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: 7
19
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

A mirage LOL?

They look like orbs and the clouds around the orbs began to look different. But wait a minute, Larry Castro in the comments said they could be reflections so we have to listen to Larry Castro LOL (insert sarcasm).

In the video, you can watch the Pilot follow the orb with his eyes. Talk about Jack Reacher lol. Like I said though, sightings like these needs to be classified in the system set up by Project Blue Book.


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.


en.wikipedia.org...

This way if all four analyst didn't agree, it would be classified as insufficient evidence unless Larry Castro showed up then everything will have to be put on hold


Here's another one:





Kaku is right but the 5% figure is too low. They did 3200 in the blue book classification system and it was 22%.

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]

So in the earlier case there were 22%(704). In 1979 it was 1,600 and around 25%(400) and the last study was 5,800 at 14%(812).

Like I said, the best explanation for U.F.O.'s is extraterrestrial visitation. If there was a better explanation there wouldn't be U.F.O.'s.


edit on 4-11-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
You're just providing more evidence of why observer or witness statements are unreliable.

The man who is probably the world's top expert in that UFO over Alaska case in your video finally admitted the "giant mothership" the captain saw and that was tracked on radar might have been a cloud. It's documented in his report that the radar image was green and guess how clouds show up on that radar? Green. Some clouds do look sort of like giant motherships:



And we have a plausible hypothesis on what the other visual sightings were of too, because those lights all came exactly from the direction of an airport and they look like airport lights, perhaps distorted by atmospheric conditions. Evidence for that isn't as strong as the cloud (we have a satellite image of the cloud), but it's still pretty strong since the captain kept reading out the heading of the lights and they were always, always in the exact direction of the nearby airport.


Like I said, the best explanation for U.F.O.'s is extraterrestrial visitation. If there was a better explanation there wouldn't be U.F.O.'s.
Aliens may or may not explain some UFO sightings but it's certainly not the best explanation in the case you're citing, in fact it seems very unlikely in those.

The other case involving Norad was interesting and that was a true UFO but nothing about that suggests anything alien. Lockheed has had patents on a stealth blimp and if they ever built one it might have properties such as the pilot described. The fact that Norad denied the incident occurred might signal they want to keep it classified, but it could be one of ours from everything in the description, but the stealth blimp if built may still be classified. I can't rule out aliens for that but I also see no need to jump to that as the "best" explanation when such a craft is well within our technology level and there is even a patent on file for such a craft.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Eyewitness accounts are very important in many areas. Its only when it concerns paranormal, supernatural, unknown etc that people become pretty much blind and stupid and the saying "we make terrible witnesses" raises its ugly head!



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said:

You're just providing more evidence of why observer or witness statements are unreliable.

Wrong.

We used eyewitness accounts in science and crime. Eyewitness accounts are even stronger when they come from credible witnessess and this is why Attorney's try to impeach witnessess.

Like I said, there was a robbery a few years ago where 5 or 6 eyewitnessess helped the Police catch the criminal because they all gave the same or similar eyewitness accounts down to a description of his shoes. Is this unreliable?

The sad point about pseudoskeptics, they want to make all cases equally unreliable when it comes to U.F.O.'s and that just defies common sense.

As I showed earlier, we have a great way to classify these sightings thanks to Project Blue Book. Here's some more:





The fact is, there would be U.F.O.'s if there was a better explanation than extraterrestrial visitation. These objects would have been identified years ago.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: neoholographic

Eyewitness accounts are very important in many areas. Its only when it concerns paranormal, supernatural, unknown etc that people become pretty much blind and stupid and the saying "we make terrible witnesses" raises its ugly head!
Completely false. Where have you been when the prisoners have been released based on DNA evidence after decades of false imprisonment due in part to bad eyewitness testimony. People's lives are at stake and we still get it wrong, and what's more we are often too arrogant to admit we get it wrong, but the courts are now more aware of this and it's harder and harder to get a conviction for say murder based solely on eyewitness testimony because of the innocent people eyewitnesses sent to prison.

www.innocenceproject.org...

Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing, playing a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide.
When Witnesses Get It Wrong

In case after case, DNA has proven that eyewitness identification is frequently inaccurate. In the wrongful convictions where eyewitness misidentification played a role, the circumstances varied substantially.


And what about this Kiev UFO? Did you even read that?



