UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[Physics-Learner]

my point was simple and clear.

 

[nismaratwork]

my point was simple and clear.

OK... what was it?... all I saw was a restatement of some elements of then OP in a somewhat disconnected way. I am missing your point... so... if that's what you want, win for you!

If you actually want to make a point however... maybe clarify?

 

[Physics-Learner]

okay. first, let me state that i don't believe or disbelieve. i think the govt could keep the fact that of "real ets" hidden from the masses, if they wanted to. this would assume the "prime directive from star trek" that an alien does not want to interfere.

however, i do agree that the burden of proof is on the one stating that there are ets.

but the point i was making is that the whole topic is "highly speculative". so it is out of place to tell someone that they are going against the rules of the forum for being speculative.

in my book, that makes that person look biased in his "disbelief ".

personally, i have always thought it was a bunch of hooey. but all these high-level people coming out with stories has made me take a couple steps back, and be more accepting of the possibility.

 

[nismaratwork]

okay. first, let me state that i don't believe or disbelieve. i think the govt could keep the fact that of "real ets" hidden from the masses, if they wanted to. this would assume the "prime directive from star trek" that an alien does not want to interfere.

however, i do agree that the burden of proof is on the one stating that there are ets.

but the point i was making is that the whole topic is "highly speculative". so it is out of place to tell someone that they are going against the rules of the forum for being speculative.

in my book, that makes that person look biased in his "disbelief ".

personally, i have always thought it was a bunch of hooey. but all these high-level people coming out with stories has made me take a couple steps back, and be more accepting of the possibility.

OK, I get your point. Regarding my bolding... this is the central issue that I'd address. High level people are not necessarily any more qualified to make these identifications than any other, and they are no less susceptible to human frailties and nature.

Beyond that, it would seem an enormous secret to keep alien life of any kind from the public, and from other governments. Given successful (Abe Lincoln's assasinatio) conspiracies, and those that are less perfect (F-117, while secret, was not completely unobserved or noticed).

 

[Physics-Learner]

i think they are less susceptible. but if we were talking about 1 or 2 incidents and a handful of people, then i would probably not put much emphasis on it yet. but we are talking hundreds, and dozens of incidents. i simply can't just wipe it all away, just because it doesn't meet my previous thought patterns.

i don't think we can compare an event caused by a human versus one caused by an alien, in terms of people knowing about it.

i now have lots of doubt about the sincerity of the cseti group. but let's just take their one claim that many of these visits have been to disarm missiles, and such - that their major concern is us bringing weapons into space.

that being said, it is a small assumption to think that an alien race could keep itself hidden from the masses, and only target those areas of concern.

in fact, i think why it opens my "belief factor" is that it is not only possible, but i think possibly likely that an alien group might behave this way. of course, i realize that the ones making these claims also realize that it is going to seem like a likely type of behavior from an advanced civilization.

i consider myself to be on the fence, but still leaning towards there not being any et visitations. but it would no longer surprise me to find out that there have been.

for me, it would not really affect my life one way or the other. so unlike a lot of people and groups, i don't have any emotional/financial reasons to hope one way or the other.

although i figure it may be good for people in general, since they may have some sort of technology/medicine that could be helpful to us. and i am not scared, since i figure they could have already destroyed us, if that was their goal.

 

[nismaratwork]

i think they are less susceptible. but if we were talking about 1 or 2 incidents and a handful of people, then i would probably not put much emphasis on it yet. but we are talking hundreds, and dozens of incidents. i simply can't just wipe it all away, just because it doesn't meet my previous thought patterns.

i don't think we can compare an event caused by a human versus one caused by an alien, in terms of people knowing about it.

i now have lots of doubt about the sincerity of the cseti group. but let's just take their one claim that many of these visits have been to disarm missiles, and such - that their major concern is us bringing weapons into space.

that being said, it is a small assumption to think that an alien race could keep itself hidden from the masses, and only target those areas of concern.

in fact, i think why it opens my "belief factor" is that it is not only possible, but i think possibly likely that an alien group might behave this way. of course, i realize that the ones making these claims also realize that it is going to seem like a likely type of behavior from an advanced civilization.

i consider myself to be on the fence, but still leaning towards there not being any et visitations. but it would no longer surprise me to find out that there have been.

for me, it would not really affect my life one way or the other. so unlike a lot of people and groups, i don't have any emotional/financial reasons to hope one way or the other.

although i figure it may be good for people in general, since they may have some sort of technology/medicine that could be helpful to us. and i am not scared, since i figure they could have already destroyed us, if that was their goal.

