Sunday, December 2, 2007

Debunkers’ Dumb Explanations List:

Pilots & UFOs


While pilots make mistakes, unfortunately for the debunkers, some UFO reports by pilots are not mistakes.

When the debunkers are faced with aviation crew and fighter pilot testimony, they’re in a bit of a fix.
The usual character assassinations don’t work in the press when real live pilots are quoted. Next time you notice a pilot-sourced UFO report getting debunked, check it yourself: no character attacks…just faux science.

So let’s go through the standard Debunkers’ Dumb Explanations List:
Atmospheric Phenomenon, Miscellaneous
Moon
Sun
Balloon
Venus
Stars
Planets
Meteors
Space Junk

Now let’s take a look at a few classic pilot witness stories and see if we can use any of these explanations.
Plane B-29 Bomber 18000 feet 1952
Lt. Coleman is watching the main radarscope…at 5:35am on the main radarscope, he spots a fast-moving target. He times it. The object is traveling 5,250 mph! As they check the scope to see if it is faulty, four other blips appear. The four blips also appear on the other scopes on the plane. As the objects approach the plane, Master Sergeant Bailey jumps up to stare out the cockpit. To his amazement, he sees a blue-lit object streak by. A second group is observed on the scope traveling at the same speed.

Then a third group appears and continues toward them on the scope. This time the navigator jumps up to watch “two of the machines streak by”. Another group appears, but unlike the others, this group of objects heads straight for the bomber... The Captain holds his breath… the UFO crafts then slow down and fall in behind the bomber on the scope. Soon the group of five UFOs turns aside and picks up speed. But it isn’t over yet. All crew watch the scopes as the five targets converge on a large blip “a half-inch spot” on the scope, a “huge” UFO target. Next, the five smaller targets merge with this object, and crew report how this massive UFO “accelerated quickly” to over “9,000” miles an hour.

So what do you think: meteors… space junk… maybe Venus? I got it…it was ballooooon! No, the moon! Wait, wait: I got it…Thank God for plasma!
By the way, check the great book by Paul Hill, NASA Scientist:
Unconventional Flying Objects.
This report was released by the Air Force to Major Donald Keyhoe. No leaky, shadowy government figure here.

Two Air Force Colonels Flying a B-25 3:30PM
The colonels see three objects in a “tight” flying formation. From the distance these look like F-86, in close formation, but they’re flying too high -- against FAA regulations. In a “matter of seconds” the “aircraft” are close enough for the colonels to see details. The craft are “bright silver delta wings with no tails and no canopy”. In another second, the delta wing UFO crafts make a sharp bank and shoot by the colonels’ B-25. Speed estimated by both colonels is three times the speed of any F-86. The colonels are adamant these craft are not F-86s.
These craft are known as flying Triangles today, and witnessed all over the world.

May 27 1943 Halifax Bomber RAF Over Germany during bombing raid:
As pilot and Sergeant Corkcroft, co-pilot, are nearing their target when Captain Ray Smith is first to see an object stationary and slightly portside of their bomber. The object is slightly larger than the aircraft, “silvery-gold, a well defined cylinder with several portholes evenly spaced along its side. The object hangs suspended in the air at a 45-degree angle. The crew watch in disbelief as the object stays in position for about 30 seconds then abruptly climbs out of sight…at an incredible speed, possibly “several thousand” miles a hour. See “Strange Company” by Keith Chester.

Multiple sightings case Simon Anderson investigated By Garza: Simon starts to see and film UFOs suddenly the RAF helicopter start to study Simon
International UFO Congress 2004 DVD Garza:


It’s amazing to me how the debunkers still hawk these same dumb explanations 70 years later. You could say these explanations are equivalent to your doctor basing your crucial diagnosis on just one symptom --and any symptom which disagrees with that diagnosis is excluded.

Good luck with that doctor.

So here we are at the end of 2007, with “intelligent scientific minds” and Western nations boasting the highest populations of college-educated citizens ever…yet we’re still accepting these same, tired explanations trotted out by the professional debunkers.

Hundreds of professional military and commercial pilots have reported unknown craft. Considering how pilots who report UFOs are treated, how many simply don’t bother including what they see in their flight record?

Now for a personal account. I was cruising the eastern Caribbean when I discovered I was snorkeling with two pilots. Later, as we sat in the sun, I asked them if they had ever witnessed anything strange, like a UFO.

One of the pilots was a commercial airline passenger pilot, the other, a flight pilot. The passenger pilot replied in an incredulous tone: “ I’ve been flying for 20 years and I have never seen anything like that.” He was laughing when he said it.
The other pilot began to answer my question, but he was not laughing:
“I’ve been flying for 15 years…and I can say I have.”

These men and woman, our warriors and professional pilots, are our best and brightest fliers. They’ve been trained to fly under all kinds of conditions --and they fly with your life in their hands. They know how to identify everything in the sky.

