reply to post by Bobbox1980
Are you implying that you think all sightings of UFOs are not spacecraft/aircraft?
No. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that a single photograph is of something related to ET. Some might be, but I think it's unlikely,
and making the leap that because something might
be true, we must have
been visited is unjustified.
If not then how has my BS filter let me down? I never said ALL sightings were actual craft.
No, but your conclusion, as I pointed out above was erroneous.
These high speed turns and acceleration speeds have been seen by common eyewitnesses, pilots, air traffic control personnel, and military radar
operators. The likelihood that all of these people are lying or mistaken is infinitesimal.
Wrong, I'm afraid. What you wrote above is a common misconception held by most people that have not taken the time to fully understand and research
Witness testimony of UFO sightings is known to be particularly unreliable.
When we see something, what we see is not "reality". Before you can see something, your brain has to process and interpret
the data that is
received by your eyes. What you are seeing is not reality, but your brains interpreted version of reality, and we know that in many situations our
brain can make mistakes.
One classic example is the Moon illusion
, where the Moon appears to be much larger than it
actually is when it is very low on the horizon.
That is just one example, but there are many other areas in which our brains can fail, and much of the time it is in the same kind of situations where
UFOs are likely to be observed, ie. observing an object in the sky where there are few if any
visual cues. Our brains need visual cues, and if
they don't get them, they "fill in the blanks" with the "default/best-guess", which is usually wrong since we are used to (hard-wired if you
like) for observing terrestrial objects on the ground where there usually are visual cues.
The upshot is that humans are very bad at:
1. determining the size, distance and speed, since these are all intrinsically related.
2. determining the true motion of the object.
The result is that mundane objects are often erroneously discarded as possible causes for a particular sighting.
That is the first stage at which error can creep in. The second stage is "recollection", and as you know most people do not have perfect memories.
Memories can also become exaggerated, and the witnesses own bias has to be separated from the facts of the case.
That is the third stage at which errors and misleading evidence can seep in. Interviewing a witness requires special skills to separate assumptions
made by the witness and what actually took place. The sad thing is, I have never seen any evidence of such skills in the vast majority of UFO cases
collected by the UFO agencies out there, and posted on here.
As for other "evidence" such as the radar contacts you mentioned, no one has ever proved conclusively that a radar contact has been connected with a
UFO. There are many claims of such, but not one stands up when looked at closely. Radars are capable of generating false returns, it's as simple as
The second point I was trying to get across to the original thread poster was to find testimony from civilian eyewitnesses, contractors, and
government personnel that is capable of being peer reviewed.
You can't "peer review" witness testimony for the reasons I gave above. At best, witness testimony is just something which can point the
investigator towards real evidence
Even in a court of law, witness testimony has never been used to convict someone. Some how this important "little" fact seems to have escaped most
of the UFO community.
As for the rest of what you wrote regarding Bob Lazar et al, how do you know that he/they is/are not simply making it up?
As usual, lots of wild claims, but no actual
evidence that supports any of it, except in the minds of those who are incapable of rationally
examining the facts.
In my opinion the entire point to studying the UFO phenomenon is to build to the point where one can conduct experiments to peer review the
You can't do that as explained above. I do agree that there needs to be more proper
investigation of the subject.
[edit on 20-1-2010 by C.H.U.D.]