The idea that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable"

ZetaRediculian
Your "reasonable doubt" requirement is meaningless to me.

It is not my requirement; "beyond reasonable doubt" is a well-established standard of proof.

draknoir2
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Plain and simple - eyewitness testimony alone will prove nothing beyond a shadow of a doubt save that the eyewitness said something.

Eyewitness testimony alone will prove conclusively that the eyewitness said something. By the way, the term you're looking for is "reasonable doubt", not "shadow of a doubt", and multiple eyewitnesses can prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is the correct response to the OP. Maximum Recoil does not have the power to render UFO-related eyewitness testimony reliable by declaration, regardless of his strength of belief in the subject.

That's "Maxim", not "maximum". The former is a somewhat common name, the latter is generally an adjective. Also, given that I've never claimed, nor suggested, that I "have the power to render UFO-related eyewitness testimony reliable by declaration", your straw man is dismissed.

It is the weakest form of scientific evidence and should always be the most heavily scrutinized, especially when the claim is extraordinary.

The field of UFOlogy is riddled with charlatans, liars, spiritualistic New Agers, professional "experiencers", and flat out nut jobs. Anyone who thinks eyewitness testimony alone is sufficient in this polluted field of study is self-deluded.

This only has merit if you are trying to suggest something along the lines of:

The O'Hare witnesses were not only in the "field of UFOlogy", but they were one or more of the following: charlatans, liars, spiritualistic New Agers, professional "experiencers", and flat out nut jobs. If you can establish that's true, you can establish reasonable doubt. Otherwise, what does the "field of UFOlogy" have to do with the O'Hare sighting and its witnesses?

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by draknoir2

 

He demands reasonable doubt.

I demand reasonable doubt from anyone who wishes to refute the following statement from one of my previous posts:

"For example, based on the 2006 O'Hare sighting, we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there exists a metallic saucer-shaped craft which is capable of hovering and extreme vertical acceleration."

Obviously, since establishing reasonable doubt is the only way to refute that statement.

It is painfully obvious to me when someone says that you have to show that people were mentally ill, using drugs, etc., in order for misperceptions to be considered that they have zero grip on a topic they are trying come across as an expert on.

Or an alternate theory of events, which is both plausible and fits the evidence reasonably well. What you believe to be "painfully obvious" to you is in fact a misconception on your part, with regard to how "reasonable doubt" fits into this argument.

I enjoy my freedom to speculate and explore these cases the way I see fit without having to be bullied by self proclaimed experts from the internet. Their commentary is meaningless.

Speculate away, and I'm free to point out that your speculations don't constitute reasonable doubt, and thus they don't refute what I've said in this thread about the O'Hare case.

reply to post by MaximRecoil

Speculate away, and I'm free to point out that your speculations don't constitute reasonable doubt, and thus they don't refute what I've said in this thread about the O'Hare case.

and I am free to point out that you are not really someone to tale seriously amongst other things. Speculation is just that, speculation. "reasonable doubt" is just a personal construct of yours and meaningless to me. There is no rule book for how I think about this. You are not the "gate keeper" of this case or how accurate witness testimony is. You are just another dude on the internet who thinks they have it all figured out.

So an optical illusion is an interesting idea for this case. Too bad all there is witness testimony so it can't be ruled out. Too bad you are not capable of having a discussion about it.

I demand reasonable doubt from anyone who wishes to refute the following statement from one of my previous posts:

"For example, based on the 2006 O'Hare sighting, we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there exists a metallic saucer-shaped craft which is capable of hovering and extreme vertical acceleration."

I demand you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this the case. I can't disprove your personal beliefs.

I demand reasonable doubt from anyone who wishes to refute the following statement from one of my previous posts: "For example, based on the 2006 O'Hare sighting, we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there exists a metallic saucer-shaped craft which is capable of hovering and extreme vertical acceleration."

What YOU have there is proof of bupkis. What WE have are various testimonies that would indicate that people saw something.

It's not our job to refute your assertions or sway you from your beliefs.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil

 

Speculate away, and I'm free to point out that your speculations don't constitute reasonable doubt, and thus they don't refute what I've said in this thread about the O'Hare case.

and I am free to point out that you are not really someone to tale seriously amongst other things.

Your ad hominem is dismissed.

Speculation is just that, speculation. "reasonable doubt" is just a personal construct of yours and meaningless to me.

Is that a joke? I guess I should be honored that there are countless published works with information about my "personal construct". I guess this means I'm a time traveler too, given that the concept of the standard of evidence known as "reasonable doubt" predates me by at least a couple hundred years.

There is no rule book for how I think about this. You are not the "gate keeper" of this case or how accurate witness testimony is. You are just another dude on the internet who thinks they have it all figured out.

This is yet another non sequitur from you, i.e., it doesn't logically follow from anything I've said. Now, had I said something to the effect of ...

"There is a rule book for how you think about this. I am the gate keeper of this case and how accurate witness testimony is. I have it all figured out."

... then it wouldn't be a non sequitur.

So an optical illusion is an interesting idea for this case. Too bad all there is witness testimony so it can't be ruled out. Too bad you are not capable of having a discussion about it.

It only becomes interesting if you can substantiate it, i.e., provide some evidence in favor of the optical illusion theory of events specifically for the O'Hare sighting, which you haven't been able to do. You've simply thrown it at the wall; it didn't stick. The mere fact that optical illusions can be created is not enough to reasonably indicate them in any particular sighting.

I demand you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this the case. I can't disprove your personal beliefs.

The term you are looking for is "reasonable doubt", and the existing evidence already proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. My personal beliefs are irrelevant, as are everyone else's. Several eyewitnesses attesting to the same fundamental details of a particular event is enough to prove it happened beyond a reasonable doubt, unless of course someone can establish reasonable doubt.

MaximRecoil
.....
It only becomes interesting if you can substantiate it, i.e., provide some evidence in favor of the optical illusion theory of events specifically for the O'Hare sighting, which you haven't been able to do. ......

Without entering the O'Hare airport case debate, I can only point out that the confidence that all possible prosaic explanations are KNOWN is itself only an assumption and -- in practice -- has been shown to be self-delusion. The degree to which unusual and undiscoverable stimuli can spark 'unexplainable' perceptions is consistently underestimated based merely on the wishes of the proponents of extraordinariness to be confidently correct.

Existence proof: the 'mother ship' UFOs from places such as Yukon [1996], France [1990], Kiev [1963], and a dozen other documented cases -- ALL LISTED AS UNSOLVED because nobody in ufology ever figured out the prosaic expedition. If it can happen so spectacularly this once -- a major source of major UFO sightings is overlooked -- it can happen MORE than once.

reply to post by MaximRecoil

"reasonable doubt"

Please define just what "reasonable" doubt is...how much doubt is reasonable...in a general sense.

I ask this because in the world of probability there is this thing known as a "confidence level"; it basically trys to define how "confident" we are in the data we are using and its results.

But, this "confidence" in probability is much like "reasonable doubt" in that: If a probability of one (1) is absolute certainty, then anything less is diminishing "confidence", or increasing "doubt". Logically it must diminish to a point where the confidence is so low, and the doubt so high; that another explanation must be explored.

So...in a general sense; "What is "reasonable" doubt?" Where does One place reason?

reply to post by MaximRecoil


This commentary can be dismissed. What you need to show is how you have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt what you are claiming. Until then, I am free to speculate as I wish. You can speculate too if you wish. Pretty cool how that works.

reply to post by tanka418

Please define just what "reasonable" doubt is...how much doubt is reasonable...in a general sense.

Good point. I think it's up to each individual to come to their own determination. Everyone has their own life experiences and as people learn, this can change also.

I like your use of "confidence level". On the shape matching program I use, you set the confidence level. Set it too high and you miss some obvious hits. set it too low, and you get a lot of false positives. Yes, it uses that Bayesian stuff. I think that's where you are coming from. And if anyone tries to set my confidence level for me, I smack them. It's not cool to touch someone else's robot settings.

I posted something along these lines years back. People do not give other humans enough credit for not being unreliable witnesses. Now, I am not talking the cases where someone sees a dot or a light or something along those lines. But take for example, the rancher in Texas, Rick Sorrells. It's clear he didn't mistake a mundane object for a UFO. It simply comes down to the fact.. is he reliable.. do you believe him. There are plenty of other cases with the same story. Obvious advanced craft doing amazing things.. and people disregard these reports out of hand.

If anyone here saw a plane or helicopter flying by, even at night, you could probably identify it within seconds or less. Yet people seeing something for over 5 minutes is disregarded at someone who can't tell a plane from something extraordinary.

The "unreliable witness" is the second bastion of defense for debunkers. The first bastion being "black projects."

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil

 

This commentary can be dismissed.

It wasn't a commentary, and this is a textbook example of the concept of "monkey see, monkey do" from you, and it isn't your first time in this thread either; the first time was when you tried to mimic my usage of the term "intellectually dishonest", without understanding how it is correctly applied. Likewise, you don't understand how "dismissed" is applied. You are attempting to apply it arbitrarily here. The only things which can be legitimately dismissed are things which can be dismissed on logical grounds, such as logical fallacies and other forms of utter irrelevance.

What you need to show is how you have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt what you are claiming. Until then, I am free to speculate as I wish. You can speculate too if you wish. Pretty cool how that works.

"Until then"? You are always free to speculate as you wish; I am too of course, though I haven't speculated in this thread. Also, my claims come from the documented reports of the O'Hare sightings, and from the well-established concept of "reasonable doubt". There is nothing for me to prove.

reply to post by MaximRecoil


I find it odd that you keep replying to me when other posters are here who have more to offer like Tanka and that Oberg guy. I stopped reading your posts a while ago so I think you are wasting your time replying to me. You don't seem to be adding a lot of value so not much for me to respond to and it can be ignored. Time to move on now.

tanka418
reply to post by MaximRecoil

 

"reasonable doubt"

Please define just what "reasonable" doubt is...how much doubt is reasonable...in a general sense.

