I am constantly amazed about the faith so many people have in the idea that since Pilots, Police Officers etc., report seeing various UFO phenomena that that testimony has a much higher believability factor. The notion appears to be that Pilots, Police Officers etc., are significantly more reliable than "ordinary" witnesses to UFOs. Is this in fact even true? Frankly this seems to be a variation of arguing from authority. And like all arguments from authority it has to be examined in depth.
Now Police officers may be significantly more reliable than "ordinary" people in describing crime scenes / crimes and Pilots more reliable in describing weather and other planes etc. But does this have any bearing in terms of greater accuracy in describing UFO phenomena?
Well apparently not. It is unlikely that Pilots, Police are significantly more accurate that "ordinary" people when describing what are perceived to be unusual phenomena such as UFOs. In fact the book UFOs: The Public Deceived, by Philip J. Klass published more than 30 years ago, (1983) reports ( pp. 81-87) that something like 88% of UFO reports by military pilots were "Identified Flying Objects" (IFOs), even with multiple witnesses the number was 76%! Airline and Civil pilots had a 89% misidentification of IFOs has UFOs and with multiple witnesses it was 79% of IFOs identified as UFOs. If people had technical training the number of IFOs identified has UFOs was 65% for single witnesses and 50% for multiple. These figures come from Allen Hynek's book The UFO Report, 1977. ( I used to have a copy) Since Hynek was a UFO believer who had every incentive to find mysterious "unexplained" sightings I regard his figures has damning. As for Police officers well Hynek describes how in the fall of 1967 a large number of Police officers in Georgia were taken in by the planet Venus mistaking it for a UFO. In 1979 another UFO believer Hendry published a book called The UFO Handbook, in which out of 1307 cases he was able to find prosaic explanations for 91.4% of the cases. Of the remainder he found possible prosaic explanations for 7.1% leaving just 1.5% unexplained! So all we have left is the damn residue that are likely unexplained because of lack of information.
The idea that Police Officers, Pilots etc., are significantly more reliable that "ordinary" witnesses when it comes to UFO phenomena is a statement of faith not backed up by much evidence. Perhaps they are indeed more reliable but any difference from "ordinary" witnesses would seem to be not large and has such Police Officers, Pilots are subject to the same errors of interpretation etc., that "ordinary" witnesses are in relation to UFO phenomena and has such their testimony about such things is apparently not significantly more reliable. And frankly it appears that like with the majority of "ordinary" testimony most of it is misperceptions.
I find it remarkable that the old Police Officers and Pilots testimony is reliable trope regarding UFOs is trotted out when for at least a generation this has been shown to be well wrong.
Now Police officers may be significantly more reliable than "ordinary" people in describing crime scenes / crimes and Pilots more reliable in describing weather and other planes etc. But does this have any bearing in terms of greater accuracy in describing UFO phenomena?
Well apparently not. It is unlikely that Pilots, Police are significantly more accurate that "ordinary" people when describing what are perceived to be unusual phenomena such as UFOs. In fact the book UFOs: The Public Deceived, by Philip J. Klass published more than 30 years ago, (1983) reports ( pp. 81-87) that something like 88% of UFO reports by military pilots were "Identified Flying Objects" (IFOs), even with multiple witnesses the number was 76%! Airline and Civil pilots had a 89% misidentification of IFOs has UFOs and with multiple witnesses it was 79% of IFOs identified as UFOs. If people had technical training the number of IFOs identified has UFOs was 65% for single witnesses and 50% for multiple. These figures come from Allen Hynek's book The UFO Report, 1977. ( I used to have a copy) Since Hynek was a UFO believer who had every incentive to find mysterious "unexplained" sightings I regard his figures has damning. As for Police officers well Hynek describes how in the fall of 1967 a large number of Police officers in Georgia were taken in by the planet Venus mistaking it for a UFO. In 1979 another UFO believer Hendry published a book called The UFO Handbook, in which out of 1307 cases he was able to find prosaic explanations for 91.4% of the cases. Of the remainder he found possible prosaic explanations for 7.1% leaving just 1.5% unexplained! So all we have left is the damn residue that are likely unexplained because of lack of information.
The idea that Police Officers, Pilots etc., are significantly more reliable that "ordinary" witnesses when it comes to UFO phenomena is a statement of faith not backed up by much evidence. Perhaps they are indeed more reliable but any difference from "ordinary" witnesses would seem to be not large and has such Police Officers, Pilots are subject to the same errors of interpretation etc., that "ordinary" witnesses are in relation to UFO phenomena and has such their testimony about such things is apparently not significantly more reliable. And frankly it appears that like with the majority of "ordinary" testimony most of it is misperceptions.
I find it remarkable that the old Police Officers and Pilots testimony is reliable trope regarding UFOs is trotted out when for at least a generation this has been shown to be well wrong.
Last edited:
