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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why isn't observer evidence like eyewitness accounts counted as evidence for UFO's?

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Eyewitness accounts have been used by Science for years.

Newton used eyewtiness accounts in the Principia when talking about comets. He came up with a theory on comets based on recorded sighting throughout the world like a boy saw a comet and this is what he described. There wasn't any internet to even verify the credibility of these eyewitness accounts yet Newton used them to come up with a theory about comets which helped lead to his equations of Gravity.

So if eyewitness accounts are so unreliable, how did Newton use them to come up with his theories?

We also saw this with meteorites. This is from Wiki:

Although meteors have been known since ancient times, they were not known to be an astronomical phenomenon until early in the 19th century. Prior to that, they were seen in the West as an atmospheric phenomenon, like lightning, and were not connected with strange stories of rocks falling from the sky. In 1807, Yale University chemistry professor Benjamin Silliman investigated a meteorite that fell in Weston, Connecticut.[27] Silliman believed the meteor had a cosmic origin, but meteors did not attract much attention from astronomers until the spectacular meteor storm of November 1833.[28] People all across the eastern United States saw thousands of meteors, radiating from a single point in the sky. Astute observers noticed that the radiant, as the point is now called, moved with the stars, staying in the constellation Leo.[29]

en.wikipedia.org...

ASTUTE OBSERVERS saw meteors radiating from a single point in the sky and to this day this is still called the radient. I thought Science never uses eyewitness accounts?

Also, here's a list of published papers and studies on U.F.O.'s.


This page offers a list of 100+ articles, papers and monographs about UFOs / UAPs published in professional journals and specialty publications. Two polls of professional & amateur astronomers respectively, on whether they see UFOs or not. Finally 60+ PhD dissertations and academic publications about UFOs. Very little peer-reviewed literature has been published in which academics have proposed, studied or supported non-prosaic explanations for UFOs.


www.hyper.net...

Why aren't there more non-prosaic explanations of U.F.O.'s?

That alone lends support to the notion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. I have had 3 sightings myself. Two looked like probes. It was real windy one day and the wind was almost knocking me over, then this round orb passed in front of me going against the wind. It slowed down and then it sped back up.

Where are all the Scientist explaining U.F.O.'s? Why are there still these unidentified objects in the sky?

We have aeriel phenomena in the sky that can avoid radar, outrun our best planes and cause nuclear facilities to malfunction. After 60 or more years of these sightings why can't Scientist explain these things like Newton did with comets based on eyewitness accounts or what happened with metorites?

Here's 565 eyewitness accounts

www.ufoevidence.org...

Here's another timeline with a bunch of cases

alien-ufo-research.com...

Here's Mufon with cases dating back to 1897

www.mufon.com...

Here's a sight that gives you pre 1900 case files and post 1900 files.

www.educatinghumanity.com...

There videos, photos, trace evidence and more. Newton didn't have any of these things yet he came up with a theory about comets based on eyewitness accounts. We came up with evidence about meteors based on eyewitness accounts.

We have all of these tools today yet we lack a lot of peer reviewed literature with non prosaic explanations of U.F.O.'s, why?
edit on 26-10-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
They're not entirely discounted. But have you ever been to a magic show? Were your perceptions completely unfooled by the magic acts? Unlikely. So what makes you think that a person's perceptions are good evidence?

Eyewitness reports are a good jumping-off point. Then it's necessary to do the science and gather the empirical, objective evidence to prove that the witness wasn't just hallucinating, misperceiving, or just lying like a rug.

Sorry if that's not good enough for you.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Because: Arrogance and narrow minded.

Some people can not say: Hmm..interesting.. i don't know.. but interesting..

Edit:

And of course the people with agenda's, money streams and politics on the subject.
edit on 26-10-2016 by EartOccupant because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Because, if a group of people, want (or NEED) to keep something secret from the general public but, the phenomena is one in wich the general public can sometimes observe for themselves . . . Then the only way to keep the subject a secret, is to sway public opinion by discrediting any serious observers and to make it a laughable topic that no sane person would ever consider actually happening and with any luck the folks who have experienced the phenomenon first hand will be too afraid to say anything as they will be viewed insane by their peers. Psychological Operations.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Of course science uses eyewitness reports. Unfortunately, the UFO phenomenon hinges on the interpretation of what these witnesses see. A million people can see a light moving in the sky at the same time. All that proves is that they were all seeing the same thing. It is not really ]evidence for any particular theory, however.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

That's too easy.

There is a difference between a "light" in the Sky and detailed reports of objects and experiences.

Ok.. That maybe 5% of all the reports...

But it is still there !

Its just plain ignorance to dismiss them all.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
a reply to: DJW001

That's too easy.

There is a difference between a "light" in the Sky and detailed reports of objects and experiences.

Ok.. That maybe 5% of all the reports...

But it is still there !

Its just plain ignorance to dismiss them all.





Ignorance, and or . . . . . See my post above



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Similar to eye witness testimony in Law cases.

Here, have a quick read of this. I agree, it should be, but we're all different and see things in different ways. Oddly true, even if a solid metal object humming in an open field etc.

www.sciencemag.org...



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Because people are stupid.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: 191stMIDET




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

So if eyewitness accounts are so unreliable, how did Newton use them to come up with his theories?


They aren't always unreliable, but the possibility exists that they are unreliable.

That's why even in a court of law (which admittedly differs from science), an eyewitness account is scrutinized for how it relates to the known facts, and is often attempted to be reconciled with other evidence. An eyewitness account alone, unsupported by the other facts of the case, is not enough.

Actually, the same goes for science. One scientist making an eyewitness observation usually requires other scientists who attempt to replicate those observations in an effort to validate those observations.

If I were alive back in Galileo's day, I assuredly would not simply take Galileo's word for it that Jupiter seemed to have its own system of orbital bodies associated with it. If I did so, I would poor critical thinker. I would attempt to replicate the observation before claiming "Yep, Jupiter has things orbiting around it!". Or, I would attempt to find other astronomers who independently had made similar observations that Galileo did.

I wouldn't blindly accept the word of one guy, no matter who that person was. I wouldn't necessarily "disbelieve" him, but I wouldn't automatically believe him, either.


edit on 2016-10-26 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Because as it has been said by a number of politicians. That no one wants to admit that there is aerial phenomenon that they can't explain or control. It makes them as politicians look weak ineffective and useless.
edit on Wed201610V201653531 by DonVoigt because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Well we have threads on here of eyewitness reports some even with photographic/video evidence which seem to be very convincing until other members who are photographers/film makers rip them apart to show that the eyewitness made wrong assumptions about what they saw and we tend to provide evidence to back that up.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: EartOccupant


There is a difference between a "light" in the Sky and detailed reports of objects and experiences.


Of course. Unfortunately, the detailed reports tend to be from a single individual and are therefore uncorroborated.


Ok.. That maybe 5% of all the reports...


That is enough to be interesting.


But it is still there !


Yes, but it proves nothing one way or another.


Its just plain ignorance to dismiss them all.


It's just plain ignorance not to dig deeper. Do you have the courage to let go of your beliefs and approach the phenomenon with an open mind?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




Do you have the courage to let go of your beliefs and approach the phenomenon with an open mind?


Lol



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

It is/they are. But accounts and testimonials arent as verifiable as studies or officially reported-to-proper-authorities sightings.

They should be...



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
Its just plain ignorance to dismiss them all.


I'm not advocating simply dismissing them with a wave of my hand. Any eyewitness account may be a real sighting of a real alien craft. However, if those eyewitness accounts have no evidence to back them up, then there is no reason to necessarily believe it.

And it doesn't really matter how many eyewitness accounts there are -- there isn't a magic number of them that, after that number of sightings is reached, automatically means that some are real. Human perception is a naturally fallible thing, and there are a lot of fallible humans out there (me being one of them), so it could very well be that EVERY honest eyewitness account is a misrepresentation of a mundane phenomenon.

So an eyewitness account that has nothing else to back it up is a bit useless in trying to get to the truth of the UFO phenomenon.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Only people who don't know what the word "evidence" means say that eyewitness testimony isn't evidence. These people seem to think that "evidence" strictly means "physical evidence", which isn't true.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil
Only people who don't know what the word "evidence" means say that eyewitness testimony isn't evidence. These people seem to think that "evidence" strictly means "physical evidence", which isn't true.


Perhaps this will help: Back engineered machines based on "eyewitness testimony."



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
a reply to: DJW001




Do you have the courage to let go of your beliefs and approach the phenomenon with an open mind?


Lol


I take it that's a "no, if it isn't aliens I don't want to know?"



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join