The evidence from several eyewitnesses tells us that a disc-shaped metallic object hovered at less than 1900 feet above United Airline's Gate C17 at O'Hare International Airport, and then suddenly accelerated at an upward angle to high velocity, leaving a sharp-edged hole in the clouds in the process.

Doubt becomes reasonable when it is justified by evidence, so, in order to establish reasonable doubt in this case, present evidence supporting an alternate theory of events. If that were easy to do in this particular case, the FAA no doubt would have loved to have done it, rather than first denying that they had any information on the O'Hare UFO sighting, and then after an FOIA request, coming up with a farce of an explanation (e.g., weather phenomenon, airport lights).

MaximRecoil
The evidence from several eyewitnesses tells us that a disc-shaped metallic object hovered at less than 1900 feet above United Airline's Gate C17 at O'Hare International Airport, and then suddenly accelerated at an upward angle to high velocity, leaving a sharp-edged hole in the clouds in the process.

While I might have issue with some of the "detail", I would consider this to be like so many other events; eyewitness accounts are good for the "broad stokes" of an event, not so much for the detail. Although I will say that IF the data had been handled, collected, databased correctly that much more detail would be available.

Doubt becomes reasonable when it is justified by evidence, so, in order to establish reasonable doubt in this case, present evidence supporting an alternate theory of events. If that were easy to do in this particular case, the FAA no doubt would have loved to have done it, rather than first denying that they had any information on the O'Hare UFO sighting, and then after an FOIA request, coming up with a farce of an explanation (e.g., weather phenomenon, airport lights).

If One is doing their "due diligence" then the data will always provide room for doubt, thus it will always be "justified", so we can't really use that as criteria for that doubt being "reasonable". I think this is a case where the "quality" of doubt is far less important than the quantity. The "quantum" view of reality tells us that all things (objects) emit "probability waves", thus nothing is certain, but has a greater or lesser probability of being the reality we all love so much.

So, just where should we draw this line? And this really is the core of the issue. We all apply an arbitrary, and variable value to this threshold, it appears to be rather inconsistent and dynamic.

By the way; based on the data I've seen...that is no longer unidentified. That was clearly a "WTF"! The problem is that there isn't enough data to do anything with this, so it is destined to remain unexplained.

Riddles

waltwillis


My neighbor is a pilot for an airline and told me most of them will never talk about what they have seen and the speed is NOT 1,800 MPH, it is 18,000 MPH and can turn on a dime or stop in place!

I was quoting pilots that appeared on one of Steven Greer's "Disclosure" films. The speed they spoke of was 1,800 mph, which they believed was unheard of at the time those pilots made their sighting.

However, the SR71 was in operation at the time (out of Groom Lake) and reached speeds of 2,193.2 mph.

You say "speeds of 18,000 mph." Please show me proof that somebody didn't witness a holographic projection aimed at the sky…

If I could fine the information so can you.
I don't have a need to prove anything to people that don't care to listen.
I already know aliens are REAL! I've seen them up close.
It is your loss if you do not believe my report...
I am NOT your mother!

waltwillis

My neighbor is a pilot for an airline and told me most of them will never talk about what they have seen and the speed is NOT 1,800 MPH, it is 18,000 MPH and can turn on a dime or stop in place!

And how was this measured?

reply to post by draknoir2


To explain the how we estimate speed you may want to do what I have done and get yourself a pilots certificate and work for the Air force as a SAR pilot for six years. Less than 25% of the people that start to train for a pilots certificate ever receive one. Good luck!

Where in the hell is John Lear when you need him?
Why would he or Chuck Yeager ever visit this forum?

waltwillis
reply to post by draknoir2

 

To explain the how we estimate speed you may want to do what I have done and get yourself a pilots certificate and work for the Air force as a SAR pilot for six years. Less than 25% of the people that start to train for a pilots certificate ever receive one. Good luck!

Guesstimate.

Got it.

draknoir2

waltwillis
reply to post by draknoir2

 

To explain the how we estimate speed you may want to do what I have done and get yourself a pilots certificate and work for the Air force as a SAR pilot for six years. Less than 25% of the people that start to train for a pilots certificate ever receive one. Good luck!

Guesstimate.

Got it.

Absolutely...guess at it.

No reason to let practical experience and acquired skills get in the way.

tanka418

draknoir2

waltwillis
reply to post by draknoir2

 

To explain the how we estimate speed you may want to do what I have done and get yourself a pilots certificate and work for the Air force as a SAR pilot for six years. Less than 25% of the people that start to train for a pilots certificate ever receive one. Good luck!

Guesstimate.

Got it.

Absolutely...guess at it.

No reason to let practical experience and acquired skills get in the way.

Get in the way of what, accurately eyeballing speeds of that magnitude? Unless the pilot happens to be Steve Austin that's all it is - a guess, and the greater the speed the less likely it is to be an accurate one.