The Weinstein Catalog: Ufological Bullion or Fool’s Gold?

Introduction

In my opinion, publishing UFO lists is a lazy way to make a case that UFOs require serious scientific study. This methodology is similar to coin or stamp collecting, where the collector will try and impress the uninformed observer with a large collection of objects. However, if the collection contains a significant number of items that are worthless, what does it say for the entire collection?

I have examined many cases in various catalogs being produced by UFO groups/organizations and continue to be amazed at how a significant number of events on these lists are identifiable. Even worse is how these same faulty cases can be found in other collections. It appears that all of these various compilations reference each other and assumed that the incidents were properly vetted because they appear on somebody else’s directory. When it comes to UFO lists, quantity is more important than quality.

Expert Witness?

One of the UFO lists often cited by UFO proponents is compiled by Dominique Weinstein, who wanted to highlight cases involving pilots and aircrews s2Weinstein, Dominique F.: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: Eighty years of pilot sightings, NARCAP, February 2001. It is the opinion of Mr. Weinstein that pilots are considered to be the most reliable of witnesses:

Training and experience make pilot and crews much more reliable witnesses than others. They are used to unusual meteorological phenomena. They have the added advantage of being able to approach the phenomenon. Sometimes they can even overfly the object, observing it between themselves and the earth below. Military pilots are trained to estimate distances, shapes and speed of flying machines. s3Weinstein, Dominique F.: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: Eighty years of pilot sightings, NARCAP, February 2001, p. 4

The problem with this reasoning is that, while military pilots are trained to identify objects in the sky, they are only trained to deal with KNOWN aircraft. If they see another aircraft, which they are familiar with, they can approximate details based on the angular size. However, when we are talking about UFOs, we are talking about an “unknown.” Nobody knows if it is five meters or five kilometers in size. Therefore, one cannot approximate distance based on angular size. Without distance, one cannot estimate speed or altitude. The bottom line is that it is impossible, no matter how good a witness is, to accurately determine size, speed, distance, or altitude without having some point of reference. This “unknown” indicates that all the pilots can do is provide a “best guess,” which makes many of these estimates worthless as far as scientific research is concerned.

Pilots are highly trained but how good are they at doing their primary job? It is somewhat surprising that the main cause of aircraft accidents is “pilot error.” Out of the 1516 accidents examined by the FAA between 1990 and 2002, 1020 (68%) can be attributed to aircrew/supervisory error s4Shappell, S.A., Detwiler, C.A., Holcomb, K.A., Hackworth, C.A., Bouquet, A.J. & Wiegmann, D.A.: Human Error and Commercial Aviation Accidents: A Comprehensive, Fine-Grained Analysis Using HFACS, Federal Aviation Administration: Office of Aerospace medicine, Washington. D.C, July 2006, p. 6.n1[Editor’s note] 1020 out of 1516 is 67.3%, not 68%. This does not mean pilots are always making mistakes but it does demonstrate that they are not always dependable to perform the correct action when required. If they are not “perfect” performing their primary responsibility, how reliable can they be as observers when they are busy performing that task?

During World War 2, there were numerous examples of how pilots were prone to making mistakes in reporting what they had seen and did. Ships were sunk that were not even hit, pilots claimed numerous planes shot down when only a few were damaged, and aircrews often simply were mistaken about what they reported. In the Pacific, pilots were often sent out on long tedious missions to scout out the ocean looking for enemy ships/fleets. These were the eyes of the fleet and their reports were extremely important. They were often equipped with optical aid, such as binoculars, had an observer with them, and, probably, had identification manuals to help distinguish between different types of targets. Despite all the training and equipment, mistakes were still common. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, a barge had been identified as a Japanese aircraft carrier and attacked by two aircraft. During the Battle of the Coral Sea, a Japanese scout craft reported seeing an aircraft carrier and cruiser to the fleet. In response, the Japanese aircraft carriers launched a full attack on this target. When the strike made it to the location described, they only found an oiler and a destroyer. Had they not attacked based on this false report, they could have attacked the main US fleet, which was discovered shortly after the strike had departed. After the main battle, an exposed reef had been identified as a carrier, which had the remaining carrier, the Yorktown, send an attack force to destroy it. In the battle of Midway, the Japanese, as well as the American pilots suffered from inaccurate information about each other’s fleet locations and compositions. This resulted in a comedy of errors that contributed to the defeat of the Japanese and could have cost the United States the battle when one strike force from the USS Hornet went in the wrong direction and never attacked anything. All of this indicates that the abilities of pilots to make accurate observations during World War 2 was not very good.

Of course, this is not really comparing apples to apples. It is one thing to mistake the types of aircraft and ships or make a mistake in navigation in the heat of battle. It is another thing to see how pilots react to something they had never, or rarely, seen before. Perhaps the best way to evaluate how reliable pilots are in reporting UFOs is to see how they react to events involving known objects that were unknown to the pilots when they saw them.

Case Study 1: Monday, November 5, 1990

On Monday, November 5, 1990 a Russian rocket body, used to launch Gorizont 21, re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere over the North Sea around 06 PM UTC. It was seen by many pilots and their accounts indicated that what they had seen was something truly extraordinary.

Some of the primary witnesses to the event were some RAF pilots flying Tornado aircraft over the North Sea and commercial pilot, Mike D’Alton, who was piloting a 737 from Rome to London and located over the Alps.

D’Alton’s description of the object was:

What we saw was one large, fairly bright light. Ahead of it was a formation of three fainter lights in a triangle. Another faint light was behind the large light and was slightly slower…we watched the lights for two minutes then it took a lightning-fast right-angle turn and zoomed out of sight. s5The National Archives: DEFE 24/2041/1, p. 26

British MOD files contained message traffic related to the incident. It gave two descriptions of the event. The first came from a civilian airliner:

ONE LARGE AEROPLANE (SHAPE). 5 TO 6 WHITE STEADY LIGHTS. 1 BLUE STEADY LIGHT. CONTRAILS FROM BLUE AREA. s6The National Archives: DEFE 24/2041/1, p. 20

Several British Tornado pilots also saw the re-entry. There description was also in the message:

UFO APPERRED [SIC] IN OUR RH SIDE SAME LEVEL WE WERE TRAVELLING AT MACH POINT 8. IT WENT INTO OUR 12 OCLOCK AND’ACCLLERATED [sic] AWAY. ANOTHER 2 TORNADOS SEEN IT AND POSSIBLE IDENTIFIED IT AS A STEALTH AIRCRAFT. s7The National Archives: DEFE 24/2041/1, p. 20

When writing about the event in 2003, one of the Tornado pilots wrote the following:

The UFO did not look like any aircraft that I know to be in service with any air force either today or at the time of the sighting. s8The National Archives: DEFE 24/2041/1, p. 9

He also stated:

This was definitely not a Russian satellite- I am 100% certain of that. This was a large “aircraft” and I could see detail of the lights and the engine area. I have never since seen anything like it. s9The National Archives: DEFE 24/2041/1, p. 10

It is interesting that these highly trained individuals felt that what they had seen was not rocket debris re-entering the earth’s atmosphere but some sort of piloted craft of large size that had incredible capabilities of speed and maneuverability. Even after over a decade, one of the Tornado pilots was still convinced he had seen an exotic craft of some kind even though all the evidence indicated otherwise. Most important, this event involved multiple pilots making the same kind of error. So intense was their belief in what they think they saw, they could not be convinced that what they saw was something else.

Missing from all of the writings of this incident are the pilots who saw the object and determined that what they had seen was some sort of re-entry. Unfortunately, their reports are never documented and it is only the spectacular reports that make it into the UFO literature. How many cases, in the Weinstein catalog, involve other pilots who saw the event listed, were able to identify the object for what it was, but made no report to the news media or government agency?

Case Study 2: Ghana Monday, July 27, 1987

The Wednesday, July 29, 1987 edition of the Ghana times described a UFO event seen over the southeastern region of the county. On the ground, was a Ghana Air Force pilot, who reported to US officials his observations of the UFO. The official, who interviewed the pilot, implied he was a very reliable witness:

…A QUALIFIED JET FIGHTER PILOT. HE IS WELL KNOWN TO THE DAO AND OTHERS AS A SERIOUS PROFESSIONAL, NOT GIVEN TO FLIGHTS OF FANCY OR TO ANY DESIRE TO ATI’RACT ATIENTION TO HIMSELF. HE SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EMBARRASSED (AS WELL AS MYSTIFIED) BY THIS UFO SIGHTING AND PROVIDED THE DETAILS RELUCTANTLY, MAINLY BECAUSE THE AIR FORCE COMMANDER HAD ASKED THE DAO TO HELP IDENTIFY THE OBJECT. s10MSG to DIA Washington D.C. DTG R201417Z Aug 87 Subject: Unidentified Flying Object, p. 3

Based on this description, one would expect his observations to be highly accurate. Additionally, he was on the ground and did not have to worry about flying his aircraft. Therefore, all of his observations were without any distraction. He described the UFO as follows:

THE UFO FOLLOWED A GENERAL NORTH-TO-SOUTH COURSE AND DISAPPEARED OVER THE HORIZON OF THE GULF OF GUINEA. THE INITIAL IMPRESSION OF THE UFO, AS IT APPROACHED THE VICINITY OF ACCRA FROM THE NORTH, WAS THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A FAILLING METEORITE. VERY QUICKLY, HOWEVER, THE UFO STOPPED FALLING AND STARTED TO CLIMB. AS IT WAS GAINING ALTITUDE OVER ACCRA AND THE OCEAN, DETAILS OF THE UFO, COULD BE SEEN QUITE CLEARLY BECAUSE OF ITS OWN LIGHT EMISSIONS AND THE CLEAR EVENING SKY. WHEN OBSERVED MOST CLEARLY, THE UFO APPEARED TO BE AT AN ALTITUDE OF ABOUT 15,000 FEET. ITS GENERAL SHAPE WAS SIMILAR TO A VERY LARGE AIRCRAFT FUSELAGE OR MISSILE BODY. ITS COLOR WAS METALLIC, ALUMINUM-LIKE. IT APPEARED TO BE ABOUT TWO OR THREE TIMES THE SIZE OF A BOEING 747 AIRLINER. BUT IT DID NOT SEEM TO BE PRODUCING ANY SOUND.

AT FIRST, PARTICULARLY WHILE IT WAS DESCENDING, THE UFO DISPLAYED A RELATIVELY LARGE SINGLE SOURCE OF LIGHT, YELLOWISH IN COLOR, ORIGINATING FROM THE CENTER OF ITS TRAILING END, LIKE A ROCKET. AT ABOUT THE TIME THE UFO STOPPED DESCENDING AND BEGAN TO CLIMB, THIS SINGLE, YELLOWISH LIGHT DISAPPEARED, AND EIGHT SMALLER LIGHTS APPEARED. THESE WERE BLUE IN COLOR AND WERE ARRANGED IN A CIRCULAR CONFIGURATION AROUND THE END OF THE UFO—LIKE RELATIVELY SMALL, JETS. THESE EIGHT BLUE “JETS” SEEMED TO BE THE UFO’S SOURCE OF PROPULSION AS IT DISAPPEARED OVER THE HORIZON.

THE AIR FORCE PILOT ADDED THAT HE HAD HEARD OF OTHER SIGHTINGS. APPARENTLY OF THE SAME-OBJECT, THAT HAD INCLUDED THE SOUND OF “TWO EXPLOSIONS,” AND HE SPECULATED THAT THESE COULD HAVE BEEN SONIC BOOMS. BUT HE WAS APPARENTLY NOT AWARE OF ANY SOUND PRODUCED BY THE UFO AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD OF HIS OBSERVATIONS. s11MSG to DIA Washington D.C. DTG R201417Z Aug 87 Subject: Unidentified Flying Object, pp. 2-3

Does this all sound familiar? What was actually seen was the re-entry of another rocket used for the launch of Cosmos 1870 on Saturday, July 25, 1987. Like the Monday, November 5, 1990 case, the pilot described the craft he saw based on what he thought he saw. His personal biases affected his interpretation of the actual event.

Statistics and Pilots

One might consider these case studies “cherry picking” or only looking at the “low hanging fruit.” There are a great number of such cases in the UFO record involving meteors and space debris. However, they are not the only sources of UFO reports made by pilots. The Blue Book files reveals pilots reporting meteors, satellites, space debris, planets, stars, and balloons, among other things, as UFOs. They were not making up stories but were just reporting they had seen something unusual that they could not identify. In some cases, it was nothing more than a light moving across the sky. In other incidents, the object was described as a craft of some kind.

When Dr. Hynek examined the Blue Book files in the 1970s, he quantified the number of UFO reports made by pilots that could be explained as being 88% for single pilots and 76% for multiple pilots s12Josef Allen Hynek: The Hynek UFO Report, New York, Barnes & Noble, 1997, p. 261. Hynek’s remark about this statistic was:

What we have here is a good example of a well-known psychological fact: “transference” of skill and experience does not usually take place. That is, an expert in one field does not necessarily “transfer” his competence to another one. s13Josef Allen Hynek: The Hynek UFO Report, New York, Barnes & Noble, 1997, p. 261

Allan Hendry had a smaller and more limited database to work with. Most of his reports came from civilian air pilots. Still, his statistics came up with a value of 75% of mistaken identity s14Hendry, Allan: The UFO Investigators Handbook, London, Sphere Books Ltd., 1980, p. 102. This is not much different than what Hynek determined from the Blue Book files.

All of this indicates that the belief that pilots are experts at observing and correctly evaluating unknown objects in the air is a false premise. If pilots are mistaken 75-88% of the time when reporting UFOs, what does that say for a database that contains raw or improperly investigated reports? Can we draw the conclusion that roughly 80% of these cases are probably misidentifications? If pilots are wrong four out of five times, what does it say for the remaining twenty percent?

Looking at the Weinstein Catalog Closely

The Weinstein Catalog is often treated as an important reference to ufologists. The index appears to be quite extensive but I doubt that many UFO proponents have looked at it beyond the numbers. My initial examination of the list revealed that, by my count, 423 cases had no specific date or time, which, by any reasonable standard, defines the case as “insufficient data.” This means that, before investigating a single case, almost a third of the cases should be rejected as containing inadequate information for analysis.

After removing the 423 insufficient data cases, there are still 882 cases remaining. When looking at these sightings, one quickly comes to the realization that a significant number use a single source of information. One case that I examined was Friday, August 15, 1975 from Stockton, California.n2[Editor’s note] The table below dates this Stockton Airport case Thursday, August 14, 1975 (75.08.14). The list gives us several sources, which makes one believe that it must have been thoroughly investigated and used several independent sources of information. However, as one pulls on the string, the entire garment unravels. It appears that all of these individuals obtained their material from one single news story that was missing a lot of pertinent data. One cannot even tell which direction the object was seen from the available information. The most likely cause of the sighting was a minuteman rocket launch but we cannot verify it for sure because the data was inadequate.

Looking at these cases closely, takes time and resources. To date, I have examined forty-five of these cases and have been able to find potential explanations for them. Additionally, Ted Molczan’s database of visually sighted space debris re-entries identifies ten more as being space debris re-entries s15Molczan, Ted: Visually Observed Natural Re-entries of Earth Satellites, Friday, December 18, 2015:

Notice that many of the sightings involve satellite re-entries and rocket launches, which should have been checked before even putting them on the list. Other sources of these reports involved fireball meteors, satellites, planets/stars, balloons, and, in one case, possibly the moon. These are all objects that pilots should be familiar with but still misidentified. All of this data refutes Mr. Weinstein’s claim that pilots are unlikely to make observational errors.

Improving the Catalog

While I am dismissive of the Weinstein list, I am also of the opinion that ufologists could improve it by promptly eliminating all the cases that have potential explanations or lack sufficient data for evaluation. Of course, this would probably reduce the record to maybe a hundred, or fewer, cases. Once these cases are identified, another culling must occur to eliminate those cases where sufficient data is available for evaluation.n3[Editor’s note] The context suggests the author means eliminating the cases where sufficient data is not available. While a date and time might be available, one also requires information such as angular size, direction, and elevation to properly evaluate the event. My point is that if one is going to create a list, make it worth something that withstands scrutiny instead of using the shotgun approach of padding it with an excessive number of bad cases. As Brian Dunning once noted, You can stack cowpies as high as you want, but they won't turn into a bar of gold. s16Dunning, Brian: The Rendlesham forest UFO, Skeptoid Podcast #135, Tuesday, January 6, 2009

I doubt that my criticism will be accepted by many UFO proponents. Ufological lists are akin to propaganda pieces used to impress the uninformed. How many times have UFO proponents mentioned that Weinstein’s catalog contains over 1300 cases made by expert witnesses? They say this as matter of fact without even looking, or mentioning, the flaws associated with the list. Ufology needs to set, and meet, higher standards than this if they want the respect of skeptics and science. They need to demonstrate that they can tell the difference between garbage and gold.