It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The idea that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable"

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


yes, I am working on making my robot hallucinate. Not kidding.




posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MaximRecoil
 


Generally speaking, the human mind is fallible. Each time a human remembers a memory, he/she rewrites it in their head. That alone makes it unreliable!



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

kelbtalfenek
reply to post by MaximRecoil
 


Generally speaking, the human mind is fallible. Each time a human remembers a memory, he/she rewrites it in their head. That alone makes it unreliable!

hence the need to write things down and take pictures.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Here is a prime example of why an eyewitness statement is not always good, talk about shooting yourself in the foot!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim Oberg....

Thank you for the information and research...



One of the unexpected spinoffs of this effort is the realization that the particular visual stimulus associated with night-time reentry of a large satellite -- especially a spent rocket booster with multiple structural components -- creates a stunning visual apparition that is often misinterpreted by witnesses around the world in much the same way. But the similarity of the perceived [but unreal] features seems to be in the cultural base of the witnesses, not in the original stimulus.

After reading through your links, it's hard to disagree with you. The witness reports of the satellite—assuming they were indeed observing the satellite re-entries (which I don't doubt)—were consistent with some UFO reports, namely the large, flaming "cigar shaped" UFOs crossing the sky at high speed. Not only this, but we learned that eyewitness testimony can be extremely unreliable—casting doubt on other types of UFO observations that could be explained by other phenomenon. (meaning not the satellite re-entry but a weather balloon or some other kind of thing)...

The only point that I would make, is that this doesn't explain sightings like the O'Hare Airport case.

This link for example: www.jamesoberg.com... . Take a look at the witness drawings. They are invariably inconsistent. The few people who did draw some type of cigar shaped "mother-ship" didn't agree on its features or characteristics.

Let's say the O'Hare airport case was an example of this type of misidentification/unreliable testimony...Let's say the witnesses really saw a weather balloon of some sort.
All the witnesses observed exactly the same thing—not most of them observed a weather balloon, and a few people saw different kinds of a spacecraft. The reports were all consistent. This, in my view, separates the rocket re-entries and the more credible UFO sightings.

I would like to make a quick note...It may seem like I am a "believer" because I am representing that side of the argument in this thread, but that is not the truth. To be truthful, I don't believe UFOs are ET spacecraft, or inter-dimensional transport ships etc... I wish they were—I want to believe—but the evidence doesn't support that conclusion, from my perspective.

I have a question regarding this case Mr. Oberg: www.jamesoberg.com...
How were these sketches obtained? Did the investigators walk around asking what people had seen? Did they volunteer the information as if they had seen a UFO?

cheers
edit on 25-3-2014 by thesearchfortruth because: eta



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by tanka418
 


yes, I am working on making my robot hallucinate. Not kidding.


You might try an old Electronic Countermeasures trick;

Get a vacuum tube, a triode will do; place it in a very strong magnetic field. This causes the electron flow from the cathode to plate to become more of a "cloud" of electrons moving in spiral motion, at odd vectors. A serious "mess"...seriously messes up radio communication.




posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

thesearchfortruth
....

I have a question regarding this case Mr. Oberg: www.jamesoberg.com...
How were these sketches obtained? Did the investigators walk around asking what people had seen? Did they volunteer the information as if they had seen a UFO?


I look forward to more discussion of the O'Hare reports, with great interest.

The satellite reentry category certainly is NOT a viable explanation for other types of reports.

What it offers to teach us is that any confidence that we have already accumulated a near-complete set of ALL potential prosaic explanations, is, well, is premature.

It also should shake any confidence that we can accurately 'un-scramble' all witness reports, including those reports that appear mutually consistent.

I would not have dared claim -- and I would not have believed -- the degree to which people have, across the globe and over decades of time, perceived and reported SIMILAR misperceptions of reentries.

Only the accumulation of real observational data and its precise correlation with documented reentries could have brought me to the point of going public with this admittedly UNbelievable-at-first assertion.

The Russian Kiev report states that two artists interviewed witnesses and produced drawings in their presence for their approval. Right, they sure did seem to be using the same set of color pencils.

The Kiev images do seem to be wildly dissimilar, that's a good point worthy of follow-up. But consider: if we only had verbal descriptions, wouldn't they SEEM more similar? And might that apparent similarity in other cases, for which we only have descriptions, only be a similar "seeming"?

