«Airline and military pilots are among the most experienced skywatchers. Their profession requires them to spend hundreds of hours per year in the air, few professions require a working knowledge of weather, other aircraft, and unusual activities.» (Dr. Richard Hall)
All of us are qualified for a common sense observation.
Perhaps the appropriate term to measure the observations with the greatest weight is the QUALITY DEGREE of the testimonies.
When some today question such Quality, they do so based only on improvisations, or wishes (in the case of the deniers on duty). And they also mention that the term QUALIFIED WITNESS is a kind of «dirty word».
By the way, your speculations do not have any foundation or support.
The idea is to REALLY establish if we can measure the Quality Degree of the Pilot witnesses, and see if those cases have a higher qualification than others.
As for the term QUALIFIED, it has a very precise basic definition:
«That it has the necessary requirements for something / that it has merit and respect / that the person has academic preparation and experience»
Such definitions are concrete: a pilot – from such a perspective – is a more qualified witness than any person who has a task where the visual overview and degree of responsibility is more limited. (QUOTE 1)
I will show that this is measurable with cold data, without passionate phrases or personal impressions.
This article is published on the anniversary of the creation of the CRIDOVNI (UFO Complaints Receiving and Investigating Commission) of the Uruguayan Air Force, which is the best example of serious and coherent UFO study and investigation since its inception.
Our appreciation to our colleagues from the Eastern Rep. of Uruguay.
For years, many detractors have advanced misconceptions within Ufology.
One of them is the one that maintains that the testimony of a pilot is similar to that of a common witness. And they reiterate the fact that no one is infallible and that there can be confusion and mistakes.
That is a truth that has nothing original: from the moment that we are human, the faults exist.
However, it is striking that people who today dabble in Ufology point out that the pilot witnesses are observers in the same degree of quality as the rest. It is the proof that they are not properly informed or only spread the false ideas of the detractors.
Dr.Willy Smith already told us:
“Like all human beings, a pilot can make mistakes, but his interpretation of the facts must be considered very seriously, especially if the testimony fits with the rest of the existing information about an incident.
The skeptical critic who without a second thought «explains away» a sighting by a pilot by attributing it, say, to Venus, without even informing himself of the witness’s experience, is not only negligent in his activities, but in fact is seriously insulting the aviator by placing question their professionalism and competence.
This is one of the reasons, perhaps the fundamental one, why pilots in this contemporary era do not speak of their experiences in public.
The experiences continue to occur, but the analyst only finds out if he is lucky enough to establish a friendly connection with the pilot involved in a UFO incident. (end of quote)
It is precisely what we have established with the pilots of June 30, a bond of reliability so that they can find that comfort that allows them to express themselves.
Dr.Richard Haines is the greatest investigator devoted to the testimonies of pilots in the entire world and to the cases of Aviation Security and UFOs.
His reputation is remarkable, along with his background:
1 – Engineering Studies at Seattle University
2 – Studies in Psychology at the University of Tacoma and Michigan and was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology in San José, California
3 – Jobs for airlines Aeroplano Seattle, Washington. (Engineering Division)
4 – Studies and works for the Research Institute for Advanced Computing at Ames, NASA Center
5 – He has directed astronautical research in the spacecraft reentry program for the Gemini capsules, the design of the space station window, etc. He conducted theoretical and applied human performance studies for the Space Shuttle program on human g tolerance of reentry plus simulated weightlessness.
6 – In NASA management, Dr. Haines was appointed head of the office of human factors in space at Ames, directing design and development work on the AX-5
7 – Since 1988 he has worked as a staff scientist at the Research Institute for Advanced Computing, USRA, located at NASA Ames.
And as if this were not enough, Haines is a member of several scientific and technical institutions. (QUOTE 2)
Such a magnitude of background is impressive and reflects only part of his career.
I had the honor of expressing flattering concepts towards my book «ENCOUNTER BETWEEN PILOTS AND UFOS IN ARGENTINA AND THE WORLD», stating:
“Dear Carlos: Appreciate your book, which has set a very high standard for others to follow in the future. You have qualified your claims very well, you have also covered most of the important UFO physical characteristics. I want to congratulate you on your important role in relation to the Aviation Security and Ufos cases. Their discussions will contribute to the research of others working in this field around the world.» (end of quote)
Precisely in that book (already out of print and which I will reissue shortly), he mentioned some unfortunate opinions of some detractors.