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: neoholographic

Eyewitness accounts are very important in many areas. Its only when it concerns paranormal, supernatural, unknown etc that people become pretty much blind and stupid and the saying "we make terrible witnesses" raises its ugly head!




Exactly!!

They want to treat all eyewitness accounts as equally unreliable and this defies any logic or common sense.

Some eyewitness accounts are very strong and detailed. All of them are not the same and when you have multiple eyewitnessess that describe the same or similar event, eyewitness accounts become even stronger.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Did you read what i said? I said very important. And they are very important. I never said that witness testimony is 100%

Read before you post



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: neoholographic

Eyewitness accounts are very important in many areas. Its only when it concerns paranormal, supernatural, unknown etc that people become pretty much blind and stupid and the saying "we make terrible witnesses" raises its ugly head!




It's not that eyewitnesses are blind and stupid -- it's that they are human. Human perception is not dictated by objective input from the senses, but rather perception is created subjectively inside our brains. What a human eye can objectively see is not always what the human brain subjectively tells us what our eyes see. The same for hearing -- and DEFINITELY the same goes for memory.

Memory is not a tape recorder from which past events can be objectively played back in our heads. Our brains subjectively forms memories using a lot of different factors in forming those memories, and those subjectively formed memories could become twisted by our brains into a false or inaccurate memory.

All of us -- me, or you, or a doctor, or a brick-layer, or a Nobel-prize winning physicist -- ALL of us, because we are all humans, have the ability to be bad eyewitnesses. It isn't a case of "that eyewitness must be blind and stupid".

I have a memory of something that just happened last year that my wife remembers quite differently. At least one of us is wrong (our memories of the event are inconsistent with each other). We are both considered intelligent people with professional degrees and responsible jobs -- BUT at least one of us is a bad witness to something that happened to us just in the past year, because our memory of the event is inconsistent with each other; we can't both be right.

For the record, I think my memory is right and my wife's is wrong, but she would probably tell you that she's right and I'm wrong (and maybe she really is right) -- and therein lies the rub.



edit on 2016-11-4 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

There have been many cases of multiple witnesess seeing a ufo. Sometimes far away, and sometimes close. But that does not matter because when it comes to ufs because to some people will always bring up the same old argument



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

That 70% number is misleading. It's silly to use a handful of accounts to try and discredit all eyewitnessess as unreliable. Let's look at the numbers you didn't mention.

20 of 347 people exonerated served time on death row

36 of 347: Pled guilty to crimes they did not commit


www.innocenceproject.org...

These cases are horrible but for the pseudoskeptic to try and use these cases to deem all eyewitnessess equally unreliable defies common sense.

70% of 347 is 243. How can you try to use 243 cases to try and discredit eyewitness accounts? Again, when people try to belittle eyewitness accounts in these areas, it's because they can't refute the VOLUMES of evidence that has accumulated over the years with some very detailed and credible eyewitness accounts.

They also fail to mention the number of cases where the evidence was rock solid and the eyewitness testimony accurate.
edit on 4-11-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I know. Its annoying as hell when they do this!

The annoying this is, its used for all cases that involve witnesess. That tells you in itself that the debunking belief system is getting in the way.

Instead of saying " you could very well have seen a disc shaped object, but we need evidence" Their belief system means they cant say that, hence the reason we get ridiculous explanations on alot of the good cases.

Another thing

Imagine say in ten years time, we learn that the government has been testing disc shapped craft for 20/30 years. The debunkers now, who are coming up with stupid explanations and saying how stupid we are as witnesses, will be saying "see, it was the government"

So, that would mean they would believe what you saw, because we now know its the government


So, you are only seeing what you say you are seeing if it can be explained, if not, we are terrible, blind, dumb witnesess



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I think the government is trying to make people who spotted an ufo, look like fools, so people won't believe them.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: michielk99
I think the government is trying to make people who spotted an ufo, look like fools, so people won't believe them.


Off course that is part of the reason. Its just annoying that its brought up sll the time about how bad we are as witnesess, no matter what the sighting was.

Its really ignorance and arragonce. They cant say

" ok, you could have seen what you said, but we need evidence"

Their beliefs mean they have to find sn explanation.Even if it goes completly against what the witness/witnesess saw.

That why we get so many silly explanations and we get " we humans are bad witnesesd"

As much as the debunkers would not like to admit it, they are going by a belief system too, that clouds their judgment, just like hardcore believers.

They are both pretty much the same, but on the opposite of the extremes.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join