The Yukon 1996 case -- argued out on ATS -- offers such a possibility, because although it is claimed 'all the witnesses saw the same thing', listening to their descriptions on the video links shows this clearly is not true. Some saw a fireball swarm, some sensed a shadow surrounding rows or arrays of lights, others 'saw' the mother ship. Just like Kiev in 1963.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 



All the witnesses observed exactly the same thing—not most of them observed a weather balloon, and a few people saw different kinds of a spacecraft

I don't think that's accurate though. This type of information usually comes from pro UFO sources and you typically won't get the reports from people that saw it and thought it was an odd cloud or balloon. There is a definite bias in the sampling. I don't think there will ever be a case where ALL people describe exactly the same thing.

That being said, what Jim Oberg presented doesn't fit the O'Hare case but it does illustrate the variety of perceptions normal people have. So you are correct that there is no exact match that will account for O'Hare sighting. There may never be either. I also agree that people are too quick to dismiss sightings like this too. Saying "it was just a cloud" or something without really knowing that it was is not helpful. At some point it may be revealed to have been a secret advance balloon. I have no idea.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


ZetaRidiculian...



I think this makes a strong case for the kind of thing I am talking about. www.zipworld.com.au...
There is also, I believe, a very strong case that this type of thing has occurred many times. I see you are aware of the Yukon explanation -was going to link that thread but saw you posted there.

It certainly does make a strong case. This seems a little different than the David Blaine example, which was mainly what I was referring to in my post. Whereas the Blaine example was one where witnesses could observe perfectly and still misunderstand, this new link is not such a case.



I am not sure where you would make that distinction between "optical illusion" and "misperception" but it is important to try to define and agree with what we are talking about.

Agreed, and I must apologize for the poor wording. Optical illusion and misperception are probably the same thing by definition. What I had meant to say with that last post was something along the lines of "witnesses being fooled by optical illusions is not always the same thing as witnesses unreliably observing things".

I think I would agree with your other examples, as well.



That may be the case. Do you have an example of two similar cases so I know what you mean? I think, in general, people will perceive things the same way.

One basic example would be the observation of a disc shaped UFO able to hover silently, and fly away with great speed.

there are quite a few cases actually: (these are not my writing, credit goes to the sources listed)


Oct. 15, 1948 ­ At around 4:00 p.m. a domed disc hovered over the city of Le Havre, Seine-Maritime, France. It moved away slowly at first, then sped up and shot away very fast. There were three witnesses who reported the sighting, which lasted about a minute. (Source: Lumieres dans la Nuit (french UFO journal), issue # 123).




March 5, 1950; Bloomfield, NM
Night. A dark, five-foot diameter disc paced a car. When the driver stopped the car the object circled the car, then sped away at a high speed. (Source: Loren Gross, UFOs: A History, 1950: January-March, pp. 31-32).



February 27, 1950 - In Jamesburg, New Jersey two witnesses watched a metallic saucer-shaped object ringed with lights hovering at a low altitude, when it suddenly took off with a swishing sound. (Source: Loren E. Gross)



April 8, 1950; Kokomo, Indiana (Blue Book Unidentified case 706)
2 a.m. Earl Baker saw a grey metallic disc, 50 ft in diameter, 15 ft thick, top-shaped with a “conning tower” at the top and three ports on the rim giving off a blue light. Hovered for 2 mins about 200 ft away, slowly spinning and oscillating, then flew away to the N. Baker aroused from sleep by his dog. (Berliner; cf. Vallée Magonia 75)



May 7, 1950; 9 miles S of Ely, Nevada (BBU 721)
6:45 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. George Smith and their grandson saw a silvery white object hover at 100 ft altitude, move back and forth then fly up out of sight at high speed.



June 30, 1950--Nr. Kingman, Kansas. Rotating disc hovered, sped away when car approached. (NICAP: UFO Evidence Volume 1 section: [XII])



March 29, 1952; Elizabethville, Belgian Congo. (BBU)
Two fiery discs were seen over uranium mines gliding in curves, changing orientation many times thus appearing as plates, ovals and lines. Discs suddenly hovered then took off in a zigzag to the NE. Commander Pierre of Elizabethville airfield took off in a fighter aircraft in pursuit and came within 120 meters (400 ft) of one disc. (McDonald files; Jan Aldrich)
www.nicap.org...




