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

a reply to: neoholographic

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?

something like the perseids or orionids occur yearly, they can be witnessed yearly, repeatable.

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

and how many of the are repeatable?
science needs to be able to prove a claim, renaming venus a ufo because one eyed roy reckons its a ufo is hardly workable.

Because we suck and we lie too.

originally posted by: DJW001

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."

Help with what? It's no secret that bicycles are difficult for most people to draw; in fact, drawing a bicycle from memory is part of some standardized IQ-type tests. When I was in my teens, I amazed the test-giver when I drew one perfectly (with regard to structure) in about 30 seconds. But I have an advantage, i.e., I know bicycles inside and out, because I started working on them, including complete teardowns and builds, when I was 7 years old, plus I have natural drawing ability.

In any case, what does it have to do with anything? Being able to recall the precise structure of a bicycle would only be important in cases which require such information. If you're reporting to the police that a mugger made his getaway on a bicycle, they don't care if you can draw a bicycle or not, because it is utterly irrelevant. Also, UFOs tends to be simple shapes, like a disc, sphere, cylinder, or triangle.

Eyewitness testimony is a type of evidence, and until the word "evidence" evolves to mean something else, that fact remains.

a reply to: MaximRecoil

Eyewitness testimony is a type of evidence, and until the word "evidence" evolves to mean something else, that fact remains.

Interpreting what an observer has seen based on their testimony is like trying to build a bicycle based on their drawing from memory.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Eyewitness testimony is a type of evidence, and until the word "evidence" evolves to mean something else, that fact remains.

Interpreting what an observer has seen based on their testimony is like trying to build a bicycle based on their drawing from memory.

That's a strong case for UFOs then, considering that all of those bicycles in your link are close enough to be recognizable as bicycles, i.e., they all have two wheels, a frame of some sort, handlebars, and a seat.

And given that you didn't actually address the statement of mine which you quoted, your tacit concession regarding it is noted.

Because it's just hearsay; obviously ANYONE can make stuff up as they go along. Hence the importance of evidence.

a reply to: MaximRecoil

That's a strong case for UFOs then, considering that all of those bicycles in your link are close enough to be recognizable as bicycles, i.e., they all have two wheels, a frame of some sort, handlebars, and a seat.

You are using the word "UFO" in an ambiguous fashion. People see things in the sky and experience different sorts of phenomena that get lumped together into the category "UFO." No evidence is needed to prove the existence of this category. The issue is interpreting all of these experiences. Finding a single, simple explanation for them all is reductionist and close minded.

More to the point, you are able to identify all of these bad sketches as bicycles because you have had direct experience of bicycles and know what characteristics members of that category have. The "high strangeness" cases defy simple categorization because only the eyewitness has experienced that particular phenomenon. Attempts to interpret the experience are often reductionist: "Aliens!" The experience is not evidence for the interpretation; the interpretation is merely an attempt to force the experience into a pre-conceived category. It is no different than automatically classifying the experience as "hallucination."

And given that you didn't actually address the statement of mine which you quoted, your tacit concession regarding it is noted.

Did this help?

When the military classified UFO related things as compartmented top secret and classified material is the reason that academia/science views it this way. They spend millions every year to keep public opinion thinking this way by using authority figures in academia/science circles to influence us, by how those in positions of authority given those duties influence them to do just that.

This is why we see people marching around on the boards acting the way they do, as if they are spokesmen for those implementing these things. Coaching certain personality types in targeted psychologically practiced ways has a high success rate to induce public opinion to be trained any way they see fit. It's also why people lose friends, jobs, and careers for getting "too" involved in UFO's and related matters.

even though the loudest debunkers are always people who have never seen a disk craft up close and flying erratically themselves, they believe so deeply they are better equipped to explain what witnesses see than the witnesses see themselves, even to the point of saying highly trained people with credentials far beyond what the debunkers have, simply didn't see what they think they saw.

These counter intelligence programs are very expert in how they do this. No other subjects would see people behaving in this manner except for these classified subjects which tptb have decided is taboo for the general public. Some of the people are immune to these deceptions however. Like some people can't be hypnotized. Same kind of thing. And hypnotism actually plays a big role in keeping people uninterested or paying much attention to these things.

a reply to: neoholographic
I'm confused, eyewitness accounts are accepted as proof of UFO's.
The problem is making the leap from "what was that" to aliens coming to visit,probe,eat etc.

Because Newton learnt about meteorites from eyewitness reports does not mean that those who see Bigfoot and Elvis aren't mistaken.

Nobody is saying UFO's don't exist. They're just questioning people's claims that they are IFO's.

originally posted by: MaximRecoil
Help with what? It's no secret that bicycles are difficult for most people to draw; in fact, drawing a bicycle from memory is part of some standardized IQ-type tests. When I was in my teens, I amazed the test-giver when I drew one perfectly (with regard to structure) in about 30 seconds. But I have an advantage, i.e., I know bicycles inside and out, because I started working on them, including complete teardowns and builds, when I was 7 years old, plus I have natural drawing ability.

Cheers, that was hilarious.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MaximRecoil

That's a strong case for UFOs then, considering that all of those bicycles in your link are close enough to be recognizable as bicycles, i.e., they all have two wheels, a frame of some sort, handlebars, and a seat.

You are using the word "UFO" in an ambiguous fashion. People see things in the sky and experience different sorts of phenomena that get lumped together into the category "UFO."

Exactly.

An eyewitness sighting of a weird light in the sky (weird to the eyewitness) is just evidence of the UFO phenomenon, not necessarily evidence of alien craft. It might be an alien craft, but all of those sightings of weird lights can't all be grouped together under the label "Evidence of Alien Craft" because there might also be a lot of things in that group (or maybe everything in that group) that are NOT alien craft.

Many of the sightings could have been mundane things that were unidentifiable to the eyewitness. So it would be more proper to say that they are evidence of UFOs, using the strict definition of "UFO". Among that group[ of UFOs might be some objects that upon further analysis could potentially later be considered evidence of alien craft, but that label would be added later, after the further analysis.


For example, if the eyewitness sees the single bright light in the sky that appears to hover and move slowly sideways, the eyewitness may label it as "an alien spaceship" and people may try to claim that the eyewitness sighting is evidence of alien spacecraft. However, if that light was a plane's landing light, and the plane appeared to "hover" only because it was flying in a direction that was generally toward the eyewitness -- and thus misidentified by the eyewitness -- then the sighting would NOT be evidence of alien spacecraft.

It would be evidence of a UFO (using the strict definition of UFO) and the UFO phenomenon, because planes with a landing light on and flying in the direction of the observe are commonly described as being unidentified (unidentified to the eyewitness), but it wouldn't be evidence for alien visitation of Earth.

a reply to: neoholographic

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

Of course it's counted as evidence for UFOs. If you or I cannot identify a flying object then until evidence to the contrary is provided it remains an unidentified flying object. A UFO is by definition an unidentified flying object. So there is no question about the existence of UFOs. Project Bluebook, an official study of UFOs, contains plenty of eye witness testimony.

However if you see a UFO and jump to the conclusion that it was an alien spacecraft then this is where your evidence becomes less robust. We have yet to prove that aliens exist, never mind that they can send spacecraft to Earth. How do we even know what an alien spacecraft looks like? So your eye witness evidence then becomes questionable against a more prosaic explanation. Further 'evidence' may help identify what the flying object was with time and it becomes an IFO.

The argument about eye witness testimony standing up in a court of law is also subject to other factors.Forget UFOs for a moment If you report that you saw murder in your street then without other corroborating evidence like a dead body and blood stains found on the accused there is not even going to be a court case.

....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.

This is evidence that you saw something you couldn't identify. Could it be alien? Yes it could be. But because we have yet to establish aliens exist, and these aliens are capable of controlling objects like the ones you observed, then it is not proof.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
These counter intelligence programs are very expert in how they do this. No other subjects would see people behaving in this manner except for these classified subjects which tptb have decided is taboo for the general public. Some of the people are immune to these deceptions however. Like some people can't be hypnotized. Same kind of thing. And hypnotism actually plays a big role in keeping people uninterested or paying much attention to these things.

Thinking you are immune to deception just makes you far more easily deceived.

There's definitely proof of a cover up. TPTB either want to keep aliens from us, or they want to give the impression they have something to cover up. Bill Cooper had a lot of interesting things to say about this.

Whichever is the case there needs to be better evidence than what is provided for Elvis being alive before we can know for sure.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MaximRecoil

You are using the word "UFO" in an ambiguous fashion.

No, I'm not. "UFO" has a generally accepted definition, and I am using the term in accordance with it.

People see things in the sky and experience different sorts of phenomena that get lumped together into the category "UFO." No evidence is needed to prove the existence of this category.

Of course evidence is needed, and that evidence has been primarily in the form of eyewitness testimony.

The issue is interpreting all of these experiences. Finding a single, simple explanation for them all is reductionist and close minded.

That has nothing to do with whether or not eyewitness testimony is evidence. Of course, it is evidence, and you've already tacitly conceded that fact.

More to the point, you are able to identify all of these bad sketches as bicycles because you have had direct experience of bicycles and know what characteristics members of that category have. The "high strangeness" cases defy simple categorization because only the eyewitness has experienced that particular phenomenon. Attempts to interpret the experience are often reductionist: "Aliens!" The experience is not evidence for the interpretation; the interpretation is merely an attempt to force the experience into a pre-conceived category. It is no different than automatically classifying the experience as "hallucination."

This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not eyewitness testimony is evidence either. Something being evidence doesn't necessarily mean that it proves a case. That's why there's such a thing as, e.g., circumstantial evidence, which, by definition, has more than one possible explanation. For example, establishing that a person was at the scene of a crime on the night in question doesn't prove he committed the crime, but it is evidence (circumstantial) nonetheless, and it is considered along with other evidence. If there is no other evidence, he probably won't be convicted.

Did this help?

Your tacit concession on that matter remains noted.

a reply to: MaximRecoil

You simply seem to be saying that eyewitness accounts of UFOs are evidence that eyewitnesses see things that they (the eyewitnesses) can't identify. That seems rather self-evident of self-defining.

I mean, of course eyewitness accounts of seeing flying objects that they can't identify is evidence of Unidentified Flying Objects (using the strict definition of the term).

However, there are people out there (and some people on ATS) who want to label an eyewitness sighting of a UFO as being evidence that aliens are visiting Earth, which would be an inappropriate characterization of an eyewitness UFO sighting.

Maybe alien craft ARE visiting Earth (or maybe not), but a UFO sighting is not automatically evidence supporting alien visitation.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: MaximRecoil

You simply seem to be saying that eyewitness accounts of UFOs are evidence that eyewitnesses see things that they (the eyewitnesses) can't identify.

Not just "things", flying objects. It is significant because most flying objects are easily identifiable by anyone, even a 5-year-old child. Also, the reasons for why the flying object is unidentified vary, with some of those reasons being more significant than others. Flying maneuvers and other actions that are impossible with current, publicly-known aircraft technology, being perhaps the most significant.

That seems rather self-evident of self-defining.

What are you talking about? There are people who claim that eyewitness testimony is not evidence at all. In my first post on this thread I pointed out that such people don't know what the word "evidence" means. It is not synonymous with the word "proof".

I mean, of course eyewitness accounts of seeing flying objects that they can't identify is evidence of Unidentified Flying Objects (using the strict definition of the term).

"Of course", indeed. And in some cases, depending on the details of the eyewitness testimony, the evidence for the existence of a UFO is simultaneously evidence for the existence of unknown (to the general public) lift and propulsion technology.

originally posted by: MaximRecoil

"Of course", indeed. And in some cases, depending on the details of the eyewitness testimony, the evidence for the existence of a UFO is simultaneously evidence for the existence of unknown (to the general public) lift and propulsion technology.

Right. But not always.

That's why "evidence of possible unknown (unknown to the general public) craft" is only a potential subset of "eyewitness sightings of all flying objects that the eyewitness cannot identify".

...And since ONLY that potential subset could be considered evidence of unknown (possibly alien) flying objects, the larger set of "flying objects seen by an eyewitness that the eyewitness cannot identify" should not be considered evidence for there being flying objects in the sky that defy identification to the general public.


This goes back to my example above of a plane with landing light that appears to hover from the viewpoint of the eyewitness because it is coming towards the eyewitness (an example of a common misidentification). The eyewitness might say it is a UFO -- and maybe even send the account on to MUFON and/or start an ATS thread about it -- but that does not automatically make it evidence of craft with lift and propulsion technology that defy identification to the general public.

a reply to: MaximRecoil

Some might say that evidence that they aren't flying objects would be due to them not following the "flying object rules" we have established and improved on for generations.

But just out of curiosity do you dismiss all the evidence that Elvis is still alive?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: MaximRecoil

"Of course", indeed. And in some cases, depending on the details of the eyewitness testimony, the evidence for the existence of a UFO is simultaneously evidence for the existence of unknown (to the general public) lift and propulsion technology.

Right. But not always.

Yes, which is why I said "in some cases". In any case, sincere eyewitness testimony is always evidence. Some evidence is more convincing than other evidence, and some evidence is more significant than other evidence. A lot of people here use the term "evidence" interchangeably with the word "proof", which is wrong. The only type of evidence which invariably constitutes proof is "conclusive evidence".

a reply to: MaximRecoil


I don't necessarily want to bring "...in a court of law..." into the discussion, because a court of law is different than what is being discussed here. However, in this case, I think the "court of law" analogy could be useful...

That is to say, in a court of law, there may have been an eyewitness who says they saw a defendant commit a crime. However, if that eyewitness was mistaken (and what he saw the defendant do really wasn't a crime), then that is NOT evidence that the defendant committed a crime. It isn't "evidence of the crime" unless it actually supports the crime, which it doesn't. If the eyewitness misinterpreted what he saw, then it isn't necessarily evidence of anything relevant at all.

The same goes for the eyewitness who claims they saw a UFO. They may THINK what they saw was an object that would defy identification to the general public, but if they were simply misidentifying a plane or the planet Venus, then their sighting is not evidence of the existence of craft that defy identification.

It is only evidence that the eyewitness saw something that they (the eyewitness) could not identify. However, that's meaningless as evidence supporting the idea that there are craft out there that defy identification as a known human-made object.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

That is to say, in a court of law, there may have been an eyewitness who says they saw a defendant commit a crime. However, if that eyewitness was mistaken (mistaken identity or whatever), then that is NOT evidence that the defendant committed a crime.

That goes without saying.