Andy wrote:

Exercise names and the ordnance he has equipped are easy things to get right. What he saw is the kind of thing, though, where his brain will fill in detail over time, based on factors not available to him at the time.

I get the hindsight bias thing. So if you're aware of that, I suspect you're also aware of the somatic marker hypothesis (effectively the suspected physiological basis for PTSD... But I over simplify).

While photographic memories are rare, it is suspected that it is possible to remember things from a long time ago, in great detail, given the right conditions... Usually related to extreme stress or pleasure.

An event like that, (being a fighter pilot, encountering an object that far outclasses any weapon you've encountered), I guess, would definitely be a candidate for that level of subjective attention and subsequent recall.

I'm not dispelling your right to disbelief... I think this is interesting for the fact it's made the public domain, and that the military aren't covering this up... But I'd also like more cogent explanations for things I don't quite understand.

I'm just trying to say in reply to what you've wrote, that while your point about the psychology of long term memory is true to a large degree, it's definitely not a fact that can be relied on, one hundred percent.

It is a very interesting field of research though.

bad_hair_day wrote:

. 'Show me scientific evidence' is a legit comment, except these things can't be studied in a controlled environment because of their sporadic and elusive nature.
]

Neither can, I dunno, the sun, but yet we can say things about it.

Silly reduction of science to labcoats and Bunsen burners.

Memory is notoriously rubbish.

Facewon wrote:

bad_hair_day wrote:

. 'Show me scientific evidence' is a legit comment, except these things can't be studied in a controlled environment because of their sporadic and elusive nature.
]

Neither can, I dunno, the sun, but yet we can say things about it.

Silly reduction of science to labcoats and Bunsen burners.

Clumsy/silly phrasing aside, the sun isn't sporadic or elusive.

Ok, then pick something that's more elusive. The type of argument you're making there is identical to "you can't observe evolution because its in the past, ergo it's not science."

If I was being unkind, I'd nearly think you were setting up the claim to be unfalsifiable.

Quick way to never have to give up on an idea we like.

Face, no I'm saying if until one of these objects can be thoroughly examined we are left with a lot of questions about this event.

Diluted Dante wrote:

I imagine that Andy has more experiance than any of us in asking people to recall long passed events where detail is important.

I did actually want to bring that up. It's a fair point.

@Face - In the case of this pilot, not only is the memory particularly prominent, it sounds like he's been recalling the event repeatedly, for many years now, in some cases, daily.

dynamiteReady wrote:

@Face - In the case of this pilot, not only is the memory particularly prominent, it sounds like he's been recalling the event repeatedly, for many years now, in some cases, daily.

That doesn’t help its accuracy. Stories develop. One day he introduces a description of something he knows from other flights, and before we know it, it’s something he specifically remembers happening that day.

I'm just asking which details you think are inaccurate?

Edited.

bad_hair_day wrote:

Andy, seems to me that remembering details could be a consequence of his training and should think sounds rehearsed if it's been recounted regularly as he has stated.

Edit: Snap

Are military personnel trained in memory techniques? I can’t particularly see why they would be.

An interesting take on Fravor's account here...

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/navy_pilots_2004_ufo_a_comedy_of_errors/

I'm keeping an open mind.

bad_hair_day wrote:

Didn't think it a stretch to have a good memory if your in command of training fighter pilots is all.

Having a good memory is by no means a requirement for training people, especially in situations where there are going to be a large number of people recording huge amounts of data for you and everything is going to be recorded anyway.

Me? I'm not taking sides. I don't have enough info yet...

Facewon wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

An interesting take on Fravor's account here...

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/navy_pilots_2004_ufo_a_comedy_of_errors/

I'm keeping an open mind.

Thank christ. I'll take Joe nickel over rogan and this pilot thanks.

So Joe dismisses the whole incident (except the carrier radar accounts, reroute of the training jets, the second reconnaissance etc etc) because of a height discrepancy of the object and adds his own suppositions?

Fravor goes into explicit detail of what's happening on the video in question.

Kow wrote:

Funny how all these fast flying things seem to be flying around military planes and ships and near military bases. Just coincidence I guess. They're smart enough to avoid being caught or properly filmed, 'pre-empting' manoeuvres, but they don't make any attempt to make contact. And they've been doing it for 70 years. Hmm.

I always put that shit in the 'against' column... Why do only drunk people, and fighter pilots see these things?
Unless those drunk people generally find these things near military bases... Then that could establish a pattern...

Thinking of Fravor specifically, he doesn't come across at all as kooky, but you could argue that attending to the UFO circuit can provide an amusing and somewhat assured post military career...

But it did sound like he saw something that's not easily explained, and however much one tries to raise effect of a cognitive fallacy (mnemonic fallacy... whatever), he does appear to offer uncommon information that many experts appear to uphold, rather than just outright refute...

Plus, "I wanna' believe.". And possibly pork Scully...