Hmmmm... I think others have better responded to these questions earlier in this very thread. I would point you to FlexGunship's and Jarednjames' posts especially regarding the essential nature of skepticism.

I'm not attacking your beliefs, because unlike many, you're presenting them as just that: beliefs. I would just recommend reading this thread from page 1, and I suspect that by the end you'll be even MORE uncertain.

Still... that's a good thing. Stay on that fence; it's a good place to be when there is nothing to confirm or deny something.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i have posted on this thread quite a few times, earlier. i think i am familiar with many of the older posts to which you refer.

i simply don't buy the thought that hundreds of these military/high level people are simply all mistaken.

if it is untrue, i am much more likely to think that they currently have some sort of goal, and are simply lying.

so unless some new information comes to being, the whole issue simply rests on the back burner for me. AS OF YET, it is neither proved or disproved.

 

[nismaratwork]

i have posted on this thread quite a few times, earlier. i think i am familiar with many of the older posts to which you refer.

i simply don't buy the thought that hundreds of these military/high level people are simply all mistaken.

if it is untrue, i am much more likely to think that they currently have some sort of goal, and are simply lying.

so unless some new information comes to being, the whole issue simply rests on the back burner for me. AS OF YET, it is neither proved or disproved.

In that case, what did you find so convincing in this, beyond the ranks of the people involved?

 

[Physics-Learner]

because i always thought it was a bunch of nonsense, i really had no idea of any of the sorts of "visits".

i can't separate "the ranks" from my thought patterns. it does have a lot of meaning for me.

plus i had no previous thought that they could be concerned about our missiles and bringing our violence into space.

the combination of those 2 things seems like a very real and plausible explanation for et visitations that are not known to the public.

there is still no doubt in me that the vast majority of "sightings" are either hoaxes or something other than ets.

but when people at high level military bases talk about their incidents, i put a lot more stock in it.

and again, i am "not convinced" - but certainly more willing to be open-minded. LOL.

 

[nismaratwork]

because i always thought it was a bunch of nonsense, i really had no idea of any of the sorts of "visits".

i can't separate "the ranks" from my thought patterns. it does have a lot of meaning for me.

plus i had no previous thought that they could be concerned about our missiles and bringing our violence into space.

the combination of those 2 things seems like a very real and plausible explanation for et visitations that are not known to the public.

there is still no doubt in me that the vast majority of "sightings" are either hoaxes or something other than ets.

but when people at high level military bases talk about their incidents, i put a lot more stock in it.

and again, i am "not convinced" - but certainly more willing to be open-minded. LOL.

Well, I obviously disagree, but you've been in the thread and are entitled to your view. I appreciate you going into some more detail, because I admit I found your original post confusing.

I would hope that while keeping an open mind, you consider that human minds are very open by definition. You've said it, that rank is linked to veracity in your mind, although rank and expertise are not the same. Still, I don't see you claiming anything, just describing your view.

That said, skepticism is Skepticism... there is no way to make a sound argument in the context of this thread or sub-forum based on what you've said. Given that, I'd ask that you at least consider how to articulate your new views in a manner that a crusty bastard like me would accept. True, it might not be possible, but it's not a bad exercise, and it can't hurt.

 

[Physics-Learner]

well, at this point, i am somewhat disconnected, because i have no ability to shed any information one way or the other.

i think the prayer about change what you can, accept what you cant, and the wisdom to know the difference applies well for me in this situation.

 

[nismaratwork]

well, at this point, i am somewhat disconnected, because i have no ability to shed any information one way or the other.

i think the prayer about change what you can, accept what you cant, and the wisdom to know the difference applies well for me in this situation.

Ahhh... the "Serenity Prayer". "Give me the power to change what I can, accept what I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference." I'm not sure that invoking prayer of any kind, however well meant is going ot help this situation, and you may be underestimating yourself.

There is an open mind, an open and critical mind... and then...

"Keep your mind too open, and you never know what might walk in." (Simon R. Green)

 

[Physics-Learner]

well, i am certainly still critical. however, i am at least open, now. where i really hadnt been before.

one thing i have found in my life, as i have matured - is that several times it has taken me awhile to become open-minded to things that eventually i found out to be true.

that in itself, was evidence that sometimes i was making conclusions too hastily.

 

[nismaratwork]

well, i am certainly still critical. however, i am at least open, now. where i really hadnt been before.

one thing i have found in my life, as i have matured - is that several times it has taken me awhile to become open-minded to things that eventually i found out to be true.

that in itself, was evidence that sometimes i was making conclusions too hastily.

I think most people who become skeptical begin life cynical as a kind of self-defense. Still, this transitional period between cynicism and optimism is a perfect time to embrace the tenants of (big S) Skepticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

 

[Physics-Learner]

well, defining skeptical as having doubts, i guess i am skeptical about most things - LOL.

being raised catholic, i am now agnostic on the topic of the existence of god. however, i don't think there will ever be any information on that topic. if true, that means there will never be anything with which to base a conclusion.

with ets, we certainly have the possibility of finding out if there are any.

 

[nismaratwork]

well, defining skeptical as having doubts, i guess i am skeptical about most things - LOL.

being raised catholic, i am now agnostic on the topic of the existence of god. however, i don't think there will ever be any information on that topic. if true, that means there will never be anything with which to base a conclusion.

with ets, we certainly have the possibility of finding out if there are any.

Nope, that's not Skepticism... that's just having doubts. Skepticism is a philosophy, which can be further modified to accept the scientific method as a "filter".

Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude,[1] or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.[2] Usually meaning those who follow the evidence, versus those who are skeptical of the evidence (see:Denier) Skepticism is most controversial when it questions beliefs that are taken for granted by most of the population.

The word skepticism can characterise a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set. Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by evidence.[3] Individuals who proclaim to have a skeptical outlook are frequently called skeptics, often without regard to whether it is philosophical skepticism or empirical skepticism that they profess.[4]

In religion, skepticism refers to 'doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation).' (Merriam–Webster). Often skepticism is confused with agnosticism for the reason that the skeptic usually is also an agnostic.[citation needed]

In classical philosophy, skepticism' (or scepticism) is the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[5]

 

[Physics-Learner]

one thing that may surprise you about me (from just reading these posts) is that i am definitely not a follower.

with regards to knowledge, i tend to place levels of probability on most things that i "know".

 

[nismaratwork]

one thing that may surprise you about me (from just reading these posts) is that i am definitely not a follower.

with regards to knowledge, i tend to place levels of probability on most things that i "know".

If I believed you were mindless (a follower) I wouldn't have engaged with you at all. Heck, ask anyone, I'm not a nice guy on S&D... I just am.

The fact that you think in probabilties is the reason that I see that potential for a high grade of skepticism. If you want to bulk that up, then adding a truly scientifc approoach to your internal "dialogue" of doubt and questioning yields the bests result possible: the critical thinker, the Skeptic. (IMO of course)

Consider what I've said to be an endorsement of what I believe is potential, and an existing ability to live with doubt instead of certainty.

 

[Physics-Learner]

that is actually what i try to do. i try to look at the "evidence" that i have, and ask myself the likelihood of something being true or false, based upon that information.

giving up the certainty of god was the hardest thing to do. nothing else comes even a close second. but in doing so, everything else is easy. i have no problem whatsoever living with the thought that most everything i know has levels of probability attached to it.

with regards to ets, i highly doubt that we will ever get much evidence, until such time that either an et wants us to know, or the govts wants us to know.

unfortunately, the mass knowledge of ets would tend to greatly undermine govt and thereby the financial structure of the bigwigs. and to a smaller extent, the big religions. so there is a ton of resistance to us knowing that they exist, if they do so.

so for example, that knowledge about how life works, tends to lend more credence to their existence, for me. or put another way, if the govts wanted us to know, and we still didnt know, then the likelihood of them having visited would almost shrink to zero, for me.

 

[Andre]

...personally, i have always thought it was a bunch of hooey. but all these high-level people coming out with stories has made me take a couple steps back, and be more accepting of the possibility.

Would that mean that because a general and some pilots have a story that this is more credible than other stories?

We have been here before, but there are some flaws, not adding up.

