Originally posted by FireMoonActually you're reinforcing the point Neil Tyson makes about humans being poor data collection devices.
One of the things people are going to have learn to live with when it comes to cases such as this one is the following. In such cases, from my own experience down the years, it is not uncommon for two people standing next to each other to have totally different experiences of what happened
Now, I'm afraid if that offends your sensibilities or affronts your whole rationale on life, that's actually tough because you are missing out on a whole side of Ufology that might well hold a key to some understanding of it all. Reality as I and most of the Western world grew up in believing, actually doesn't exist.
In law school, students are often shown a video of some kind of mock crime occurring and then asked to recall what they saw as "eyewitnesses" to the video. As you suggest, even though they all saw the same video, they can recall dramatically different things. This doesn't offend my sensibilities, but instead it confirms some well-researched human deficiencies in observation.
Now here's where we differ: when you say reality doesn't exist. The law students are then sometimes given an opportunity to rewind the tape and watch it over as many times as they want. They are then usually able to correct their initial mistakes in perception, and more or less come to an agreement of what is shown on the tape. So in this example there actually IS an objective reality, represented by the videotape, which is separate from the witnesses different recollections.
Also this might be one reason for the origin of the expression "pics or it didn't happen". Obviously things can happen without pictures but that expression is an acknowledgement that human recollection of events is less than perfect.
Also in the Rendlesham case we have Penniston and Halt changing their stories. This isn't a matter of disagreeing with someone else, they don't even agree with themselves at different points in time. There are words to describe these behaviors, like memory distortion, confabulation, fabrication, and so on. The usual answer to this problem is that the recollection closest to the time of the incident is usually the most accurate.
I'm sorry however, anyone who thinks chasing a lighthouse around led to that sort of fallout really does need to get a grip on reality.If you put the fallout aside, do you agree that both the Burroughs and Cabansag witness statements say they followed a flashing light for two miles before they realized it was coming from a lighthouse? I never said the lighthouse was the only thing that happened, but some people seem to deny it was a factor, while the witness statements suggest it was at least one factor in what happened.
edit on 5-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification