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: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil

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.


Yes.

So if an eyewitness misidentifies a plane or the planet Venus, and only THINKS that what they saw was a flying craft that defied any conventional explanation, then their eyewitness account is NOT evidence that there are flying craft in the sky the defy any conventional explanation.

That, too, should go without saying.

However, it seems people want to label all eyewitness accounts as "evidence that there are flying craft in the sky the defy any conventional explanation".

Misidentifications are not evidence, and at least some eyewitness reports are misidentifications. Therefore eyewitness reports should not automatically be considered evidence that unexplainable craft exist.


edit on 2016-10-27 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

You said:

However, it seems people want to label all eyewitness accounts as "evidence that there are flying craft in the sky the defy any conventional explanation".

Where did anyone say this?

This is what I mean when I say people make stuff up to debate against when they can't debate the evidence. Nobody is saying ALL eyewitness accounts.

In fact we have a scientific way going back to Project Blue Book to classify knowns vs. unknowns and work from there.


Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 was their massive statistical analysis of Blue Book cases to date, some 3200 by the time the report was completed in 1954, after Ruppelt had left Blue Book. Even today, it represents the largest such study ever undertaken. Battelle employed four scientific analysts, who sought to divide cases into "knowns", "unknowns", and a third category of "insufficient information." They also broke down knowns and unknowns into four categories of quality, from excellent to poor. E.g., cases deemed excellent might typically involve experienced witnesses such as airline pilots or trained military personnel, multiple witnesses, corroborating evidence such as radar contact or photographs, etc. In order for a case to be deemed a "known", only two analysts had to independently agree on a solution. However, for a case to be called an "unknown", all four analysts had to agree. Thus the criterion for an "unknown" was quite stringent.

In addition, sightings were broken down into six different characteristics — color, number, duration of observation, brightness, shape, and speed — and then these characteristics were compared between knowns and unknowns to see if there was a statistically significant difference.

About 69% of the cases were judged known or identified (38% were considered conclusively identified while 31% were still "doubtfully" explained); about 9% fell into insufficient information. About 22% were deemed "unknown", down from the earlier 28% value of the Air Force studies.

The result of the monumental BMI study were echoed by a 1979 French GEPAN report which stated that about a quarter of over 1,600 closely studied UFO cases defied explanation, stating, in part, "These cases … pose a real question."[32] When GEPAN's successor SEPRA closed in 2004, 5800 cases had been analyzed, and the percentage of inexplicable unknowns had dropped to about 14%. The head of SEPRA, Dr. Jean-Jacques Velasco, found the evidence of extraterrestrial origins so convincing in these remaining unknowns, that he wrote a book about it in 2005.[33]


en.wikipedia.org...

This is a very good starting point.

The question still remains, why could Newton use eyewitness accounts for comets or eyewitness accounts were used for meteorites but they can't be used for U.F.O.'s? They couldn't even weigh the credibility of the witness back then.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

The point is that an eyewitness account --on its own -- should never be considered evidence that there are craft in the sky that defy conventional explanation.

Sure, upon further examination of an eyewitness account, and after additional evidence is gathered and/or corroborating independent accounts could be gathered, then and only then should an eyewitness account be considered evidence. But not until that time.

An eyewitness account on its own is not evidence, because eyewitness accounts could be misinterpretations or misidentifications -- or just plain ol' made-up-fiction. So why should eyewitness accounts automatically be considered evidence?


And before someone says we should consider all eyewitness accounts as viable sightings of craft that defy conventional explanation until the sighting can be explained conventionally"...then I would stop those people right there.

We can't call all sightings that can't be identified conventionally as "real craft that have no conventional explanation" because it is very possible that while a conventional explanation cannot be found, that does not mean a conventional explanation does not exist. That eyewitness sighting should simply be labeled as "undetermined", in which case the eyewitness sighting is not necessarily evidence of craft that has no conventional explanation.

There might be a conventional explanation that just hasn't been found.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Yes.

