Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19/air-force-deletes-u...

Intriguing...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
DK Kemler
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That has to be the stupidest article ive read in a year...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
degamer wrote:
That has to ne the stupidest article ibe read in a year...


Facts are facts, man. And there is nothing there about "little green men". Just the Air Force and it's dealings with strange flying objects...that are a matter of record AND until recently, for decades, a matter of procedure.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

degamer wrote:
That has to be the stupidest article ive read in a year...

The only thing that's remotely "stupid" about that article is that its author is not well read on the subject matter. Otherwise, he'd have known about and mentioned the late Dr. J. Allen Hyneck, a former member of Project Blue Book, who grew quite disenchanted with that operation since it wasn't objectively trying to analyze and assess matters but to debunk and explain them away as to what they could have otherwise been.

What's more, over the past decade, there have been growing numbers of the U.S. Military, pilots, air traffic controllers, and law-enforcement authorities who have come forward to speak on the record in books, magazines and newspapers about their encounters of the first, second and third kinds.

Most renowned of them is the late U.S. Army Colonel Philip Curso who in the final years of his life revealed much, if not everything, in his book, "The Day After Roswell" about what he himself had encountered in his Pentagon assignment in dealing with farming out recovered bits of "foreign technology" from downed UFO crafts to select defense contractors for them to attempt to retro-engineer them and find useful military applications for them.

The following YouTube.com link is to a 12-part series of interviews with Colonel Curso in 1997 that covers some, if not most, of the highlights of what he relates in his book. Notably, his book was published and these interviews were conducted just a year before his death. So maybe we shouldn't be surprised that much of what Colonel Curso relates tends to come across like a death-bed confession.





 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay
United States
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You know what would really be news? "We're the air force and we've decided we're not going to investigate UFOs when they come up anymore." Gee, sure seems like a pretty big issue when the people responsible for keeping us safe from airborne threats wouldn't intervene if they couldn't immediately identify the source or nature of the potential threat. It is absolutely not news to say, "well, turns out they've been doing their job all along," nor is it indicative of a conspiracy.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The USAF having procedures for dealing with an object that is unidentified and in the air. What were they thinking its not as if thats what they are paid to do.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:



Most renowned of them is the late U.S. Army Colonel Philip Curso who in the final years of his life revealed much, if not everything, in his book




Wonder why he came forward? Oh, that's right. $$$
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:



Most renowned of them is the late U.S. Army Colonel Philip Curso who in the final years of his life revealed much, if not everything, in his book




Wonder why he came forward? Oh, that's right. $$$


Well the forward to his book was withdrawn.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
degamer wrote:
That has to be the stupidest article ive read in a year...


That's what they want you to think.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
degamer wrote:
That has to be the stupidest article ive read in a year...


That's what they want you to think.


Maybe he is one of They, or perhpas you are and this is all to defelct us away from the real truth.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

MWChapel wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Most renowned of them is the late U.S. Army Colonel Philip Curso who in the final years of his life revealed much, if not everything, in his book

Wonder why he came forward? Oh, that's right. $$$

Please do cite your source for that unsupported assertion.

After all, I wouldn't want to think you'd been so callous as to have made such bald-faced assertion about a decorated U.S. Army Veteran who worked at the Pentagon without something of credible substance to go on, especially since Colonel Curso only came forward to speak on the record about his Army experiences in the year before he died.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

slatersteven wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Most renowned of them is the late U.S. Army Colonel Philip Curso who in the final years of his life revealed much, if not everything, in his book

Wonder why he came forward? Oh, that's right. $$$

Well the forward to his book was withdrawn.

*Retracted*, rather, by U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond who knew Curso from his days at the Pentagon; *however*, Thurmond had not suspected that Curso would be going on the record about the origin of that extraterrestrial "foreign technology" that he (Thurmond) was already aware of, especially the re-engineering efforts. (Turmond didn't exactly exonerate himself credibly by claiming he hadn't read the book in its entirety before writing its forward.)

