It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
Degrasse Tyson is great at explaining, I like his style. He's the complete opposite of Richard Dawkins. But I can understand why some people don't like him, he's a pretty loud guy and he can come off as arrogant. Here's a more in depth video on his views on UFOs and eyewitness testimony.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
What is more likely, that every single witness ever is wrong and unreliable, or that something odd and unexplored might be happening?
Originally posted by Orkojoker
And regarding eyewitness testimony, we turn once again to Dr. McDonald's remarks before Congress:
"So also when you deal with multiple-witness cases in UFO sightings. There is an impressive core of consistency; everybody is talking about an object that has no wings, all of 10 people may say it was dome shaped or something like that, and then there are minor differences as to how big they thought it was, how far away, and so on. Those latter variations do pose a very real problem. It stands as a negative factor with respect to the anecdotal data, but it does not mean we are not dealing with real sightings of real objects."
It is also good to consider the large number of reports that have been made of flying objects seen at such close proximity as to essentially rule out misidentification of conventional objects or phenomena. When an object appears at tree top level and is the apparent diameter of a dinner plate held at arm's length, even the most untrained and incompetent observers are going to be able to provide a rather unambiguous description.
"Six eyewitnesses, 4 of them from 4 different police departments, reported an unidentified flying object, which a shape that varied from a triangle to a two story house. But many features such as the lighting configuration and the object's ability to hover were similar."
Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
You don't think it's logical to demand actual physical (including clear footage) evidence of extraterrestrial visitation? You're totally content with the conflicting eye witness reports, fuzzy/grainy pictures of ambiguous shapes in the sky, and various 'unnamed government sources' that 'prove' ETs are here? What is so wrong with wanting solid evidence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I believe all the witnesses saw the same, real object. But the fact that their descriptions vary so much even though the object was huge, is a good example disproving your point that "even the most untrained and incompetent observers are going to be able to provide a rather unambiguous description". The descriptions are about as consistent as we can expect, but they are definitely not unambiguous.