The idea that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable"

reply to post by neoholographic

Again, it has nothing to do with how unreliable eyewitnesses are in general. It simply states that some eyewitnesses can be mistaken. Who didn't already know this?

what you seem to be saying is that eyewitnesses in general are unreliable.

The paper linked says that eyewitness testimony is unreliable to such a degree that its a problem. The paper addresses how to deal with that problem. You do understand that or are you memorized by one sentence?

So you are right. Witnesses are generally unreliable.

reply to post by neoholographic

What pattern are you talking about?

The pattern that you are establishing about how eyewitness testimony is unreliable which supports what we are talking about.

here:

Again, who were the witnesses, who did the investigation, where are the weather reports from that night. Do they match up with other eyewitness accounts. Exactly which accounts do they match up to?

As you have stated some witnesses are more unreliable than others. That's why we need to ask who they were. You also make an excellent point about the weather conditions during the sightings because poor weather could effect the degree of how reliable the testimony was. You also seem to want to MATCH up the testimony to other accounts. That's the pattern.

We need to ask these kinds of questions because witnesses are generally unreliable. Good points

EnPassant

ZetaRediculian

neoholographic
Here's a link to some COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind. Now could some of these cases be mis-perception?

Maybe in your own way, you are getting it. Now do you think it would be helpful to identify these mis-perceptions? Of course you do but you certainly seem like you would rather keep the garbage mixed in. So there is an opportunity to help with this process and you reject it. Why?

When there is such a preponderance of evidence the garbage becomes so diluted it does not have any bearing on the final analysis. One true sighting or ufo photo negates all the garbage because one true sighting is all it takes to prove the case. One truth can negate a million contrary lies of mis-understandings.

Very good points but you're using common sense. In the real world things like this matter and this is how an investigator gathers evidence. When it comes to comes to UFO's or anything labeled paranormal, then common sense is thrown out. When you talk about preponderance of evidence to pseudoskeptics and debunkers, you're speaking the language of common sense and COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE EYEWITNESSES but they want to make blanket statements and make every eyewitness unreliable.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Sadly for you, the paper that you linked to destroys your entire argument. The paper says eyewitnesses can be unreliable and mistaken in some cases. It then says eyewitnesses are COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE in most cases. You can't say a few cases where eyewitnesses were mistaken means all eyewitnesses are unreliable. That just lacks any common sense.

This is why you don't want to deal with individual cases. Most pseudoskeptics and debunkers want to make blanket statements about eyewitnesses being unreliable. This way they can put all eyewitness accounts into one box and they don't have to bother with pesky things like credible witnesses and the facts of individual cases. They can just stick their heads in the sand and make the false claim that eyewitnesses are unreliable.

Again, this isn't the case. If you look at 1,000 UFO cases you will find some that are COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE while others will be faulty and weak. This is just common sense. The debunkers and pseudoskeptics throw out common sense in favor of the blanket statement that eyewitnesses are unreliable. No, some eyewitnesses can be mistaken but this says nothing about the reliability/unreliability of eyewitnesses in general. In fact, the paper you linked to says EYEWITNESSES ARE COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE. Like I said, I agree!

neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Sadly for you, the paper that you linked to destroys your entire argument. The paper says eyewitnesses can be unreliable and mistaken in some cases. It then says eyewitnesses are COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE in most cases

sadly for you I would say that I agree. Can you state what you think my argument is or quote what part is destroyed? I think you are hallucinating

You can't say a few cases where eyewitnesses were mistaken means all eyewitnesses are unreliable. That just lacks any common sense.

correct again. I agree. I'm not sure why you are repeating yourself.

This is why you don't want to with individual cases. Most pseudoskeptics and debunkers want to make blanket statements about eyewitnesses being unreliable. This way they can put all eyewitness accounts into one box and they don't have to bother with pesky things like credible witnesses and the facts of individual cases. They can just stick their heads in the sand and make the false claim that eyewitnesses are unreliable.

I agree except I have no idea who you are talking about. You just seem to be repeating yourself again. Over and over with no actual substance and making blanket statements.

Again, this isn't the case. If you look at 1,000 UFO cases you will find some that are COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE while others will be faulty and weak. This is just common sense. The debunkers and pseudoskeptics throw out common sense in favor of the blanket statement that eyewitnesses are unreliable. No, some eyewitnesses can be mistaken but this says nothing about the reliability/unreliability of eyewitnesses in general. In fact, the paper you linked to says EYEWITNESSES ARE COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE. Like I said, I agree!

edit on 26-3-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

I find the cases of giant motherships compelling and indispensible. Some cases are strong others are weak. And? we seem to agree on most points but you seem to disagree that we do agree.

You correctly point out that eyewitnesses CAN be mistaken and that nobody disagrees with that. I would consider people who are mistaken unreliable. From that information you can gauge how unreliable witnesses are. Unreliable witnesses account for the majority of wrongful convictions. That is a problem because witnesses are important and indispensable at the same time. Understanding how this happens is important.

what parts do you think we disagree on?

neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

.This is why you don't want to deal with individual cases.

Au contraire, we addressed a subset of VERY specific cases – caused by satellite reentries, and asked you to assess which parts of the witness reports of large structured objects you still found “reliable”. Will you give an inch and acknowledge that these particular cases are adequately explained?

Most pseudoskeptics and debunkers want to make blanket statements about eyewitnesses being unreliable. This way they can put all eyewitness accounts into one box and they don't have to bother with pesky things like credible witnesses and the facts of individual cases. They can just stick their heads in the sand and make the false claim that eyewitnesses are unreliable.

Are you a reliable witness to these statements being made? Or is it in your imagination? Please prove this blanket condemnation with real evidence. Otherwise, it’s a game of “Pot, meet Kettle.”

Again, this isn't the case. If you look at 1,000 UFO cases you will find some that are COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE while others will be faulty and weak. This is just common sense. The debunkers and pseudoskeptics throw out common sense in favor of the blanket statement that eyewitnesses are unreliable. No, some eyewitnesses can be mistaken but this says nothing about the reliability/unreliability of eyewitnesses in general. In fact, the paper you linked to says EYEWITNESSES ARE COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE. Like I said, I agree

So in a thousand reports of communication with the dead, you will always find SOME you find compelling? You will always find SOME stories of human levitation to be persuasive? Of all the claims, you insist that SOME people really have recently seen Elvis?

reply to post by JimOberg

So in a thousand reports of communication with the dead, you will always find SOME you find compelling? You will always find SOME stories of human levitation to be persuasive? Of all the claims, you insist that SOME people really have recently seen Elvis?

Its even better than that. He doesn't think bigfoot is real. Bigfoot sightings are based on eyewitness testimony. UFO testimony is reliable and bigfoot testimony is not.

reply to post by EnPassant

When there is such a preponderance of evidence the garbage becomes so diluted it does not have any bearing on the final analysis. One true sighting or ufo photo negates all the garbage because one true sighting is all it takes to prove the case. One truth can negate a million contrary lies of mis-understandings.

I disagree. It actually works the other way around. There seems to be an absolute flood of garbage that nobody wants to deal with. Finding that one piece of evidence will negate the garbage. That is correct and will change the course of things. If you are looking for that one unknown coin that you believe exists, does it help you to get every coin you possibly can and dump it into the biggest pile you can make? Making a bigger pile of coins with coins we already know aren't the the one coin we are looking for seems like you would just be making an already arduous task harder.

I don't see the downside of understanding what real misperceptions are and what it really means. Why is there a resistance? Will the evil debunker type come along and say that one person who misperceives something negates ALL cases? Probably. If you are more informed and understand what a real misperception is, don't you think you would be more able to deal with that?

Like I have said, if there is an evil debunker present who wants to claim such things, let them deal with me now!

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant

 

When there is such a preponderance of evidence the garbage becomes so diluted it does not have any bearing on the final analysis. One true sighting or ufo photo negates all the garbage because one true sighting is all it takes to prove the case. One truth can negate a million contrary lies of mis-understandings.

I disagree. It actually works the other way around. There seems to be an absolute flood of garbage that nobody wants to deal with. Finding that one piece of evidence will negate the garbage. That is correct and will change the course of things. If you are looking for that one unknown coin that you believe exists, does it help you to get every coin you possibly can and dump it into the biggest pile you can make? Making a bigger pile of coins with coins we already know aren't the the one coin we are looking for seems like you would just be making an already arduous task harder.

I don't see the downside of understanding what real misperceptions are and what it really means. Why is there a resistance? Will the evil debunker type come along and say that one person who misperceives something negates ALL cases? Probably. If you are more informed and understand what a real misperception is, don't you think you would be more able to deal with that?

Like I have said, if there is an evil debunker present who wants to claim such things, let them deal with me now!

edit on 26-3-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

I understand what you are saying and agree with you up to a point. But I am talking about ufology as a whole. There are some weird craft abroad in the vapours, that has been proven beyond doubt. John Keel has a point when he says that it is not much use cataloguing endless ufo sightings. What needs to be done now is to acknowledge their existence and find out what the evidence is saying to us. There is plenty of evidence and an overview of the situation needs to be worked out.

At this point it is possible to make some bullet points to start with-

# They exist

# They are secretive and cannot be trusted because of this

# They want something from us. This is obvious.

# There is strong evidence that they are contacting ordinary individuals.

# They are not truly good.

etc.

All of this now needs to be put in perspective. Karla Turner makes a very convincing case.

reply to post by EnPassant


well, I don't think we are on the same path.

CJCrawley

Sure, people see strange things moving around in the sky, big deal.

It's proof that they are intelligently-controlled craft from another planet that is conspicuously lacking.

Yes where these objects are actually from is a complete mystery and you're not wrong about there existing no unequivocal proof about origin.

You're also right about folks witnessing strange things in the sky and below is a good example for this thread where several separately located townsfolk all seemingly reported the same thing (at the same time and location) - any thoughts on the witness reports for this one?

All callers gave the same account of a saucer-shaped craft, 20 to 30 meters across, surrounded by bright white light, and with intense shafts of light that penetrated the foaming water below, or when away from the water, once the shafts of white light were off, underneath was a red glow or flashing red-orange lights.


Gosford NSW multiple witness UFO sightings Dec 30/31 1995

Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12

I think we can safely say that they saw something. Given the wide array of perceptions that people can have, its hard to say what it was exactly. If there is no prosaic explanation that can be proven or shown, people are free to make of it what they wish. Even if there is a prosaic explanation, people are free to make of it what they wish. What kind of response are you looking for? If I say that its very interesting and don't know what to make of it, is that acceptable?

Yes, some can be unreliable in the sightings. Now if it was the whole city that seen the sighting. Media would have been told that it was something else.

Let me share my story. Hard to believe, but 1159 July 1st, 2009 Oak Harbor Wa. Near military base, though I was stationed there I knew there were no fighter jets being flown for night flying. No helicopters, maybe a satillate fly by or 2 but that was it. But it 'ufo' in our atmosphere starts from from the north (35m away from) and heads northwest from its position for approximately 100 miles from its position. Then stops. Dissapears, next jumps into speed, breaking our atmosphere lighting the city for a brief second. 1246 am July 2nd. I call it strange, why. This- If it breaks our atmosphere using unknown technology. It can or may cause earthquakes. Because after that high speed. 6 hours later in the mornin to be exact 6:36 am. magnitude earthquake. Woke me up. Strange yes, reliable, but how much we put into research trying to find if I and make them believe. If I or u follow the sightings and earthquakes thru frequencies it can emit one. Depends how close it and mass of it. Just to many in Washington. Highly plausible statement. A must research can determine if we can provide it. Uta: Harp also maybe a factor. Consider 'it' also emits energy that we don't know of. How can we conclude that it will cause faults to cause a quake. I would follow it's frequency to high levels or energy. Thus maybe we can have a proven fact of ufos.



earthquaketrack.com...

My sighting earthquake mag:
earthquaketrack.com...

Also a good reliable relieve and educational video.

m.youtube.com...

Check it out, operation moon blink

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by karl 12

 

I think we can safely say that they saw something. Given the wide array of perceptions that people can have, its hard to say what it was exactly. If there is no prosaic explanation that can be proven or shown, people are free to make of it what they wish. Even if there is a prosaic explanation, people are free to make of it what they wish. What kind of response are you looking for? If I say that its very interesting and don't know what to make of it, is that acceptable?

It is acceptable to me. But, people keep talking about proof instead of evidence. We know there is no conclusive proof but there is a lot of evidence. People need to get beyond this obsession with proof and use more subtle analysis to try to determine what these craft are. The evidence strongly suggests that they are in some way physical objects and if they are the ET hypothesis is the best assessment.

There also exists a false dichotomy of extra-dimensional OR ET, but they can be both extra-dimensional and ET.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by JimOberg

 

So in a thousand reports of communication with the dead, you will always find SOME you find compelling? You will always find SOME stories of human levitation to be persuasive? Of all the claims, you insist that SOME people really have recently seen Elvis?

Its even better than that. He doesn't think bigfoot is real. Bigfoot sightings are based on eyewitness testimony. UFO testimony is reliable and bigfoot testimony is not.

If only we could convert Jim Oberg, everything would be ok and we could move on

There is no doubt UFO's are out there but who or what is in control is the question that begs answers.

I've personally seen a strange light from where I was standing like a star really, moving so lighting fast left to right and also staying dead still and move across to the left and back to the right. No idea what is was but I know what it was not and that's a bug, plane, rocket, so on.

Great subject

EnPassant

At this point it is possible to make some bullet points to start with-

# They exist

# They are secretive and cannot be trusted because of this

# They want something from us. This is obvious.

# There is strong evidence that they are contacting ordinary individuals.

# They are not truly good.

More like bullet assertions...



And can we please give the word "prosaic" a rest for a few years?

Jefferton
No witness is reliable. The human brain is flawed, and can't be trusted.

geez, this statement is ridiculous. the human brain has been trusted for thousands of years, some more than others obviously.

reply to post by draknoir2

And can we please give the word "prosaic" a rest for a few years?

I have only used the word once and that was just a post ago and I don't even know what it means. Can I use the word "Prozac"?