Thurmond retracted his foreward to the book because he feared if he didn't do so promptly, it might be used against him politically when he reran for Senate. So what Strom Thurmond did was just politically-expedient sound thinking if not moral or truthful.

But then again, it's consistent. After all, based on his actual deeds, if news of his biracial daughter had come out before he died or better yet, before an election, Strom Thurmond would most probably have denied her existence and/or being her father as well. After all, he'd already kept the secret of his fathering a biracial child for more than half a century and it would have posed an even more imposing political embarrassment since he himself had been the leading advocate against racial segregation and had even run for President as an anti-segregationist candidate -- even though, already by then, he'd sired his biracial daughter by an African-American woman when he ran for President.

Yes, even though he did occasionally visit her in ultra-secretive conditions, Strom Thurmond never acknowledged or even hinted to his own biracial daughter in private that he was her father. It was her mother on her deathbed who told her the truth of the matter.

Indeed, in terms of his seeking re-election, the down-to-Earth matter of his brazen hypocrisy in keeping secret his paternity of his own biological biracial child would probably have proven more problematic for Strom Thurmond than standing by his foreward to Curso's book. At least with the latter, he was able to beg off (albeit disingenuously) from his penned foreward to Curso's book, claiming he hadn't even read the entirety of Curso's book. And because of his advanced age, he was cut a lot more slack, too, for that seeming oversight.

However, it's just not credible that Thurmond would not have known the context of Curso's book since the book was indeed entitled "The Day After Roswell" and it was entirely about Curso's involvement as a U.S. Army officer with the follow-up events of the Roswell Crash. Thurmond should have known that from a reading of or perusing through Chapter One.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walt
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
Before terraforming Mars, Surviving Mars is required: Paradox Interactive; Steam.
badge
Please contact me about board gaming in Orange County.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tstone wrote:

Geez, "5.6.2. Report all unidentifiable, suspicious, or hostile traffic...
5.6.3.3. Unidentified flying objects."

A UFO is trivial. It can be something so far away you can't tell if it's an airplane, a missile, the moon, a star, or a reflection on your canopy.
shake
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Tall_Walt wrote:
tstone wrote:

Geez, "5.6.2. Report all unidentifiable, suspicious, or hostile traffic...
5.6.3.3. Unidentified flying objects."

A UFO is trivial. It can be something so far away you can't tell if it's an airplane, a missile, the moon, a star, or a reflection on your canopy.
shake

On the contrary, since we already credit them with being able to readily discern normal sky objects from those that defy explanation in terms of size, luminosity, speed, movement and flight patterns, both experienced military and civilian pilots would least be susceptible to reporting something so mundane as the Moon, stars, other Terran aircraft, missiles or reflections on canopies.

As far as the U.S. Government is concerned as per all the records released to date, a UFO is "trivial" as long as it doesn't approach too close to military bases, airfields, atomic testing grounds, military aircraft, etc.

From an official standpoint, it's better for the U.S. Military not to comment at all on the subject of UFOs than to risk making any public statement that might inadvertently be inferred by the public to imply that the U.S. Military is unable to police our air space to prevent UFOs from entering our airspace much less to repel them from it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
On the contrary, since we already credit them with being able to readily discern normal sky objects from those that defy explanation in terms of size, luminosity, speed, movement and flight patterns, both experienced military and civilian pilots would least be susceptible to reporting something so mundane as the Moon, stars, other Terran aircraft, missiles or reflections on canopies.


Least susceptible compared to who?

For example, who is more likely to see something weird in the sky, or misinterpret something they see in the sky:

a) A pilot who spends time flying around in conditions that are nothing like anything anyone on the ground really experiences.

a) Me, who hardly ever leaves the ground?

An experienced pilot might have more experience up in the sky, but it's a generally weird position to be in. No one is used to being up there as much as we are used to being on the ground, and it should be no surprise that pilots are more likely to see things they don't understand compared to someone who never leaves the ground.