Javier Armentía (astronomer from Pamplona), for example, when declaring that:
“Pilots do not know what their eyes are seeing when they signal to observe a UFO” (SIC)
Or that of the Argentine astronomer Horacio Tignatelli who in his «Dictionary of astronomy for boys» misinforms as follows:
“But there were some pilots (there are always some) who did not consult anyone and spread their impressions embellished with fantasy, mystery, and in certain cases, malicious intent. Thus, from the simple UFOs were born flying saucers, flying cigars, mother ships, and from them an exquisite fauna of extraterrestrial beings…” (End of quote)
To oppose these expressions (prejudiced, tendentious and fanciful), let’s see the opinion of Dr. Haines on the quality of the pilot witnesses, which he outlines in 6 points:
A – Poseen un alto nivel de entrenamiento y motivación personal para realizar observaciones cuidadosas.
B – Los años de experiencia en vuelo les sirven de ayuda para evaluar rápidamente situaciones inesperadas y a menudo ambiguas.
C – Tienen la posibilidad de mantener un contacto directo (radio – radar) con el personal de tierra, incrementando la información recogida en una situación anómala.
D – Los aviones tienen la habilidad de volar en direcciones y alturas variables, proporcionando a los pilotos una perspectiva diferente de los hechos.
E – El mantenimiento de reputaciones personales es de fundamental importancia para los pilotos, por lo que normalmente han de considerar todas las alternativas antes de aventurar una opinión sobre un objeto desconocido.
F – Aviones modernos, especialmente los militares, poseen instrumentos muy sofisticados, representando una ayuda fundamental para la identificación de cosas que son realmente identificables. (fin de la cita)
Nick Pope, ex ministro y funcionario que solía investigar OVNIs para el Ministerio de la Defensa Inglés, también se ha referido a la cuestión de los observadores pilotos:
«As long as there are no infallible testimonies, the pilots are the most qualified witnesses, because they are trained observers, and they will probably be able to better identify the most common objects. The MoD (Ministry of Defense) UFO files contain reports from civilian and military pilots, some of which were confirmed by radar. This is the type of encounter that should be taken seriously and fully investigated.» (end of quote)
Another scholar named R.Hall (The UFO Reference, R. Hall, NICAP, 1964), takes an identical position to Pope’s:
«Airline and military pilots are among the most experienced skywatchers. Their profession requires them to spend hundreds of hours per year in the air, few professions require a working knowledge of weather, other aircraft, and unusual activities.» . (end of quote)
As we can see, the quality of the pilots is very clear, expressed by personalities who are experts in the matter.
In recent times, various spokesmen for dogmatic skepticism have begun a line of argument to put this type of witness, on an equal footing with the rest, in the face of a silence from a large part of the UFO participants.
Phrases such as «truths» are said that are not properly substantiated, and the idea is to bring the cases of pilots to the minimum point of quality.
The skeptical tactic is to attack the irreducible events is a way to bury the rest. There enter the cases of Pilots, to reduce them to the lowest. By the way, they get extremely angry when some ufologists do not «accept» their alleged «sentences». (QUOTE 3)
But there are ways to show that these «arguments» of the deniers on duty, is due to their misinformation or their ability to hide all that I raise that moves their structures.
THE PILOTS AS WITNESSES OF WEIGHT / HOW TO MEASURE THE DEGREE OF QUALITY
Is it possible to measure the quality of pilot testimonials?
Can we somehow determine that the Pilot cases have more weight than the rest?
There is only one way and it involves enormous work.
This is only possible, taking and applying the same qualification system in hundreds or thousands of cases of Pilots and other different ones.
It is what I have done with all my statistical studies, applying the «Certainty Test» of the old world.
That meant entire years of work (and this is what Ufology eminences such as Haines, Sturrock and Vallée himself have highlighted abroad).
As I have pointed out, this Certainty Test – which we suggested at the time and was implemented in the first Air F.A. Commission – I applied it in the following works:
1 – 157 cases of PILOTS IN ARGENTINA
2 – 1736 cases of LANDINGS IN ARGENTINA
3 –242 cases from MAR DEL PLATA
4 – 167 cases of UNDERWATER OBJECTS IN ARGENTINA
In total there are 2,302 cases, all of which were qualified with the same parameters (46 possible), which means a review that exceeds 105,000 data.
We are not talking about a single element to obtain figures, but multiple combinations to obtain the final figure.
All this documentation is a bar of cold, analytical data, where personal impressions, hunches or desires do not play a role.
Each of these statistics took years to prepare, with a load of indisputable data.
These studies are not unsubstantiated personal impressions, but an effort of hours a day for years. By the way, it is not what some ignorant classify as «self-promotion».
To do it (whoever wants to counter it), should do the same work, namely:
a – Make a complete review of data and information from decades (newspaper library, library, video library, personal cases, bulletins and complementary studies, correspondence with dozens of researchers), etc, etc.
b – Apply to all of them the same rating system (in this case the Certainty Test), which has 46 parameters to be rated. This is then synthesized in 3 figures: SOURCE / STRANGENESS / CREDIBILITY.
c – Once the tens of thousands of figures in values have been gathered, and these are circumscribed to the 3 mentioned above, carry out the mathematical operation of multiplying them and obtaining the final value.
d – Then proceed to synthesize each case in 4 or 5 lines (sometimes more, sometimes less), transcribing more than 2,000 cases in this way and with their corresponding values.
e – In order to be able to carry out studies of statistical comparisons, obtaining possible phenomenal constants, and others, the data are compared and information and methodological records are obtained (at the national level).
f – An extension step (which I have carried out) is to compare some of these constants with other countries.