June, 1952--Tombstone, Ariz. Navy pilot watched a disc hover, speed away. [NICAP: UFO Evidence Volume 1 section: [IV]]


June 13, 1952, Fox Hill, Virginia, OSI UFO Report
10:30 a.m. An aluminum awning salesman observed a disc shaped object, about 25 to 30 feet in diameter hovering approximately 200 feet over a group of pine trees at Fox Hill, Virginia. The object made a slight whistling sound. After approximately 10 seconds the object tilted slightly, flew upward at an angle of 45 degrees and away from him at a tremendous speed.


etc...

Please note, I am not "challenging" you to "debunk" these nor do I necessarily consider them evidence of ET visitation, I'm just bringing them up for research purposes.



and I respect that view. Personally, I am not convinced that its not relatable to UFO cases. To me its a very intriguing perspective that people can make a complete mythology out of what seems to me to be smoke and mirrors. I just don't think we know enough yet to determine that such a thing can be ruled out.


Agreed.

cheers
edit on 25-3-2014 by thesearchfortruth because: formatting



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim Oberg... Good points as usual


...

The Kiev images do seem to be wildly dissimilar, that's a good point worthy of follow-up. But consider: if we only had verbal descriptions, wouldn't they SEEM more similar? And might that apparent similarity in other cases, for which we only have descriptions, only be a similar "seeming"?

The Yukon 1996 case -- argued out on ATS -- offers such a possibility, because although it is claimed 'all the witnesses saw the same thing', listening to their descriptions on the video links shows this clearly is not true. Some saw a fireball swarm, some sensed a shadow surrounding rows or arrays of lights, others 'saw' the mother ship. Just like Kiev in 1963.



My views on UFOs have been changing ridiculously over the years that I have followed the subject. There were times when one day I would believe in ET visitation and the next I wouldn't. It was that severe.

Now—probably thanks in part to people like you and ZetaRidiculian—I don't believe UFOs are anything other than misidentifications. I want to believe, and I will still follow the subject and continue researching in hopes of turning up evidence of ET, but I don't think it's likely.

Tell me, (since you are known as an "arch-debunker" around here), was there ever a time when you believed in UFOs, or at least wanted to?

cheers
edit on 25-3-2014 by thesearchfortruth because: eta



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   

JimOberg

neoholographic
.....
This is the point, all of these eyewitness and close encounter cases are not from people who are mistaken. That's just silly on it's face.

The fact is debunkers have to put every eyewitness into a monolithic box of stupidity.

Herein lies the problem with debunkers. They have to make it seem that every eyewitness was either an idiot, mistaken or delusional. We know this isn't the case because that's not how it works with eyewitnesses. Some eyewitnesses are very accurate and they describe exactly what they saw.

So a debunker wants you to give more weight to their opinion over a credible eyewitness because they watch Brain Games lol.


I don't think so.

First, we've seen plenty of phenomena for which there are thousands or even millions of reports, for which zero are accurate -- communications with dead people, for example, or human levitation, or fairies, or Elvis sightings.

Second, you completely, let me say again, COMPLETELY misunderstand the process of misperception. It is usually NOT the result of lack of intelligence, or sanity, or rationality.

It is the natural result of the proper functioning of recognition algorithms under unusual inputs, and if intelligence has anything to do with it, smarter and more experienced people are MORE vulnerable to it, not less. We have evolved to favor -- i.e., let survive long enough to reproduce -- people whose minds use their accumulated life experiences to fill-in incompletenesses and uncertainties around fragmentary perceptions in order to quickly-enough recognize and react to potential hazards.

When you allege insults to people who misperceive you throw ego-defense into the analysis, and that's guaranty of heat, not light. It's as if you wanted people to NOT understand the process, to defend your own views. But I do not allege that.

Your comment does suggest to me that your expressed opinion reflects an inadequate appreciation of the fundamental facts of the issue under dispute. This is remediable. Nobody starts out 'smart' on this subtle question. We are here to help.


This is absolute rubbish!

