills to bear on their observation and determine if it is unusual or not. Others do not. Add to that personal beliefs, personal experience and temperament and you will encounter a full spectrum of responses, conclusions and attitudes.
The same thing applies to ground observers. Some people have the skillset and mindset to engage an examination of their experience and come to some fairly accurate conclusions. Others yell "Aliens" and either run like hell or grab a flashlight and start signaling. Then they write a book on the "Reptilan Influences on Western Civilization" and start doing conferences and seminars. Pilots have followed this course as well.
It is more likely that a pilot will misidentify something as unusual if its at a distance than when it involves aviation safety issues like perceived NMACS, dynamic trajectories, etc...
It is interesting that pilots, regardless of their educational background or flight experience/flight hours, continue to report the same kinds of observation since before the 1930s and that the observations involve the same descriptions over decades....

 

[Ron Collins]

Ron,
When I say that pilots are no more or less reliable than other witnesses I am speaking about the group as a whole. Certainly pilots are not likely to be fooled by Venus, its a simple matter to sort that one out. I have seen Venus looking like a second sunrise but a quick glance at an astronomical almanac can resolve that directly.
The real point is that some pilots have the education and background to be able to bring analytical skills to bear on their observation and determine if it is unusual or not. Others do not. Add to that personal beliefs, personal experience and temperament and you will encounter a full spectrum of responses, conclusions and attitudes.
The same thing applies to ground observers. Some people have the skillset and mindset to engage an examination of their experience and come to some fairly accurate conclusions. Others yell "Aliens" and either run like hell or grab a flashlight and start signaling. Then they write a book on the "Reptilan Influences on Western Civilization" and start doing conferences and seminars. Pilots have followed this course as well.
It is more likely that a pilot will misidentify something as unusual if its at a distance than when it involves aviation safety issues like perceived NMACS, dynamic trajectories, etc...
It is interesting that pilots, regardless of their educational background or flight experience/flight hours, continue to report the same kinds of observation since before the 1930s and that the observations involve the same descriptions over decades....

I can accept that honesty and critical thinking must follow an observation regardless the observer or the results are dubious at best. I can also accept that distance and complex trajectories can fool even those with good and honest intentions. I would also agree with one of your other posts that a visual sighting gains credibility when witnessed by multiple observers and/or backed up by radar.

To be honest I am somewhat of an optimist. I have this image of the smart, honest, observant, and unshakable pilot in my head. (BTW, that is not an ego projection of how I see myself. Rather an image from childhood to aspire to.) Though, every month I open Aviation Safety and see incidents and accidents attributed to simple mistakes like running out of gas. I may need to re-evaluate my opinion on this.

Can I ask a few questions from your research? I want to be more informed than I am right now. Perhaps you have some of these answers. If not thats OK, I am just curious.

1 -- Of pilot reports what percentage of sighting reports come from Military, Commercial, and GA pilots? Specifically, in what capacity were they operating when the sighting occurred?

2 -- Has any one capacity been shown to be more reliable than another?

3 -- Do you know how often on average ATC spots traffic in non-military designated areas that have no transponder squawk?

4 -- If a military aircraft is in civilian ATC controlled airspace they are supposed to use a transponder squawk per FAA regulations. What measures are/can be taken for aircraft that violate that safety rule?

5 -- I have been told by a few older pilots and one controller that military aircraft are supposed to communicate their presence to ATC in controlled airspace like everyone else. How often is this procedure broken?

6 -- In reported sightings from pilots that are deemed unknown, are there distance, speed, size, and altitude tolerances that most fall into?

Also, I want to thank you for your continued contributions to the forum. I know I speak for many when I say your insights are very welcome.

 

[Skymon876]

Oberg has not made any decent points or provided legitimate data to back up his story. He does not make a plausible case, and that is why his article failed so bad.

 

[Ron Collins]

Let's get this straight: A clear sky makes something more difficult to identify than a muddled one does? Hmm, seems like a stretch to me.

Actually, I think that is true. For instance, if I am flying at 7 thousand feet and there is a cloud ceiling at 12 thousand feet and I clearly see an object I have frames of reference. Namely the ceiling and my altitude. I would rather see an object in these conditions exhibiting extreme flight characteristics than on a beautiful clear winter night or day.