This took me years and that is why it was possible to achieve and gather the largest and only work in Argentina with qualification of events of all kinds.
Returning to the topic of the Pilots, and to determine their QUALITY DEGREE with respect to other cases, it was key to make a graph of final scores, in the aforementioned statistics.
And the result is the graph that I present below, where we can get two readings.
The first and most notable: we clearly see the scores of the cases at the bottom, from 0 to 5, from 6 to 10, from 11 to 15, from 16 to 20, from 21 to 25, from 26 to 30 and more than 30.
Then you see the lines of different colors (with percentages).
Of the 6 to 10 points, the Pilotos crest is so different from the rest that it is located in 45% of the total, while those of Mar del Plata, Landings and Osnis, remain in 30%.
Clearly we find that – with the same qualification system applied to the 2302 cases – the events with protagonists «PILOTS» (blue line) ostensibly outperform the rest from 6 to 10.
But we also notice a second peak (which statistically exceeds those of Mdp, Landings and Osnis), in the range that goes from 26 to 30 points (these are the cases with the highest score and highest quality).
The second reading is that we can appreciate that all the lines have an identical situation of growth and decrease.
This is important, because if UFOs were the product of chance, or the hobby of «gullible ufologists», surely the highest scoring crests would be at the end and not at the beginning. Or else everything would be a perfect chaos without order.
These are the ways to be able to contrast the UFO stories and not based on personal interpretations or assumptions.
The problem here is that not many Ufologists engage in statistical study. But it is the only way to be able to find constants that we can transmit to whom it corresponds, that have weight and foundation.
From the cases of Pilots we can also extract three important pieces of information:
1 – Dividing the country into four main regions, Patagonia accounts for 15% of all cases, making it the second most important region for pilot and UFO cases.
2 – In turn, the duration of these events is longer than expected, with 21% of the total exceeding 35 minutes of observation. Some «sentencers» of opinions, stated these days that something that was 45 minutes before the sight of witnesses could not be a UFO.
3 – Another very important characteristic is that in 72% of the total cases, there are more than 3 witnesses, with which the possibility of error or confusion is minimized.
To measure point 3, I have made this second graph, where I have also included 101 more cases from the city of La Plata, already 5 statistical works with a total of 2,403 cases (Landings / Mar del Plata / La Plata / Osnis / Pilots ).
Here also the order or phenomenal constant is perfect: the cases of 1 witness, 2 and 3, go from highest to lowest in all cases. Then there is the one with more than 3 witnesses (purple rectangles).
It is clearly highlighted that in the Pilots statistics, the number of witnesses with more than 3 observers is notably higher than the rest:
1 – In the data on UFO reports, and through the study of thousands of cases, the events involving Aeronautical personnel are of a HIGHER QUALITY DEGREE than the rest of the events.
2 – The evidence is tangible and measurable, since this material has been exposed in my books and published to the community. All have been qualified with the same parameters.
3 – This study had never been carried out in Argentina (and as far as I have data, not worldwide), having demanded thousands of man hours and years of preparation.
4 – It clearly shows us that, in addition to witnesses with a high Quality Degree, events with pilots minimize confusion to a very high percentage, because we mostly found more than 1 witness (read co-pilots, passengers, control tower personnel, etc. ).
Based on these considerations, we can qualitatively demonstrate that the pilot cases have a HIGHER QUALITY DEGREE than the rest. The statistical weight exceeds that of any individual case, and it is compelling.
With this, another of the myths of misinformers collapses, who have already been lying in the percentage of official studies and other false ideas that are spread everywhere, about the UFO Phenomenon.
QUOTE 1 = There are 40 examples of jobs called QUALIFIED. The Pilots are among them.
QUOTE 2 = (Dr.Richard Haines), member of: Amer. Astronautical Society / Optical Society of America / Aerospace Medical Association / S-7 Committee on Deck and Flight Handling Quality Standards for Transport Aircraft / International Society of Aviation Safety Researchers in San Francisco / Committee Member of Aviation Safety, Aerospace Medical Association / Founder and Chairman of the Committee on the Uses of Advanced Technology, NASA/California.
QUOTE 3 = There are attempts to invalidate cases such as Bariloche (July 31, 1995) through possible confusion or the Yacanto case (July 3, 1960), as «development failure.» All fanciful and smiling arguments that only aim to point to the most outstanding cases so that none are left standing.