When the professional pilots of America say they see an unidentified craft, believe them.

Joseph Capp
UFO Media Matters
A Non-Commercial Blog

7 comments:

  1. Perhaps it would interest you to know that, back in the 1970s, J. Allen Hynek himself conducted studies that would indicate the pilots are actually less accurate observers of atmospheric and astronomical phenomenon than the general population. Here you accuse debunkers of relying on the same explanations when you yourself are relying on a supposition that has been called into question by a highly respected UFOlogist.

    BTW, the old explanations continue to be used simply because observers continue to misidentify the same old things. Ask NUFORC how many reports they get per month that are pretty clearly observations of the planet Venus. There are plenty. If you consider this type of things "dumb," what are you saying about people who are continually fooled by them?

    S

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Skeptical,

    If what you are saying is true... then we have this history massive worldwide reported sightings, by the general public, which support our UFO pilots. Thank Your

    Just recently MUFO"s. MIchel Nelson presented an update on the Protage, Ohio UFO case this was explained as Venus. Simply put it was not venus.

    I bring this case up as an explample of how easily expain away a case with an easiy out. I agrree with NUFORC research but I have to say, I agree more witht the pilots which were there.

    Joseph Capp
    UFO Media Matters

    ReplyDelete
  3. The point is, there is nothing dumb about these explanations because they continue to fit a very large percentage of UFO sightings. You could equally say that some UFO witnesses are dumb because they misidentify the same objects that people have been misidentifying for years.

    I am not saying that every time a debunker proffers such an explanation that it is necessarily the correct one. The Portage County case, which took place not far from where I grew up in the 1960s, is a very good example. I find it difficult to believe that Spaur and Neff wouldn't have been able to figure out they were chasing Venus.

    Just the same, the Venus explanation is still not "dumb." It is simply not supported by the known facts of the case.

    S
    http://www.department47.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Skeptical,
    I think NUFORC proves what I am saying. The O'Hare case was a very detailed sighting where the pilot and others had a chance to really observe this "craft" object and what it did. These are basically the type cases I presented; detailed oriented and for a very important reason.
    Remember NUFORC does not go into what they did see.

    I stand by my premise that the debunkers, and many in the UFO community, tout out these explanations because they do not want anyone to believe pilots and people see detailed "craft", not just phenomenon.
    So I side with the people who were there and what they say...but what do they know right ,they are just pilots?




    Joseph Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

    ReplyDelete
  5. I read Doctor Richard Haines' extensive report of the O'Hare case, which he prepared for NARCAP. If memory serves, I don't believe that any pilot actually went on the record in the case. All of the primary witnesses were ground crew (including a crew whose job it was to taxi jets around the airport). Haines admits that not everyone agreed to participate in his investigation so perhaps the whole story isn't known.

    Just the same, all I am suggesting is that pilots, as a group, are no more valuable as UFO witnesses than anyone else. Just because they can fly an airplane does not give them immunity to the same shortcomings that affect all of us when it comes to observing anomalous objects.

    S

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know from personal experience that mistakes can easily be made in misidentifying balloons and planes as UFOs, but these at a great distance. Many of the best reports were not at such a great distance, and provided the observer was reasonably intelligent and not overcome with hysteria or mental illness, I don't think the old "swamp gas" explanations will always cut it.

    Some debunkers could have a UFO land on their head and they would explain it away. I think many of these debunkers have such a huge self-defense mechanism in place and the possibility of life originating outside of Earth is so terrifying to them they'll never be anything but debunkers. Dr. Hyneck at least was open-minded enough to realize there was something to many of the most credible reports and changed his way of thinking.

    Mr. Davenport of NUFORC has probably not had much actual "field time" in actually looking for UFOs or observing them, and though he's doing a good service, IMO he isn't the most qualified to decide from his office what is Venus as opposed to a genuine unconvential aerial vehicle that someone reports from another state. Also, in my early days of UFO hunting I had gotten very excited about a "cylinder" that I saw twice and also photographed those two times that I reported to NUFORC. I noted in my report that I heard a jet engine sound but that the "cylinder" didn't appear to have wings. Well, I finally wised up and took some binoculars and learned that what I was seeing was actually a jet whose wings were angled just right with the sun where they were all but invisible...ugh! I quickly emailed Mr. Davenport of the error, yet those two erroneous reports remain unchanged on his site nearly three years later.

    IMO a healthy dose of skepticism isn't a bad thing, but a dyed-in-the-wool debunker is just pretty pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Anonymous,
    What i really want to accomplish with this "Debunkers Dumb Explanations List" is for the reader to put on their auto pilot when these here these explanations and automatically take a closer look at the Report. Follow up on it.

    The most astounding reports are those close detailed encounters of craft.

    UFOMM in keeping with it's policy of reaffirming the witnesses courage in coming forward take these pilots at their words in most cases.

    Happy Holidays - Marry Christmas

    Joseph Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

    ReplyDelete