So if an eyewitness misidentifies a plane or the planet Venus, and only THINKS that what they saw was a flying craft that defied any conventional explanation, then their eyewitness account is NOT evidence that there are flying craft in the sky the defy any conventional explanation.

That, too, should go without saying.


If it is proven that the witness is mistaken, then it is a case of negated evidence, and negated evidence is exactly the same thing as no evidence at all. And yes, it goes without saying. When I talk about eyewitness testimony, I'm obviously not talking about testimony that has been negated.


However, it seems people want to label all eyewitness accounts as "evidence that there are flying craft in the sky the defy any conventional explanation".

Misidentifications are not evidence, and at least some eyewitness reports are misidentifications. Therefore eyewitness reports should not automatically be considered evidence that unexplainable craft exist.


As long as it hasn't been negated, it is evidence (not always strong/convincing evidence, but evidence nonetheless). The mere possibility that someone could be mistaken does not, in and of itself, negate the testimony.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Again I say, Newton did it with comets. He used eyewitness accounts to come up with his theory on comets which helped lead to his theories of Gravity.

Eyewitness accounts were used for meteorites.

Of course eyewitness accounts should be seen as evidence when you have an ACCUMULATION OF EVIDENCE that dates back to Ancient Egypt with people describing and seeing the same or similar things flying in the sky.

Science is about the accumulation of observed evidence and the more repeated observations you have the bette the evidence. Like I said, Newton did it with comets why aren't there more non-prosaic theories on U.F.O.'s?

Of course we use all eyewitness accounts. We have such an ACCUMULATION of data that all of these accounts can be used as ways to classify all of this data. This doesn't mean that all accounts will be labeled unknown but you use all accounts in order to better classify the data. THIS IS SCIENCE.

So you can have cases that match a KNOWN object. You have cases that are UNKNOWN and can't be matched to any object a another category called INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION where there's not enough information to make a determination.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Yes.



So if an eyewitness misidentifies a plane or the planet Venus, and only THINKS that what they saw was a flying craft that defied any conventional explanation, then their eyewitness account is NOT evidence that there are flying craft in the sky the defy any conventional explanation.



That, too, should go without saying.




If it is proven that the witness is mistaken, then it is a case of negated evidence, and negated evidence is exactly the same thing as no evidence at all. And yes, it goes without saying. When I talk about eyewitness testimony, I'm obviously not talking about testimony that has been negated.




However, it seems people want to label all eyewitness accounts as "evidence that there are flying craft in the sky the defy any conventional explanation".



Misidentifications are not evidence, and at least some eyewitness reports are misidentifications. Therefore eyewitness reports should not automatically be considered evidence that unexplainable craft exist.




As long as it hasn't been negated, it is evidence (not always strong/convincing evidence, but evidence nonetheless). The mere possibility that someone could be mistaken does not, in and of itself, negate the testimony.


I'm of the opinion that before something is called "evidence" supporting a certain argument (such as in support of the idea that there are craft in the sky that defy any and all conventional explanation), it needs to be properly vetted. Until then, it isn't evidence.

That goes back to the idea that we cannot assign the default value of "real until shown not to be real" on eyewitness sightings. Just because an eyewitness account doesn't have a known conventional explanation, that does not mean that a conventional explanation does not exist.

If we say "unless a conventional explanation is found, the eyewitness account should be considered evidence that explanation-defying craft actually DO exist", then in my opinion we are ascribing too much validity to one side of the question over the other.

If the default value of the eyewitness sighting is assigned to be "real evidence unless shown not to be", then in that case, we are back to blindly taking the word of the eyewitness, which is dubious due to the possibility of misinterpretation by the eyewitness or the possibility that it is simply fiction.

There is nothing wrong with saying "it is undeterminable whether or not an eyewitness sighting is actual evidence for unexplainable flying craft". I'm not sure why people are so averse to saying "I don't know". For example, saying "I don't know if alien craft are visiting Earth" is not the same as saying "Alien craft are not visiting Earth".

Again, the eyewitness account is nothing more than evidence that the eyewitness saw something they (the eyewitness) could not identify. It is NOT evidence that the eyewitness saw something that defies conventional explanation.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
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.


You're comparing an express act built to deceive (magic tricks) with the random observation of unknown aerial phenomema (through the decades). Yeah... you see... no.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   

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

Again I say, Newton did it with comets. He used eyewitness accounts to come up with his theory on comets which helped lead to his theories of Gravity.

Eyewitness accounts were used for meteorites.


And Newton's observations were verifiable.

Hopefully the world hasn't only taken Newton's word for it and did nothing to verify that his observations should truly be considered evidence. If the world simply has taken his word for it for the past 300 years, then we are in trouble.


Should we blindly assume the observations of ATS member "EndofDays77" as scientific evidence that Nibiru is currently a huge ball that is visible next top the Sun? Or should we examine his claim (by [1] going outside and seeing for ourselves, [2] examining his photographs, and [3] Investigating whether it is possible for another planet to be that close to us without disrupting the orbits of the known planets) and decide that what he is calling evidence of Nibiru is instead a sundog, lens flare, image bloom, and in some cases, a cloud -- and thus not evidence of Nibiru at all.

Endofdays77 threads:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 2016-10-27 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

I'm of the opinion that before something is called "evidence" supporting a certain argument (such as in support of the idea that there are craft in the sky that defy any and all conventional explanation), it needs to be properly vetted. Until then, it isn't evidence.


It is evidence until it is negated.


That goes back to the idea that we cannot assign the default value of "real until shown not to be real" on eyewitness sightings. Just because an eyewitness account doesn't have a known conventional explanation, that does not mean that a conventional explanation does not exist.


You seem to think that "evidence" means more than it actually does. Again, it does not mean "proof". In other words, evidence of something does not necessarily prove that said something is real. If evidence meant what you seem to think it means, a prosecutor would never lose a case. They have to have at least some evidence in order to prosecute a case in the first place, but the evidence that they have isn't always enough to prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt (or whatever standard of proof is in effect for the trial).


If we say "unless a conventional explanation is found, the eyewitness account should be considered evidence that explanation-defying craft actually DO exist", then in my opinion we are ascribing too much validity to one side of the question over the other.


It is evidence, plain and simple. Even the weakest evidence is still evidence, else the concept of weak vs. strong evidence wouldn't even exist. Something merely being evidence doesn't ascribe any validity whatsoever to the case. The level of validity resides in the nature of the evidence, not in the mere fact that it is evidence.


If the default value of the eyewitness sighting is assigned to be "real evidence unless shown not to be", then in that case, we are back to blindly taking the word of the eyewitness, which is dubious due to the possibility of misinterpretation by the eyewitness or the possibility that it is simply fiction.


Something being evidence doesn't have anything to do with "taking the word of the eyewitness", blindly or otherwise. A defense attorney may not believe a word that an eyewitness for the prosecution is saying, but that doesn't change the fact that it's evidence.


There is nothing wrong with saying "it is undeterminable whether or not an eyewitness sighting is actual evidence for unexplainable flying craft". I'm not sure why people are so averse to saying "I don't know". For example, saying "I don't know if alien craft are visiting Earth" is not the same as saying "Alien craft are not visiting Earth".

Again, the eyewitness account is nothing more than evidence that the eyewitness saw something they (the eyewitness) could not identify. It is NOT evidence that the eyewitness saw something that defies conventional explanation.


"Again"? I guess I have to do an "again" too:

"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."

Note the word "some", again. In other words, in some eyewitness testimonies, the flying object isn't reported to have done anything that one or more publicly-known flying objects can't do. In other eyewitness testimonies, the flying object is reported to have done one or more things that no publicly-known flying object can do. The former is evidence of a UFO; the latter is evidence of a UFO and publicly-unknown technology.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MaximRecoil


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


Please state that definition. If you are using the commonly accepted definition your posts are making no sense.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

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.


Reading comprehension issues.. I never said I was immune, I said some people are immune, and not to all deceptions, but to the military's targeted counterintelligence program regarding UFO's and alien creatures/visitation. I mean, crash test dummies might fool quite a few people, but not everyone.

I also forgot to mention that people's egos seem to get in the way of their cognitive skills a lot, and so we see more knee jerking, and less coherency when it comes to this subject, depending on people's motivations for spending time interacting with the subject of UFO's..

And Elvis isn't alive, and any evidence that he is, is hoax material.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
(Duplicate deleted)
edit on 27-10-2016 by audubon because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
No-one has to prove that they saw something. But if they want to persuade others, then evidence has to be collected to corroborate the event.

This doesn't mean the ETI equivalent of a dropped tailpipe or litter (although if those are available, they would be good!). Most people now carry a broadcast quality video and still camera in their pocket. A written note, with as much detail as possible, is good if made contemporaneously (believe me, when you start keeping notes, you will be amazed how often your memory later diverges from what you noted at the time).

If there are multiple witnesses, collect their accounts, ideally in writing, but audio recordings will do, better still if the recording is video with audio (if it's audio only, get the witness to sign a statement of the circumstances of the recording).

Then try to exclude natural causes. This is the most tedious bit. You have to contact astronomers and space organisations to exclude satellites glinting sunlight, meteors, and, yes, even the good old Planet Venus. Nowadays, we also have the 'flying lantern' curse to exclude, which is far harder to pin down, and often the only means of ruling it out is checking the wind direction at the time of observation.

In a period when the mass media are losing dominance and we are assured that 'citizen journalism' is all the rage, it astonishes me how many people are utterly unfamiliar with the basics of making a story stack up. Most of it is just basic common sense. And that's what it is - a story.

The plural of anecdote is not data, as sceptics often smugly remind us, but a well-organised anecdote is a recorded observation.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: JackHill
You're comparing an express act built to deceive (magic tricks) with the random observation of unknown aerial phenomema (through the decades). Yeah... you see... no.

I'm not comparing anything. I'm just saying that everybody's perceptions are limited, or they wouldn't be so easily fooled by something as simple as a magic trick. And I'm not saying that people don't see exactly what they claim to see when it comes to weird stuff flying around in the air.

However, I can't see with anybody else's eyes, so I'm going to need evidence that is more than just an idea in somebody's head. And the best way to cross that gap between the understanding of two different people is to come up with neutral, empirical evidence everyone (most everyone) can reach a consensus about.

But, hey. You go right on believing. It's often easier to believe and fight the nonbelievers than to admit the deficiency of your proof.
edit on 27-10-2016 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

You pretty much ignored everything I said because you can't refute it. You know want to debate endofdays77 to try to evade the issue so you can talk about Nibiru instead LOL!

Like I said, it makes no sense that we have objects flying in the sky that can evade our planes, malfunction nuke facilities and drop off of radar and we can't identify them. Where are all the non prosaic explanations?

We have descriptions of these objects dating back to Ancient Egypt and we can't identify them? How could Newton come up with a theory on comets based on eyewitness accounts but you can't do that with U.F.O.'s with the technology we have today? We can do what was hard for Newton to do and that's weigh the credibility of different witnesses.

We also have a way to classify these sightings.

To me, this is evidence that supports extraterrestrial visitation. The only reason these U.F.O.'s are unidentified is because people don't want to accept the best explanation for these U.F.O.'s which is extraterrestrial visitation.

It doesn't make any sense to say we're alone in the universe based on what we know today. We know the universe repeats itself over and over and over again because of the constants of nature. So you get stars, planets, moons, galaxies and more occuring over and over again and there's no reason why this wouldn't be the case for life. There's no special ingredient that's prohibited from happening anywhere else in the universe. Here's more:

The Universe Contains 10 to 20 Times More Galaxies Than We Thought


A new study suggests there are at least two trillion galaxies in the universe, and 90 percent are hidden from view.

A new study from a team of international astronomers, led by astrophysicists from the University of Nottingham with support from the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS), has produced some astounding results: The universe contains at least two trillion galaxies, 10 times more than the highest previous estimates. What's more, the new study suggests that 90 percent of all galaxies are hidden from us, and only the remaining 10 percent can be seen at all, even with our most powerful telescopes. The paper detailing the study was published today in the Astrophysical Journal.

"We are missing the vast majority of galaxies because they are very faint and far away," said Nottingham Astrophysics Professor Christopher Conselice in an RAS press release. "The number of galaxies in the universe is a fundamental question in astronomy, and it boggles the mind that over 90 percent of the galaxies in the cosmos have yet to be studied. Who knows what interesting properties we will find when we study these galaxies with the next generation of telescopes?"

The sheer difference in the number of galaxies has far-reaching implications as well. Probabilistic equations that estimate the number of hypothetical alien civilizations, such as the Drake Equation, will need to be modified to account for the dramatic increase in the number of estimated galaxies out there—which makes it even more astronomically unlikely that we are alone among intelligent species.


www.popularmechanics.com...

I think the universe is teeming with life and extraterrestrial visitation has occurred.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
because the subject of aliens isnt a criminal case?



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
..... 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?


I'm with you here.

How can we calibrate accuracy of eyewitness accounts of unusual apparitions?

How about run some experiments?

Too expensive? Unethical? Well, maybe...

So how about we find some cases where an ACCIDENTAL experiment was made with a well-defined visual stimulus, and just see how the many witnesses interpret and report it?

How reliable were witness descriptions of these events?

EXPERIMENT 1 -- California, Nov 7, 2015
satobs.org...

EXPERIMENT 2 Russian ICBM tests with warhead spin up
satobs.org...

EXPERIMENT 3 Large satellite reentries with fireball swarms
www.jamesoberg.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Reading comprehension issues.. I never said I was immune, I said some people are immune, and not to all deceptions, but to the military's targeted counterintelligence program regarding UFO's and alien creatures/visitation. I mean, crash test dummies might fool quite a few people, but not everyone.

I also forgot to mention that people's egos seem to get in the way of their cognitive skills a lot, and so we see more knee jerking, and less coherency when it comes to this subject, depending on people's motivations for spending time interacting with the subject of UFO's..

And Elvis isn't alive, and any evidence that he is, is hoax material.


Fair enough, just pointing out that if you don't think you can be fooled it is much easier to fool you. I didn't mean to imply "you" directly as I realised you were talking generally.

I agree with you about ego's but it's exactly the same on both sides. Whether you ignore the cover ups, or ignore the lack of solid evidence you would be making a faith claim which implies you know better. Me thinking I am able to look at both sides is equally egotistical (Possibly worse).

I'm not against the idea of UFO's at all. I've read all of Von Daniken's books, most of Stanton Friedman's, most of Whitley Strieber and there's plenty of interesting stuff out there. I've seen multiple UFO's, however nothing that I could class as an IFO except for what I thought was a triangle hovering over me silently (I ran into the house to get my glasses and a camera and realised it was birds in formation at night).

Are you familiar with Bill Cooper? He did the "Behold a pale horse" book which should be the conspiracy nutter bible however he seems to be ignored because he doesn't believe in aliens, yet claims he has seen flying saucers close up. Him being killed by authorities doesn't validate his claims, but it doesn't hurt them either.

As for Elvis, you may just be right.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
because the subject of aliens isnt a criminal case?


No, because eyewitness testimony is insufficient alone to prove the existence of a crime.

It's called 'nabeas corpus'.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MaximRecoil


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


Please state that definition. If you are using the commonly accepted definition your posts are making no sense.


This is a mere assertion from you, and mere assertions can legitimately be dismissed out of hand.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join