So if the question is 'who is more likely to mis-idenitfy something weird in the sky as a "UFO", a trained pilot who flies regularly alone, or anyone else?', I think it's obviously got to be the pilot. Per-flight, the pilot wins, but overall the odds are much better that the pilot will see something weird in the sky.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walt
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
Before terraforming Mars, Surviving Mars is required: Paradox Interactive; Steam.
badge
Please contact me about board gaming in Orange County.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I saw a UFO just the other day. Probably, it was a 737 or an A320, since that's what flies out of the local airport. Did I positively identify it? No. So, it was a U.F.O.as far as I'm concerned. You're taking a technical term and applying a conspiracy theory pop-definition. Of course, you get garbage. Garbage in, garbage out.

Would you prefer it be called a "bogey"? "A specter or phantom." Ooh! Cue the X-Files theme.
shake
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

slatersteven wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Most renowned of them is the late U.S. Army Colonel Philip Curso who in the final years of his life revealed much, if not everything, in his book

Wonder why he came forward? Oh, that's right. $$$

Well the forward to his book was withdrawn.

*Retracted*, rather, by U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond who knew Curso from his days at the Pentagon; *however*, Thurmond had not suspected that Curso would be going on the record about the origin of that extraterrestrial "foreign technology" that he (Thurmond) was already aware of, especially the re-engineering efforts. (Turmond didn't exactly exonerate himself credibly by claiming he hadn't read the book in its entirety before writing its forward.)

Thurmond retracted his foreward to the book because he feared if he didn't do so promptly, it might be used against him politically when he reran for Senate. So what Strom Thurmond did was just politically-expedient sound thinking if not moral or truthful.

But then again, it's consistent. After all, based on his actual deeds, if news of his biracial daughter had come out before he died or better yet, before an election, Strom Thurmond would most probably have denied her existence and/or being her father as well. After all, he'd already kept the secret of his fathering a biracial child for more than half a century and it would have posed an even more imposing political embarrassment since he himself had been the leading advocate against racial segregation and had even run for President as an anti-segregationist candidate -- even though, already by then, he'd sired his biracial daughter by an African-American woman when he ran for President.

Yes, even though he did occasionally visit her in ultra-secretive conditions, Strom Thurmond never acknowledged or even hinted to his own biracial daughter in private that he was her father. It was her mother on her deathbed who told her the truth of the matter.

Indeed, in terms of his seeking re-election, the down-to-Earth matter of his brazen hypocrisy in keeping secret his paternity of his own biological biracial child would probably have proven more problematic for Strom Thurmond than standing by his foreward to Curso's book. At least with the latter, he was able to beg off (albeit disingenuously) from his penned foreward to Curso's book, claiming he hadn't even read the entirety of Curso's book. And because of his advanced age, he was cut a lot more slack, too, for that seeming oversight.

However, it's just not credible that Thurmond would not have known the context of Curso's book since the book was indeed entitled "The Day After Roswell" and it was entirely about Curso's involvement as a U.S. Army officer with the follow-up events of the Roswell Crash. Thurmond should have known that from a reading of or perusing through Chapter One.





Assuming that Thurmond had not just been asked to write a forward for what he thought were memoirs.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Dolphinandrew wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
On the contrary, since we already credit them with being able to readily discern normal sky objects from those that defy explanation in terms of size, luminosity, speed, movement and flight patterns, both experienced military and civilian pilots would least be susceptible to reporting something so mundane as the Moon, stars, other Terran aircraft, missiles or reflections on canopies.

Least susceptible compared to who?

For example, who is more likely to see something weird in the sky, or misinterpret something they see in the sky:

a) A pilot who spends time flying around in conditions that are nothing like anything anyone on the ground really experiences.

a) Me, who hardly ever leaves the ground?

You can't have it both ways and be selection A as well.

The answer is: You, because you probably wouldn't recognize such atmospheric phenomena as sun dogs.

> Excerpt from the Wikipedia entry for "Sun Dog":

A sun dog or sundog, scientific name parhelion (plural parhelia) from Greek παρήλιον (parēlion), meaning "beside the sun"; from παρά (para), meaning "beside", and ἥλιος (helios), meaning "sun", also called a mock sun[1] or a phantom sun, is an atmospheric phenomenon that creates bright spots of light in the sky, often on a luminous ring or halo on either side of the sun.

