Unfortunately, eyewitness testimony is not all that it's chalked up to be.

Sorry for the following drivel, just felt compelled to say something.

With the recent press conference held on the 27th regarding UFO's and their intervention at nuclear sites amongst other things, I've noticed a lot of people referring to this as disclosure (and/or hard evidence)...you know, the kind the UFO community and believers have been waiting for, specifically because these sources are credible, etc...
I guess by definition that’s true; however, unfortunate as it is may be to some, eyewitness testimony cannot/will not/does not equal disclosure of any kind, at least not in the sense that most are looking for (in regards to E.T.'s and the U.F.O phenomenon).

Eyewitness testimony though, encompasses many other aspects other than "This is what I saw." yet can eyewitness testimony be groundbreaking or influential? Sure, look at religion, courts, etc... But there are other parameters that must be met (see historical method, linked below).

Take a quick read:

Eyewitness testimony

Historical method

With the latter offering interesting questions that must be asked when taking these accounts into hand, one of which stands out to me regarding our subject matter:

Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?

Take the above question for example. Many things regarding unexplained phenomenon fall under the whole "contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know" deal, that’s one of the reasons why I believe is so easily dismissed. Yet the Bible and numerous other religious and scientific texts for example also contain instances are contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know, yet are still widely believed and accepted.

My point? We (society as a collective) can't take eyewitness testimony as the end all to anything really. Sure, you can, and so can 1 million other people, to say otherwise would be ridiculous.

But please stop trying to use eywitness reports as gospal.

/Rant

reply to post by Juston


Just from a psychological point of view:

It's well known that eyewitnesses testimonies are not as reliable as people believe, try recalling an event that happened today and recording it. Then do the same thing, maybe a week later and compare the recordings...

People forget little details, hell they don't even notice some details in the heat of the moment. I can't remember the name of the study that shows this, I'll have a look on the net and link it later on.

Individuals also often have a tendency to over exaggerate things when recalling stories.

Originally posted by Juston
Sorry for the following drivel, just felt compelled to say something.


My point? We (society as a collective) can't take eyewitness testimony as the end all to anything really. Sure, you can, and so can 1 million other people, to say otherwise would be ridiculous.

But please stop trying to use eywitness reports as gospal.

/Rant

edit on 9/29/2010 by Juston because: spelling, etc...

Well, you were right on with your outputting the"drivel" part.

The purpose of people speaking out--especially former military people that damned well know what they saw happening to our best equipment--is to get our govenments to acknowledge UFOs as a real phenomena that they have been denying for over half a century. It is as simple as that.

Originally posted by Aliensun
The purpose of people speaking out--especially former military people that damned well know what they saw happening to our best equipment--is to get our govenments to acknowledge UFOs as a real phenomena that they have been denying for over half a century. It is as simple as that.

Agreed. It's not disclosure however, or a sign that disclosure is imminent and should not be treated as such, as is the trend around here recently.

For the record, I applaud these gentlemen and their actions.

One can lie, or make up fantasies. So can another, so can a thousand or even a hundred thousand.

But 15 MILLION and counting ordinary and professional humans saying the same thing?

Nice try at disinfo. Better luck next time. Try balloons and swamp gas. A gullible few like you may still exists.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Hardly disinfo friend. In fact, I fall under the category of believing vehemently. Just trying to point out that no amount of eyewitness testimony will ever = disclosure. Ever.

In regards to your "15 MILLION" (I'm curious to know where you got that number btw)... 33% of the world are Christians and the 67% are not, yet Christianity has "ordinary and professional humans saying the same thing", as you put it, so should Christianity be the end all of that subject?

It's sad to see that we're getting nowhere and these debates only further attest to this, as we seem to be coming back to the same old discussions, over and over.

This idea that eyewitness testimony, or any other form of observable data -- radar, photo, video -- will prove the origin or nature of the UFO phenomenon is absurd, and quite frankly, a naive belief. If you still think someone's story or a photograph will prove anything other than there's unknown stuff -- hardly news since humans are ignorant about most of the universe -- you are fooling yourself.

In that regards I agree with the main idea expressed by the OP and so should everyone else as the sooner people acknowledge this the quicker we can move on to better discussions.

Having said all of that, I have to address something that was said.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
People forget little details, hell they don't even notice some details in the heat of the moment. I can't remember the name of the study that shows this, I'll have a look on the net and link it later on.

Everyone here can agree with this statement, but the emphasis should be in that "people forget details."

I was in a car crash 6 years ago. I honestly can't remember the color of the other car, but I know for sure I was in a car crash. The color of the other car can be considered a detail, but certainly not the actual crash itself.

So, in the context of what these retired Air Force people presented at the NPC -- since that's the event we're talking about -- what exactly do you consider to be the "little details"? The supposed lights of the objects some saw? The beams of light allegedly coming from these craft into missile silos?

The point I'm trying to make is that either these people saw these objects and aren't remembering correctly some of the details -- a perfectly reasonable position -- or they are making it all up. It's disingenuous to discard the main premise of these people's stories -- especially saying they are reputable people at the same time -- by pointing to the fact that people, over time, forget little details.

Lastly, I always have to make these caveats because a significant number of members always misreads, misinterprets or don't bother to read what is it I'm trying to say because my first sentence wasn't "the ETH is proven fact" -- testimony, photos, videos, radar data, trace cases are all important because they point to something, but as of now, unknown. And that's it, it's unknown. I don't consider any story or photograph as proof of anything. UFO means unidentified and nothing more.

Most of the people I meet care more about Lady Gaga than any UFO disclosure.
Congrates, Corprate America, you've successfully dumbed down our younger generations.

You also have to factor in though....whether or not the person is a TRAINED observer.

This makes a BIG difference in the reliability of their testimony. For example, I've worked security in the past, and when I see someone suspicious, I'll take a mental note inventory of identifying clothing, height, weight, noticeable marks, facial hair, hair color, eyes (if close enough), etc. If he gets in a car, I may create a quick acronym to remember his license plate (and car type, color, apparent year). This is much different than somebody just walking by on the street, that saw the guy do something, for example.

reply to post by Gazrok


Trained observers are few and far between, Also their training is specialized. Most people can't accuratly judge altitude, distance, size or speed, myself included. These things aren't intuative. Also trained observers are looking for some specific reason.. Quite different from spur of the moment fast occuring incidents.