Of course some people report things that are not accurate. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

You can't put every eyewitness into a monolithic box. The fact that you want to make it seem that every eyewitness that sees that disagrees with your pre-existing belief system must be do to misidentification or delusion. The delusion is on your part. When you have to put every eyewitness account into a monolithic box that fit your beliefs then you're just living a lie.

With eyewitness accounts some will be accurate and some will less accurate. This is the nature of eyewitness accounts.

How do you know people can't communicate with the dead? You don't know but again, this is your belief that you want to make seem like a proven fact.

For instance there have been studies and brain scans in the area of Mediums that have had very positive results.

For example, I recently talked to a Detective who has worked with Psychics and he was telling me about a case where the Psychic told him the last name of the criminal, the street the criminal lives on and the criminal would have long hair and a goatee. Guess what, the Psychic was correct and it led to the arrest of the criminal.

There's a cold case where the Police hit a dead end. A Psychic came in and told them the woman was killed over an affair and she gave the police a sketch of the criminal when the Police didn't even have a suspect. They put the sketch from the Psychic on TV and it led to the arrest of the criminal and he confessed to killing the woman because she threatened to tell his wife about their affair.

Now should give more weight to your biased opinion or to the 20 year Detectives that worked the case? Again, this is just your belief and your bias is that everything that doesn't agree with your belief must be false.

Back to UFO's. Again, you have to try to wrap every eyewitness account into what you already believe so you throw common sense out of the window.

Common sense tells us that every eyewitness will not be monolithic. Some eyewitnesses will be strong and they will accurately describe what they saw and experienced. Some eyewitnesses will be less reliable. This is why Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys work so hard to go after the credibility of the witness. They know that some eyewitnesses are strong and the only way they can try to hurt their account is to try and damage their credibility.

For instance, when Edgar Mitchell came out and said he believes Aliens are visiting earth he went from a Hero to a senile old nutjob in less than 60 seconds by pseudoskeptics and debunkers on ATS. This is because they wanted to go after his credibility.

Here's some abduction accounts:

www.ufocasebook.com...

Here's some Close Encounters of the 3rd kind

www.ufoevidence.org...

Here's some trace evidence cases

www.ufoevidence.org...

Are you saying everybody except you is an idiot when it comes to these areas?

You also have people like Stephen Hawking and Dr. Michio Kaku saying Aliens exist.

My point is skepticism is fine but a closed minded debunker is just a blind believer. I'm skeptical of Bigfoot but I don't think every eyewitness account of Bigfoot must be people who are mistaken or delusional. Maybe they saw Bigfoot and the most that I can say is there isn't enough evidence for me to reach the conclusion that Bigfoot exists. I will never try to lump everyone who believes Bigfoot exists into a monolithic Box based on my beliefs.

This is the key difference between skeptics and debunkers. A true skeptic can accept that people can look at the evidence and reach a conclusion contrary to theirs. A debunker has to make it seem that everyone that disagrees with them is just a blind believer. This makes no sense.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



Let's find an overlapping region of agreement and inch out from there.

Do you accept that people in the cited cases were observing satellite reentries and reporting 'ufo mother ships'? What would it take to convince you of this one limited subset of UFO reports?



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Honestly, this just doesn't make any common sense.

Could some reports be satellites reentering earth, of course. Just like some cases could be weather balloons or Chinese lanterns but it's a leap devoid of any common sense to say that all of these sightings and experiences must fit into these boxes.

Again, that just lacks common sense and many of these cases the eyewitnesses are describing exactly what they saw and experience. Some of these eyewitnesses are from very credible witnesses. The fact is, why should I accept the bias opinion of a debunker over a credible eyewitness?



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


What makes the "debunkers" biased? Do they seem that way because they don't agree with you?

Oberg's question was pretty straightforward... Did you read his earlier post, here?

edit on 25-3-2014 by thesearchfortruth because: added quotes around "debunkers"



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 


Yes and I answered the question. Some cases could be satellite reentries, some could be weather balloons, some could be Chinese lanterns but what you can't do is fit every sighting or encounter into a monolithic box. That's just silly. Did you even read the links I posted?

How can many of these experiences be put into a box of satellite reentry? Like I said, it lacks common sense. This is the problem with debunkers. They're so blind in their belief they make blanket statements and act like it's logical to put every eyewitness account into one monolithic box. That's just devoid of common sense.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



Yes and I answered the question. Some cases could be satellite reentries, some could be weather balloons, some could be Chinese lanterns but what you can't do is fit every sighting or encounter into a monolithic box.


That wasn't the point. The point was, if a known satellite entry can produce reports of structured cigar-shaped objects with portholes, how can we trust eyewitness testimony?

Other cases may not be satellites, but if witness perception is that bad, witness testimony can't be good evidence.




That's just silly. Did you even read the links I posted?


In fact, I had read extensively on those cases long before you posted them.
You seem to post these "links" quite often, like in these posts of yours:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you think they prove something?



How can many of these experiences be put into a box of satellite reentry? Like I said, it lacks common sense.

Not all are satellite entries. As explained above, that wasn't Oberg's point. It looks like you did indeed read his post, but didn't bother to try to understand it.

edit on 25-3-2014 by thesearchfortruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 


This is a perfect example of what I'm saying. You said:


That wasn't the point. The point was, if a known satellite entry can produce reports of structured cigar-shaped objects with portholes, how can we trust eyewitness testimony?

Other cases may not be satellites, but if witness perception is that bad, witness testimony can't be good evidence.


Again, this is a blanket statement devoid of any common sense. It's like saying if some eyewitnesses can mistake a UFO for a Chinese Lantern shouldn't we discount all eyewitness accounts of UFO's unreliable? It's a blanket statement that's devoid of any common sense.

It's like saying well one witnesses accused the wrong person of committing the crime so Police should never talk to any eyewitness because all eyewitnesses must be unreliable.

It makes no sense. Satellite reentry can produce reports of cigar shaped objects THEREFORE how can we trust eyewitness testimony. You can't see how silly that statement sounds?

Where is there evidence that every cigar shaped sighting is caused by satellite reentry? You're making a HUGE LEAP based on your pre-existing beliefs. It's not based on any logic or common sense.

The reason I keep posting those same 3 links because I get radio silence from the Debunkers when I post them. I have many more links but there's no need to post them because the point is most debunkers don't read the links anyway. This is why they want to put all of these eyewitnesses into a monolithic box. This way they can make blanket statements about all eyewitness accounts instead of looking over and examining individual cases.
edit on 25-3-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

neoholographic
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Could some reports be satellites reentering earth, of course. Just like some cases could be weather balloons or Chinese lanterns but it's a leap devoid of any common sense to say that all of these sightings and experiences must fit into these boxes.


I wasn't clear enough. I'm referring specifically and only to the reentry cases cited in Molczan's report in January and the links he provided to specific cases. I have no notion at all that any of them are weather balloons or Venus or anything else besides satellite reentries. If you read those cases and disagree with any of THEM being what I am proposing, please specify and explain.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





It's like saying if some eyewitnesses can mistake a UFO for a Chinese Lantern shouldn't we discount all eyewitness accounts of UFO's unreliable?

Yup.

Not only can they mistake Chinese lanterns for UFOs, but their reports of the known chinese lantern can change into something completely different, like structured "spaceships" complete with portholes and sometimes beings seen through the windows!

Why are your cases different?



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   

thesearchfortruth
reply to post by neoholographic
 





It's like saying if some eyewitnesses can mistake a UFO for a Chinese Lantern shouldn't we discount all eyewitness accounts of UFO's unreliable?

Yup.

Not only can they mistake Chinese lanterns for UFOs, but their reports of the known chinese lantern can change into something completely different, like structured "spaceships" complete with portholes and sometimes beings seen through the windows!

Why are your cases different?


Wow, you have the wrong name.

Why are all of these cases the same? It's like saying all murder cases must be the same because of one murder case.

What case are you talking about specifically? Who investigated the case? Who were the eyewitnesses? Also, why should we do something idiotic like say one case must be true to all cases?

Again, this is just devoid of any logic. The reason why blind debunkers do this is because they're scared of the truth. They're scared that they might read a case that's very credible and convincing. To avoid this most of them don't read individual cases. This is why I have kept posting the same 3 links and I get radio silence from the debunkers.

They want to throw out logic and reason and put all eyewitness accounts into a box labeled unreliable and therefore they don't have to bother themselves with things like the facts surrounding individual cases and the credibility of the eyewitnesses.




top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join