But why would a military story be more credible than any other? It's not that military culture is based upon honesty and truth. It's certainly not science. Military is all about 'make believe'. If your are to be defending yourself, you'd better *convince* friend and enemy that you can, rather than *prove* that you can. So -for instance- if you happen to be a dictator somewhere -vulnerable to attack-, it helps to convince the world that you have powerful weapons of mass destruction. Also if you want to overthrow that dictator, it helps to convince your friends that he has weapons of mass destruction, regardless if he has them or not. Also, when you go into the offensive against that dictator, be sure to present a completely fake attack plan to the international press, so you can surprise your opponent, deception and surprise the one of the main principles of war.

No the military is not about truth and honesty, it's about winning and attaining your goals in which deception plays a major role, be it to win, or be it not to lose your face, when you goofed. So what would warrant the fallacy of the appeal to authority: "he is an official military, hence it must be true"?

 

[nismaratwork]

Would that mean that because a general and some pilots have a story that this is more credible than other stories?

We have been here before, but there are some flaws, not adding up.

But why would a military story be more credible than any other? It's not that military culture is based upon honesty and truth. It's certainly not science. Military is all about 'make believe'. If your are to be defending yourself, you'd better *convince* friend and enemy that you can, rather than *prove* that you can. So -for instance- if you happen to be a dictator somewhere -vulnerable to attack-, it helps to convince the world that you have powerful weapons of mass destruction. Also if you want to overthrow that dictator, it helps to convince your friends that he has weapons of mass destruction, regardless if he has them or not. Also, when you go into the offensive against that dictator, be sure to present a completely fake attack plan to the international press, so you can surprise your opponent, deception and surprise the one of the main principles of war.

No the military is not about truth and honesty, it's about winning and attaining your goals in which deception plays a major role, be it to win, or be it not to lose your face, when you goofed. So what would warrant the fallacy of the appeal to authority: "he is an official military, hence it must be true"?

Ahhhh... this would be the "AP course". Well said Andre... I'd add, George Washington did much the same... presumably deception has been a part of warfare predating the written word. The Art of War is in many ways, a guide to deception and a call to warfare as a total committment.

That commitment requires the resolution of cognitive dissonance firmly in one direction, as you say. Still, for the sake of this argument, it's simply the lack of expertise and evidence that matter; the rest is overwhelmed by that.

 

[Andre]

Thanks Nismaratwork

Anyway we have been thinking/philosophizing about the argumentum ad verecundiam but there could be three variation, with interesting differences.

1: A states S; A is the undisputed world leading authority in the realm of S, hence S is true

Example: the best weather forecaster in the world says it will snow on 12 February 2013

2: A states S; A is an scientific authority with multiple PhD's, hence S is true.

Example: Prof dr mult X says that when the rooster crows, the sun will rise within the hour.

3: A states S; I want S to be true so I declare A an authority.

Example: The pilot stated that the UFO caused an electrical failure.

Problem is that the pilot cannot possibly say what caused an electrical failure, provided that there was one in the first place (or goofed, avoiding to lose face), that would require research on the ground, if it can be reproduced in the first place.

 

[nismaratwork]

Going to get some hairs cut, but I want to respond in detail later. VERY good post, and I wanted to aknowledge that before running out! "I'll be back..."

 

[nismaratwork]

Thanks Nismaratwork

Anyway we have been thinking/philosophizing about the argumentum ad verecundiam but there could be three variation, with interesting differences.

1: A states S; A is the undisputed world leading authority in the realm of S, hence S is true

Example: the best weather forecaster in the world says it will snow on 12 February 2013

2: A states S; A is an scientific authority with multiple PhD's, hence S is true.

Example: Prof dr mult X says that when the rooster crows, the sun will rise within the hour.

3: A states S; I want S to be true so I declare A an authority.

Example: The pilot stated that the UFO caused an electrical failure.

Problem is that the pilot cannot possibly say what caused an electrical failure, provided that there was one in the first place (or goofed, avoiding to lose face), that would require research on the ground, if it can be reproduced in the first place.

It's this appeal to authority that is so dangerous, especially when authorities by definition do NOT exist for this kind of event. You need many people together, with various expertise agreeing on this 'amazing' event. Having just read Michael Shermer's "Financial Flim-Flam" in SciAm, never is it clearer that this is one of the most pernicious and dangerous fallacies to which any mind can fall.

Implicit in the fallacy you've lain out is also a number of other fallacies; like a Matrushka doll, once you go down that road it's just more dolls. You eventually reach a point where you have to resolve cognitive dissonance, and either break from the fallacy, or reinforce your beliefs. VERY dangerous.

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi andre,

yes, for me, it does. a pilot, a military person, etc. have skills that an average citizen does not.

your example of deception doesn't really fly, in this case. we are talking about people coming out now, and talking about events as far back as 40 years.

they are not bragging about some weapon that they have, to intimidate someone else who does not have it. in fact, most of the stories don't include us acquiring a weapon, but rather an alien using it to disarm missiles, etc.

if i want information, i first try to find someone who is skilled and more adept at being able to supply me with said information.

the other thing that i think we need to remind ourselves about is that we are talking about a topic that would have SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS on the powers of today.

so it is almost a certainty that a visitation by aliens would want to be kept secret from the masses. so information is very suspect. so we don't have the luxury of simply making conclusions based solely on factual evidence.

because factual evidence could be hidden, and in its place, intentional confusion.

accepting this, and having some 100+ military, pilots, other skilled people all coming forth with multiple stories is something we should not sweep under the floor. almost every event is witnessed and corroborated by multiple sources.

events have been reported by multiple govts in their respective countries.

i have personally exchanged some emails with the cseti group, and some things simply don't add up. so i don't believe i am getting honest answers there, which is one of the reasons i am currently leaning on the side of the fence that aliens have not visited.

but i am simply too many rings down the ladder of expertise and information to make any sort of informed conclusions about anything.

maybe we will all learn something new and revealing in our lifetimes.

 

[Andre]

This is most ironic. Insiders will know why, but no, I am not going to use the appeal to authority myself. This is hopeless, how can you convince without saying: been there, done that.

On the other hand, one could not desire a better example of exactly that what we were pondering about:

...
Anyway we have been thinking/philosophizing about the argumentum ad verecundiam but
...
3: A states S; I want S to be true so I declare A an authority.

Example: The pilot stated that the UFO caused an electrical failure.

Problem is that the pilot cannot possibly say what caused an electrical failure, provided that there was one in the first place (or goofed, avoiding to lose face), that would require research on the ground, if it can be reproduced in the first place.

Okay, one small attempt then:

... a pilot, a military person, etc. have skills that an average citizen does not.

That may be less relevant if you place a person in an unnatural -extremely demanding- situation and a night air combat situation more than qualifies for that as I showed here.

Giving the problems with sensory illusions, especially the auto-kinetic effect, and spatial disorientation being aggravated by night flying because of the lack of normal visual clues, you simply cannot rely that his observations were accurate at all, even if he was to be the 'best pilot in the world'.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i would agree with your logic if we were talking about 1 incident. this is 100+ such skilled people and dozens of incidents.

and again, i am not saying that they are correct. but i certainly am not going to sweep it under the rug.

 

[lisab]

This is most ironic. Insiders will know why, but no, I am not going to use the appeal to authority myself. This is hopeless, how can you convince without saying: been there, done that.

Ironic indeed .

Andre had a long career as a fighter pilot, for those who aren't aware.

 

[lisab]

i would agree with your logic if we were talking about 1 incident. this is 100+ such skilled people and dozens of incidents.

and again, i am not saying that they are correct. but i certainly am not going to sweep it under the rug.

You sound as if you try to take all information into account, P-L. That's good - just keep aware of all fallacies that may apply to the situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

[Physics-Learner]

i wasnt aware. but it does not change my opinion. i agree that no one is infallible. but we are not talking about one pilot, or one military person.

i wish this was a topic that had no political or financial implications, such that all the actual information was readily available. it may be a long time before we really know with certainty about all this.

andre,
i would not have taken your appeal as bragging. i think it is great that we have an opinion from someone who has been a fighter pilot.

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi lisa,

if you knew me in real life, you would know that i definitely am not someone who believes because others believe - LOL.

in a lot of ways, i consider myself swimming in a small pond instead of the ocean where most the other fish are.

i said this before - but i have made the mistake of discounting something because i thought it was a bunch of hooey - and then turned out to be true. i once thought that about ufos and ets.

i now take the stance that i don't know nothing about it for sure, so certainly should not be making any definite conclusions. i may very well die with no more knowledge about it.

