Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 2000 -> Aug -> Re: The Orford Ness Lighthouse 'UFO' - Hatch

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:21:33 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 11:22:56 -0400
Subject: Re: The Orford Ness Lighthouse 'UFO' - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 22:53:23 +0100
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: The Orford Ness Lighthouse 'UFO'
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:11:22 -0500
 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Subject: Re: The Orford Ness Lighthouse 'UFO'
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Persons with the appropriate professional background to make
 >>them good witnesses figure disproportionately in the best
 >>sightings, just as one would expect.

<snip>

 >Well no, Jerry, I'm afraid they don't. Allan Hendry has
 >demonstrated that pilots and law enforcement officers (typical
 >"reliable witness" types) are no better at distinguishing UFOs
 >from IFOs than other occupational groups that make no claim to
 >be "trained witnesses". The proportion of IFOs to all reports
 >made by pilots and air personnel was 75% (i.e. 75% of all
 >reports were subsequently identified) which was on the lower end
 >of the range, it was the same as the proportion for "skilled
 >trades", in which Hendry placed architects, musicians,
 >photographers, engineers, and quite possibly librarians. Worst
 >of all, with 94% of their reports turning out to be IFOs were
 >law enforcement officers.
 >
 >Hendry suggests that the reason why the latter proved so
 >ineffective in distinguishing IFOs from UFOs was that their
 >training made the more conscious of small details during quiet
 >night patrols. This raises an important point: yes there are
 >"trained observers", but they are usually trained to observe
 >something quite specific. Pilots are trained to observe objects
 >with the flight characteristics of an aeroplane. they are not
 >for instance trained to observe meteors, which explains why
 >quite a few "near miss" UFO encounters with planes turned out to
 >be meteors may tens of miles away. policemen are trained to
 >notice _anything_ out of the usual and report and act on it.

<snip>

Just some minor points:

1) On the higher 94% IFO rates for policemen, this may actually
work in their favor. Its almost a movie cliché for an English
policeman to be scribbling notes into his little notebook at
some crime scene, while the direct witnesses are more likely
losing their heads. ( I suspect movie fans here would be
disappointed if this failed to occur. )

If a good cop takes note of many details, great and small, this
would inevitably lead to a higher rate of identification, since
most well investigated UFO reports do turn out to be mundane.

I would offer this as an indication that the policeman was
indeed a better witness, not just average or poorer. A good
command of the details must necessarily imply a better witness!

2) As for airline pilots and crew, I cannot offer such a good
argument, just my personal opinion based on pilots I have met, a
rather no-nonsense lot, and what I have heard of them in
general.

When it comes to in-flight sightings, I would take the testimony
of any airline pilot over some passenger on the very same
plane... perhaps at a two to one ratio. Throw in the copilot,
others in the crew, and I would call that pretty darned good
credibility.

( The "strangeness" rating is of course a separate issue, and
would depend on the description. )

Even Joe Soap can provide some good testimony, if accompanied by
George, Jill and Roger Soap .. and their descriptions tally.

I would nevertheless give greater weight to a pilot, or even a
beat-cop, than some person taken at random.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch