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: 9
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MaximRecoil
 



In the O'Hare case we have this, i.e., ~instant ~vertical acceleration from hovering to high velocity, and even leaving physical evidence of that maneuver in the form of a neatly vaporized column of cloud cover (i.e., a "hole punched in the clouds"). Not only can no publicly known aircraft do this, but no publicly known object of any kind can do this.


What we have is the perception of "~instant ~vertical acceleration" and the memory of that perception. There just is no way to determine if did or didn't actually happen. Then there is the argument that it wasn't seen on radar as "evidence" that it wasn't actually there. But we do know that stealth exists and that radars might not pick up hyper dimensional crafts since we don't know what they are made of. I am not a meteorologist or anything but holes do appear in clouds I think. That's my "Prozac" explanation since I am banned from using the other word.




posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
There is a big difference between witnessing an accident that involves known/every day technology, & unidentified & poorly understood phenomenon that is solely relying on flawed human perception. Not the same. Even traffic accidents have conflicting stories because people often see what they want or what they think they saw.

Opening post does not change anything. Human witness testimony cannot be relied on, and in the absence of ANY other proof, it is not proof enough of anything.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

EyesOpenMouthShut
What if the lack of evidence for Bigfoot is because they pilot UFOs. :O
i know right, mind screw.

There have actually been a few UFO accounts where they're seen in conjunction with large, hairy humanoids. They don't get a lot of coverage, because... well... they're silly.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil
 



In the O'Hare case we have this, i.e., ~instant ~vertical acceleration from hovering to high velocity, and even leaving physical evidence of that maneuver in the form of a neatly vaporized column of cloud cover (i.e., a "hole punched in the clouds"). Not only can no publicly known aircraft do this, but no publicly known object of any kind can do this.


What we have is the perception of "~instant ~vertical acceleration" and the memory of that perception. There just is no way to determine if did or didn't actually happen.


The nice thing about this sighting is that the UFO was kind enough to not take off completely vertically, so the witnesses saw both horizontal and vertical motion when it departed, and their reports of the direction and rough amount of angle were all consistent with what they should have seen from their vantage points.

Motion is one of the most fundamental, basic, and simple elements of an event possible. Even critters can detect and visually follow motion. Detection of motion is so basic and fundamental to survival that it is on an instinctive level, even among humans.


Then there is the argument that it wasn't seen on radar as "evidence" that it wasn't actually there. But we do know that stealth exists and that radars might not pick up hyper dimensional crafts since we don't know what they are made of.


There are whole sections in the NARCAP report about radar. Not only does stealth technology exist even among publicly-known aircraft, but they also mentioned that the radar is tuned to detect objects in motion, while filtering out stationary objects like the tops of trees or tall buildings. Additionally, with it departing as quickly as it did, it could have easily been in a window outside the area of sweep. The radar makes 360 degree sweeps (12.5 RPM / 4.8 seconds per sweep), and by all accounts, the UFO sped out of there in a split second. The radar could have been facing in the completely opposite direction at that particular split second.


I am not a meteorologist or anything but holes do appear in clouds I think.


Not sharp-edged circular holes in total cloud cover that appear ~instantly, the moment of appearance perfectly coinciding with several reports of a disc-shaped object matching the size of the hole blasting through the cloud cover like a bat out of hell.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

LogicalRazor
There is a big difference between witnessing an accident that involves known/every day technology, & unidentified & poorly understood phenomenon that is solely relying on flawed human perception. Not the same.


Not necessarily any different at all. Most UFOs are of well-known and simple shapes, e.g., disc, triangle, cylinder, sphere, which are simpler shapes that most publicly known aircraft. Additionally, the flight characteristics are the most important part, which is a barnyard basic matter of identifying a particular type of motion or non-motion.


Even traffic accidents have conflicting stories because people often see what they want or what they think they saw.


I already said that they have conflicting stories, but unlike you, who is making inherently inaccurate blanket statements, I specified which elements will most likely have conflict. Among the eyewitness to an automobile crash, how many of them do you suppose will remember seeing something other than an automobile and/or something other than a crash?


Opening post does not change anything.


The OP is a reflection of reality; it is the people who make the blanket claim that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" who are trying to change something, i.e., trying to change perception of reality.


Human witness testimony cannot be relied on


This blanket claim is demonstrably false. By the way, the following blanket claim: "Human witness testimony can be relied on", is closer to the truth than your blanket claim is, given that it is generally true, while your blanket claim is the exception to the rule. A functional society would fall apart if "human witness testimony" were unreliable more often than not with regard to fundamental details. For example, how did you learn to write? You witnessed someone draw or otherwise show you the letter "A", and you copied it down, and so on.


and in the absence of ANY other proof, it is not proof enough of anything.


Eyewitness testimony can constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MaximRecoil
 



Motion is one of the most fundamental, basic, and simple elements of an event possible. Even critters can detect and visually follow motion. Detection of motion is so basic and fundamental to survival that it is on an instinctive level, even among humans.

Sort of. The part you are missing is that perception of movement is probably one of the most common optical illusions and probably the most likely to occur naturally. Most likely this does have its roots in basic survival instincts. Continuity is a pretty basic concept. It is basically how our brains tend to group things to make a complete picture. With movement, we see this illusion every day and is easy to demonstrate.



If I throw a ball, my dog will see its movement and chase it. When the ball goes behind something, he still "sees" the continuity of the movement of the ball and knows exactly where it will end up. Pretty cool. My robot cant do this primarily because Im a sucky programmer and have no idea how to program "continuity" of movement like this. It can chase a ball fairly well until it cant see it. So we are easily fooled into thinking things are moving when there is no actual movement. Its a side effect of a very basic survival skill.


Not sharp-edged circular holes in total cloud cover that appear ~instantly, the moment of appearance perfectly coinciding with several reports of a disc-shaped object matching the size of the hole blasting through the cloud cover like a bat out of hell.

Well. Unfortunately there is no way to confirm any of that. And I think there was only one witness that described this? What is going on here is that you are hearing a subjective account of something retold from memory which paints a subjective image in your head that sounds a little cartoonish to me as you retell it. I am not trying to be dismissive, although I may sound like that but there really is nothing to be done with this information. Maybe the alien ship just simply vanished and had nothing to do with the hole in the clouds. Maybe the alien ship shot its cloud vaporizer through the cloud to make it look like it went that way but went in the other direction. So even if it was an alien ship, it will still be helpful to understand perception.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MaximRecoil
 



This blanket claim is demonstrably false.
Please demonstrate


For example, how did you learn to write? You witnessed someone draw or otherwise show you the letter "A", and you copied it down, and so on.

As a society we function because we evolved to do so, not because we are good at witnessing things. In fact we suck at it so bad that we need to write everything down and take pictures. That's why cameras are all the rage.

To LEARN something requires repetition and practice and correction and an occasional back hand.

Tell me how long you need to "witness" this before you learn it. Five minutes? an hour?



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   

neoholographic
reply to post by JimOberg
..When you have eyewitness accounts from high ranking Government officials, Police Officers, Astronauts, Pilots and more talking about human levitation and Elvis sightings then I suggest you start a thread about these things and go over the evidence...


You're on. Name me one 'UFO sighting by an astronaut' you would stake your reputation as a reasonable human and good investgator on.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   

MaximRecoil
...Motion is one of the most fundamental, basic, and simple elements of an event possible. Even critters can detect and visually follow motion. Detection of motion is so basic and fundamental to survival that it is on an instinctive level, even among humans.
.....


Unless you have developed new senses, I cannot think of any way you or any other human can detect line-of-sight motion more than 30-40 feet from you [the limit of binocular convergence]. Beyond that, line-of-sight motion is interpreted based on object variation in brightness, angular size, fuzziness, or some other visual feature which LOOKS like, or masquerades AS, line-of-sight motion. And orthogonal angular motion, especially in the absence of a horizon in the field of view, is also notoriously subject to misinterpretation unless your brain has a built-in gyroscope [semi-circular ear canals won’t hack it]. If you really think human-perceived motions of this type are FACTS rather than mental GUESSES, you really need to go back and read up on standard perception limits.
edit on 28-3-2014 by JimOberg because: punctuation...



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 01:04 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
Sort of. The part you are missing is that perception of movement is probably one of the most common optical illusions and probably the most likely to occur naturally.


I'm not missing any such thing, and an illusion of motion nearly always has to be intelligently designed. Motion picture film, video, and cartoon and flip book animation are all examples of this. The only illusion of motion in nature I can think of is heat distortion, like you see just above the surface of hot pavement. There are exactly zero mechanisms in nature which can create the illusion of an object ~instantly accelerating to high velocity, vertically and slightly to the east.

Do you realize how impossible most sports would be if nature was constantly playing motion-illusionist? People swinging wildly at a baseball that hasn't even been thrown, people trying to catch passes that haven't been thrown, goalies in hockey and soccer would go nuts, and so on.


Most likely this does have its roots in basic survival instincts. Continuity is a pretty basic concept. It is basically how our brains tend to group things to make a complete picture. With movement, we see this illusion every day and is easy to demonstrate.



Again, that's the concept behind film, video, and animation, and it is an intelligently designed illusion. Are you trying to make the case that the O'Hare UFO was a three-dimensional holographic laser projection, à la "Project Blue Beam"? Otherwise, nature can't do what you think it can.


If I throw a ball, my dog will see its movement and chase it. When the ball goes behind something, he still "sees" the continuity of the movement of the ball and knows exactly where it will end up. Pretty cool.


The dog doesn't see the ball at all once it goes behind something, much less see its motion. The dog anticipates where the ball is based on where he last saw it heading. It is no different than when you fake throw a ball for a dog to fetch. He'll start running to where he expects it to go based on your arm's throwing motion. He's not seeing an illusion of the ball actually being thrown, and he'll get wise to that trick after a few times too.


My robot cant do this primarily because Im a sucky programmer and have no idea how to program "continuity" of movement like this. It can chase a ball fairly well until it cant see it. So we are easily fooled into thinking things are moving when there is no actual movement. Its a side effect of a very basic survival skill.


See above.


Well. Unfortunately there is no way to confirm any of that. And I think there was only one witness that described this?


The NARCAP report says there were "multiple" witnesses:


5.2 Historical Background. Although the multiple eyewitness accounts of this HIC (hole in clouds) may be unusual,
they are not unprecedented. Reports of this odd manifestation have been associated with UAP sightings
as far back as 1947, and as far afield as Newfoundland, England and Scotland.


The woman (not one of the airline employees) known as Ms. J. H. in the NARCAP report, and known as Eyewitness on this forum, also saw the craft shoot through the clouds, leaving a hole in them:


Eyewitness
Atomic, it "tore off" out of there extremely quickly, and did indeed punch a hole in the clouds. It left at a slight angle, slightly easterly.

link


The NARCAP report then proceeds to give summaries of several other UFO + HIC reports, from 1947 to 2002. Then it says:


We cannot identify the object or
phenomenon lying inside the oblate spheroid surface, but two conclusions seem inescapable: 1) the
object or phenomenon observed would have to have been something objectively and externally real to
create the HIC effect; and, 2) the HIC phenomenon associated with this object cannot be explained by
either conventional weather phenomena or conventional aerospace craft, whether acknowledged or
unacknowledged.


So basically, your explanations are as follows:

1. Hovering gray metallic disc-shaped craft = illusion
2. ~Instantaneous vertical/east acceleration to high velocity = illusion
3. HIC = illusion

Is that right? Three very clever illusions back-to-back; Mother Nature needs to take that show on the road.

Either way, you haven't established grounds for reasonable doubt; you've just continued to throw things at the wall hoping something will stick.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil
 



This blanket claim is demonstrably false.
Please demonstrate


Are you kidding? There are countless examples of eyewitness testimony being reliable, which automatically means the blanket claim of "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" is demonstrably false. You can see countless examples in court, and in everyday life. Do you realize that the fact that you requested a demonstration suggests that you don't think there has ever been a reliable eyewitness testimony of any event in the history of the world (otherwise you would have accepted my statement as the given that it is)? And if you realize that, do you realize how utterly absurd that is? Countless reliable eyewitness reports occur every single day.

Someone reports a cat stuck up in a tree. The fire department shows up and indeed there is a cat stuck up in a tree. Eyewitness report confirmed. Blanket "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" statement demonstrated to be false.



As a society we function because we evolved to do so, not because we are good at witnessing things.


We could not learn anything if we were "unreliable" with regard to remembering sensory input. It is impossible to function as a society if no one can learn anything.


In fact we suck at it so bad that we need to write everything down and take pictures. That's why cameras are all the rage.


Yes, "selfies" are definitely improving society. In any event, writing things down and taking pictures are means of recording things for various purposes, e.g., transfer of information, posterity, reminders, and so on. Of course, this has nothing to do with describing the fundamentals of an event soon after it takes place, something which humans are generally quite good at.


To LEARN something requires repetition and practice and correction and an occasional back hand.


You can't learn anything at all without a good degree of reliability with regard to remembering sensory input.


Tell me how long you need to "witness" this before you learn it. Five minutes? an hour?


Tell me how long you need to "witness" this before you learn it:


edit on 3/28/2014 by MaximRecoil because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 02:15 AM
link   

JimOberg

MaximRecoil
...Motion is one of the most fundamental, basic, and simple elements of an event possible. Even critters can detect and visually follow motion. Detection of motion is so basic and fundamental to survival that it is on an instinctive level, even among humans.
.....


Unless you have developed new senses, I cannot think of any way you or any other human can detect line-of-sight motion more than 30-40 feet from you [the limit of binocular convergence]. Beyond that, line-of-sight motion is interpreted based on object variation in brightness, angular size, fuzziness, or some other visual feature which LOOKS like, or masquerades AS, line-of-sight motion.
And orthogonal angular motion, especially in the absence of a horizon in the field of view, is also notoriously subject to misinterpretation unless your brain has a built-in gyroscope [semi-circular ear canals won’t hack it]. If you really think human-perceived motions of this type are FACTS rather than mental GUESSES, you really need to go back and read up on standard perception limits.
edit on 28-3-2014 by JimOberg because: punctuation...


What are you talking about? If you want to set up a test, I'll detect rapid motion, line-of-sight or otherwise, on any object I can clearly see (let's say an apparent size of at least 1/4" diameter), regardless of distance, and I'll do it 10 times out of 10, and I'll wager whatever you want on the results. It doesn't matter how the detection of motion is accomplished, it only matters that it is accomplished to a very high degree of reliability.

30 feet is the distance between the lines on a football field, and you would have us believe that a human standing on the 20-yard line can't reliably detect line-of-sight motion of e.g. another human standing on the 40-yard line (60 feet)? How about this: stand on the 20-yard line and park a top-fuel dragster (the fastest accelerating publicly-known vehicles or craft on Earth) on the 40-yard line. Are you telling me that a person couldn't reliably tell when it accelerated away from him? If so, he needs his eyes examined. In fact, humans could reliably detect it at a much greater distance than that.

Additionally, the O'Hare sighting wasn't a matter of line-of-sight motion anyway, which has already been pointed out in this thread. The UFO took off upward at a slight angle to the east, and at least some of the witnesses were already looking at it from an angle to begin with.
edit on 3/28/2014 by MaximRecoil because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 02:17 AM
link   

JimOberg

neoholographic
reply to post by JimOberg
..When you have eyewitness accounts from high ranking Government officials, Police Officers, Astronauts, Pilots and more talking about human levitation and Elvis sightings then I suggest you start a thread about these things and go over the evidence...


You're on. Name me one 'UFO sighting by an astronaut' you would stake your reputation as a reasonable human and good investgator on.


And yes, I know the story behind this, but regardless of that, it was a UFO sighting, and it still hasn't been 100% positively identified.
edit on 3/28/2014 by MaximRecoil because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MaximRecoil
 



Tell me how long you need to "witness" this before you learn it:

zero seconds. see you keep switching the requirements from learning how to write to shape recognition? You didn't answer my question at all and just went on to the next intellectually dishonest Prozac straw man. Well its effective at avoiding an actual discussion.

edit on 28-3-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MaximRecoil
 



So basically, your explanations are as follows:

1. Hovering gray metallic disc-shaped craft = illusion
2. ~Instantaneous vertical/east acceleration to high velocity = illusion
3. HIC = illusion

No absolutely not. I said I have no idea what it was. I am just talking about different ways we perceive things and you translate that into some anti-ufo nonsense I have.



Is that right? Three very clever illusions back-to-back; Mother Nature needs to take that show on the road.

Either way, you haven't established grounds for reasonable doubt; you've just continued to throw things at the wall hoping something will stick.

I honestly find it quite odd that people get so bent out of shape just by talking about perception and the way people misperceive. I am not trying to establish grounds for reasonable doubt. That's your game that you think I am playing. I am encouraging people to not be ignorant when they talk about perception. Specific to this case, I am looking at possibilities. If it applies, it applies if it doesn't it doesn't. Why would you discourage an open discussion about this?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by MaximRecoil
 



Someone reports a cat stuck up in a tree. The fire department shows up and indeed there is a cat stuck up in a tree. Eyewitness report confirmed. Blanket "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" statement demonstrated to be false.

Honestly, your example sucks. You are trying to translate this into UFO sightings and it doesn't apply in the slightest. I don't think we will get anywhere. I had hopes you could have an honest discussion this time around. Guess not. Here I will state what you want so you can throw rotten tomatoes at me. Witness testimony is inherently awful because it is. just because. No discussion needed.

You have actually shown me why blanket statements are effective and used so much around here. You have essentially a circular argument. Trying to get to what "witness testimony" actually means is going to be impossible.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian

I honestly find it quite odd that people get so bent out of shape just by talking about perception and the way people misperceive. I am not trying to establish grounds for reasonable doubt. That's your game that you think I am playing. I am encouraging people to not be ignorant when they talk about perception. Specific to this case, I am looking at possibilities. If it applies, it applies if it doesn't it doesn't. Why would you discourage an open discussion about this?


What's so odd about someone getting defensive when their deeply held beliefs are questioned? Happens all the time.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by MaximRecoil
 



Do you realize how impossible most sports would be if nature was constantly playing motion-illusionist? People swinging wildly at a baseball that hasn't even been thrown, people trying to catch passes that haven't been thrown, goalies in hockey and soccer would go nuts, and so on.
You are missing it. In sports psychology, its called "visualization". We "see" motion very effectively all the time without there being motion. It happens quite often in nature. All you need is fragments of information and your brain translates it automatically as a complete picture. Its quite impressive actually. And tis is EXACTLY what is happening in the examples you provided.

Did you know we all have a giant blind spot in our visual field that we don't see. This is some very basic stuff that anyone who is serious about this topic would become familiar with. I'm not "making" this up it but you seem to be as what you are describing is just wrong.
edit on 28-3-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 



What's so odd about someone getting defensive when their deeply held beliefs are questioned? Happens all the time.
And I have yet to learn my lesson. I also find it odd that when I bang my head up against a wall, it hurts. Pretty much every time. Is that supposed to happen?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by MaximRecoil
 



And yes, I know the story behind this, but regardless of that

I don't. Please clue me in. I would consider this intellectual dishonesty.

"Yes, I know this could be completely wrong because there is a whole backstory that I am aware of that others might not be so lets not bring that up"

Right.




top topics



 
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join