 

[nismaratwork]

hi lisa,

if you knew me in real life, you would know that i definitely am not someone who believes because others believe - LOL.

in a lot of ways, i consider myself swimming in a small pond instead of the ocean where most the other fish are.

i said this before - but i have made the mistake of discounting something because i thought it was a bunch of hooey - and then turned out to be true. i once thought that about ufos and ets.

i now take the stance that i don't know nothing about it for sure, so certainly should not be making any definite conclusions. i may very well die with no more knowledge about it.

re: bolded: This is very good, but very difficult to maintain in life, especially during times of high stress. Remember that at some point your thinking has to find some patterns, and if you don't choose them, they choose you.

 

[Andre]

.. bragging...

I'm sorry that I missed conveying the point. It's not about bragging, it's about believing an insider. Suppose you watched me taxing in in an F-16, and then after that, we would have a talk. You don't doubt my specialism and hence you are likely going to buy anything, I would tell about flying such a thing, regardless if it was completely nonsense or true honest knowledge. Can you tell the difference? That's appeal to authority (of the first kind). You would have no idea how to challenge gibberish stuff I'd say or recognise honesty. Therefore I tried to back up my argumentation with neutral references in the embedded links. Never believe authorities. Be sceptical and find comfirmation.

i would agree with your logic if we were talking about 1 incident. this is 100+ such skilled people and dozens of incidents.

But we can turn that around, couldn't we? We have so many incidents that turned out to be hoaxes or an yet unexplained but clearly natural occurances, so why can't all incidents be hoaxes or natural occurances? We know that people can't fly, yet thousands of people have seen David Copperfield flying, does that mean that he can?

Would that help explaining Lisa's link? why democracy doesn't work in logic?

 

[jreelawg]

What's up guys? Been gone a while.

Anyways, just thought maybe we should go deeper into the issue of credibility as a function of the position of an individual.

Pilots, astronauts, astronomers, radar operators, military personal etc; People in these types of positions, wether justified or not command more respect and credibility to the average person.

My opinion, is that giving more credibility to certain types of people in certain positions is entirely rational. That said, I agree that these types of people may be as susceptible to psychosis or illusion as the average person.

Do you ascribe more credibility to a PF mentor than to a newbie? I'm guessing you would answer yes. You would also rather trust a professor than a homeless person on the street. But of course a PF mentor is human like the rest of us. They are subject to imperfections, egos, jealousy, greed, etc. A PF mentor could have a conflict of interest in a given topic. The same points I believe apply to any expert or qualified person. But to say that all people are equally credible seams a little bit foolish. Aside from the differences of the individuals on the basis of expertise or character, you have a big difference in capability. Not everyone has the appropriate radar equipment, and a fighter jet to scramble at a moments notice for example.

I think you ought to be more convinced by certain people than others. Without proof you have good reason to be highly skeptical of even the most trusted or respected individual. But, you shouldn't expect to have access to proof even if it exists. The same thing to a more extreme level could be said about many things we take for granted. How many of you have personally verified the effect of time dilation, some people we trust said it was so and we believe it.

 

[nismaratwork]

What's up guys? Been gone a while.

Anyways, just thought maybe we should go deeper into the issue of credibility as a function of the position of an individual.

Pilots, astronauts, astronomers, radar operators, military personal etc; People in these types of positions, wether justified or not command more respect and credibility to the average person.

My opinion, is that giving more credibility to certain types of people in certain positions is entirely rational. That said, I agree that these types of people may be as susceptible to psychosis or illusion as the average person.

Do you ascribe more credibility to a PF mentor than to a newbie? I'm guessing you would answer yes. You would also rather trust a professor than a homeless person on the street. But of course a PF mentor is human like the rest of us. They are subject to imperfections, egos, jealousy, greed, etc. A PF mentor could have a conflict of interest in a given topic. The same points I believe apply to any expert or qualified person. But to say that all people are equally credible seams a little bit foolish. Aside from the differences of the individuals on the basis of expertise or character, you have a big difference in capability. Not everyone has the appropriate radar equipment, and a fighter jet to scramble at a moments notice for example.

I think you ought to be more convinced by certain people than others. Without proof you have good reason to be highly skeptical of even the most trusted or respected individual. But, you shouldn't expect to have access to proof even if it exists. The same thing to a more extreme level could be said about many things we take for granted. How many of you have personally verified the effect of time dilation, some people we trust said it was so and we believe it.

In short, no. Credibility is a function of expertise, and then the classic: "Trust, but verify" (Kissinger). Crediblity is also a function of how you view someone, as opposed to the objective measure such as expertise. You're making the argument to authority, and in fact, arguing for the validity of a fallacy; that's a non-starter.