Sundogs may appear as a colored patch of light to the left or right of the sun, 22° distant and at the same distance above the horizon as the sun, and in ice halos. They can be seen anywhere in the world during any season, but they are not always obvious or bright. Sundogs are best seen and are most conspicuous when the sun is low.

_______________________________________________



Dolphinandrew wrote:
An experienced pilot might have more experience up in the sky, but it's a generally weird position to be in. No one is used to being up there as much as we are used to being on the ground, and it should be no surprise that pilots are more likely to see things they don't understand compared to someone who never leaves the ground.

Is *that* the best you can do to try to debunk credible pilots' testimonies about UFOs?


Dolphinandrew wrote:
So if the question is 'who is more likely to mis-idenitfy something weird in the sky as a 'UFO', a trained pilot who flies regularly alone, or anyone else?', I think it's obviously got to be the pilot. Per-flight, the pilot wins, but overall the odds are much better that the pilot will see something weird in the sky.

Since we on the surface of the Earth aren't anywhere as mobile as pilots who cover infinitely more coverage of the Earth's surface passing over it, then, naturally, through sheer odds alone, they would be more likely to encounter something of a weird or extraordinary nature, especially since pilots are up in the air 24 hours around the clock. As to their identification of it, the details they provide about truly extraordinary phenomena aren't readily dismissable or explain-awayable as misunderstood sightings of manmade Terran aircraft or natural sky elements.

Indeed, pilots' identifications of such extraordinary phenomena are more dependable by the fact that pilots have always been reluctant to file official reports about UFOs in all but the most extraordinary circumstances anyway. That little factoid was gleaned by Director Stephen Spielberg from none other than Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the astrophysicist & astronomer who had worked for the Air Force's "Project Blue Book" until he grew disenchanted with the military's efforts to try to debunk, discredit and explain away some remarkable sightings by prejudicial procedures which wholly ignored empirical evidence.

The following opening scene of the Indianapolois air-traffic control tower from Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" depicts the reluctantce of pilots who have witnessed some genuinely extraordinary and inexplicable phenomena to report those sightings officially on the record. (Dr. J. Allen Hyneck also served as a consultant on "Close Encounters".)




1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
The answer is: You, because you probably wouldn't recognize such atmospheric phenomena as sun dogs.



I probably wouldn't. But so what?

Let's suppose the odds of me misidentifying some phenomena when flying alone in a plane is around 50%.

Suppose the odds of a pilot misidentifying the same phenomena in the same circumstances is 0.001%.

Who is going to generate the most reports misidentifying this phenomena?

Well the pilot obviously. The expected number of miss-identifications a year from me is still 0, less than the pilots.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Dolphinandrew wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
The answer is: You, because you probably wouldn't recognize such atmospheric phenomena as sun dogs.

I probably wouldn't. But so what?

Thanks for making my point for me: By your own indirect admission, you're confirming that you wouldn't be anywhere remotely as perceptive as an experienced pilot at distinguishing unusual atmospheric phenomena from UFOs.


Dolphinandrew wrote:
Let's suppose the odds of me misidentifying some phenomena when flying alone in a plane is around 50%.

Suppose the odds of a pilot misidentifying the same phenomena in the same circumstances is 0.001%.

Who is going to generate the most reports misidentifying this phenomena?

LOL! Why, *you*, of course. After all, as I already point out, most pilots are reluctant to even officially report UFOs unless their encounters with them are compellingly dramatic and readily corroboratable with fellow co-pilots, stewardesses, stewards and/or passengers. (There's safety in numbers when reporting such UFO events officially.)


Dolphinandrew wrote:
Well, the pilot obviously. The expected number of mis-identifications a year from me is still 0, less than the pilots.

Well now, you retreated from your proposed hypothetical scenario to the safety of your current reality of not yet having seen a UFO, thus invalidating your hypothetical scenario altogether since you stipulated in no uncertain terms that the comparison would be in the same circumstances. And since you've yet to confirm whether you're even a pilot, much less an experienced pilot, you can't very well vouch for that which you're unable to duplicate. . In essence, if you're unable to faithfully duplicate the similar circumstances of an experienced pilot (i.e. if you're aren't a pilot yourself), then you've invalidated your comparative example altogether.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
LOL! Why, *you*, of course. After all, as I already point out, most pilots are reluctant to even officially report UFOs unless their encounters with them are compellingly dramatic and readily corroboratable with fellow co-pilots, stewardesses, stewards and/or passengers. (There's safety in numbers when reporting such UFO events officially.)


I think you are missing my point.

Over the course of my lifetime I will make, most likely, 0 flights of the right type.

Think of it another way. I don't know how to make a chair. If I tried to make a chair, the odds are very high that it would be faulty in some way.

Obviously a professional carpenter has a much lower chance of making a faulty chair.

So who will make more faulty chairs in their lifetime, me or the carpenter?

The carpenter obviously will. Who will likely misidentify more high atmospheric events when flying alone in their lifetime, me or an experienced pilot. Obviously the pilot, as I'm never likely to be in the situation where it comes up.

You are saying that pilot's reports are more likely to be reliable than a report from a non-pilot. That's true, on a report by report basis.

However, that doesn't say that much about an individual report, simply because there is so many.

Would it be surprising if there were many inaccurate reports from pilots? No, because they make so many. As with the carpenter and his chairs, even though on a chair by chair basis he will be very reliable, the number of poor quality reports/chairs in a lifetime will be much higher for a pilot/carpenter than for me.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Dolphinandrew wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
LOL! Why, *you*, of course. After all, as I already point out, most pilots are reluctant to even officially report UFOs unless their encounters with them are compellingly dramatic and readily corroboratable with fellow co-pilots, stewardesses, stewards and/or passengers. (There's safety in numbers when reporting such UFO events officially.)

I think you are missing my point.

Over the course of my lifetime I will make, most likely, 0 flights of the right type.

There are no "right type" of flights. Moreover, you've yet to confirm whether you're even a student pilot, newly-licensed pilot, or experienced pilot and what range of area you cover flying on a regular or irregular basis. Indeed, I don't even know whether you're a pilot at all.

So please clarify whether you are OR aren't a pilot.


Dolphinandrew wrote:
Think of it another way. I don't know how to make a chair. If I tried to make a chair, the odds are very high that it would be faulty in some way.

Obviously a professional carpenter has a much lower chance of making a faulty chair.

So who will make more faulty chairs in their lifetime, me or the carpenter?

Brother, what a faulty and erroneous comparison! First of all, comparatively speaking, if you weren't a competent enough student pilot, you wouldn't get your pilot's license in the first place. Reason: It's too dangerous to permit incompetent would-be pilots to fly our skies.

Second, a chairmaker plies his trade in one and only one spot. Unlike some peddlers of yore who sometimes performed fix-it tasks while peddling their wares to people far and near, chairmakers don't travel far and wide to ply their trade. (Yes, they might attend some trade shows on occasion, but they don't ply their trade in different geographical regions on a daily basis.) So that was an out-of-context comparison.

Third, you're equating faulty chairmaking with experienced pilots who at great personal risk to their own careers dare to report officially their UFO encounters and sightings (even though they more often do so with the corroborating testimonies of other fellow co-pilots, stewardesses, stewards and/or passengers). And that is as biasedly off-base a presumption on your part as they come.



Dolphinandrew wrote:
The carpenter obviously will (make more faulty chairs in his lifetime). Who will likely misidentify more high atmospheric events when flying alone in their lifetime, me or an experienced pilot. Obviously the pilot, as I'm never likely to be in the situation where it comes up.

In essence, your reference to yourself in your example would be the equivalent of a null set, eh?


Dolphinandrew wrote:
You are saying that pilot's reports are more likely to be reliable than a report from a non-pilot. That's true, on a report by report basis.

However, that doesn't say that much about an individual report, simply because there is so many.

No, there aren't. As I already set forth, many, if not most, experienced pilots are reluctant to file official UFO reports unless they have the corroborative testimonies of fellow co-pilots, stewardesses, stewards, and/or passengers.


Dolphinandrew wrote:
Would it be surprising if there were many inaccurate reports from pilots? No, because they make so many.

On the contrary, because of the minority who do make such official UFO reports, they certainly don't come forward to make such reports without some compelling corroborative evidence in the first place. After all, there is a built-in prejudice against such pilots making such reports in the first place by their own companies.


Dolphinandrew wrote:
As with the carpenter and his chairs, even though on a chair by chair basis he will be very reliable, the number of poor quality reports/chairs in a lifetime will be much higher for a pilot/carpenter than for me.

As they would be for any equivalent to a null set. That's a no-brainer.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
As they would be for any equivalent to a null set. That's a no-brainer.


Exactly! Because I'm not a pilot, the odds of me giving in a bad mission report is pretty much 0.

You are mixing up the calculation of 2 or 3 completely different likelihoods.

What are the odds that on a given mission that a pilot will misidentify something mundane for something out of the ordinary? Probably quite low, and certainly compared to your average person in the same circumstances.

What are the odds that over the course of a lifetime, a pilot will misidentify something mundane for something out of the ordinary? Probably quite high, again, certainly compared to your average person over their lifetime.

So what are the odds that a random report by a pilot is incorrect. Quite low. But you are not choosing randomly.

What are the odds that, over the course of a lifetime as a pilot, a pilot will misidentify something mundane for something out of the ordinary and report it? Again, perhaps still quite low. But is it low enough so that we would expect some when taken over the whole population of pilots? Almost certainly so.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Dolphinandrew wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
As they would be for any equivalent to a null set. That's a no-brainer.

Exactly! Because I'm not a pilot, the odds of me giving in a bad mission report is pretty much 0.

You are mixing up the calculation of 2 or 3 completely different likelihoods.

What are the odds that on a given mission that a pilot will misidentify something mundane for something out of the ordinary? Probably quite low, and certainly compared to your average person in the same circumstances.

What are the odds that over the course of a lifetime, a pilot will misidentify something mundane for something out of the ordinary? Probably quite high, again, certainly compared to your average person over their lifetime.

So what are the odds that a random report by a pilot is incorrect. Quite low. But you are not choosing randomly.

What are the odds that, over the course of a lifetime as a pilot, a pilot will misidentify something mundane for something out of the ordinary and report it? Again, perhaps still quite low. But is it low enough so that we would expect some when taken over the whole population of pilots? Almost certainly so.

Well, if irrelevant randomness is your concern, why not explore something equally random and irrelvant, such as "What if Superman had grown up in Germany instead of America?"

After all, wasn't Superman mistaken as a unidentified flying object on more than one occasion? ("Look! Up in the sky!" -- "It's bird!" -- "It's a plane!" -- "No, it's Superman!" )

And ya, that theme was indeed explored almost 34 years ago by Saturday Night Live in its classic "What If...?" sketch.






For a written transcript of that classic comedy sketch, check out: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78jwhatif.phtml

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Well, if irrelevant randomness is your concern, why not explore something equally random and irrelvant, such as "What if Superman had grown up in Germany instead of America?"


Better thematically if it's Russia (which ahas been done).

But it's not irrelevant. Whenever you are looking at the existence of something purely in terms of eyewitness reports, the very first question should be "How many false positive reports should we 'naturally' expect?". Because except in some very rare circumstances the answer is always "some".

So to go back to your original quote:

ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
both experienced military and civilian pilots would least be susceptible to reporting something so mundane as the Moon, stars, other Terran aircraft, missiles or reflections on canopies


this leaves out the plain fact that while we should expect that they would be less susceptible than your average person on a case by case basis, over the course of a career, they are in a situation where they might make such a misidentification thousands and thousands of times more often than your average person.

So, we would not expect any random report to contain these misidentifications. Would we expect such a misidentification over the course of a given pilot's career? Again, probably not. Over the course of all pilots' careers in the world? Yes, certainly.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.