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.

 

Credible UFO Witness Testimony Compilation video

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I created a compilation video for your enjoyment. I'm sure most of you here are familiar with these clips but maybe a few are not. Enjoy







posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Eye-witness testimony is not credible evidence on it's own sorry to say. Human percepetion is too easily manipulated by outside forces and this has been proven in many many court cases in regards to false identification.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TressPasseR
 
Not a bad compilation, nice work! Usually, these kind of vids are messed-up with the BS testimonies of guys like Karl Wolf and Cliff Stone, but you've avoided the dog-turds.

The one video that doesn't deserve to be there is of Buzz Aldrin; he retracted his comments and accused the producers of editing liberties. He later went on Larry King and explicitly identified the 'UFO' as part of the rocket stage.

SnF for making the video.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Thnx for providing that info on Buzz, I will be sure not to include him in part 2



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Using that type of reasoning then *most* knowledge is not possible. Science itself, changes. In a thousand years what we 'know' today, will be gone tomorrow, and so forth. There is also the question on how reliable our senses are.

There are theories that are gone and new ones in their places.

I don't think we can go that path though. I personally believe that while eyewitness testimony *can* have problems, there is also many times where eyewitness testimony came through. So it isn't enough to push it aside.

Just like science. Sure it will change in the future, but we have no choice but to accept certain reasonable conclusions.

With UFO's we have ground visual plus radar data. The eyewitness testimony that we do have is credible.and is sustained over a period of time and is corroborated.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
People are far too quick to dismiss witness testimony out of hand regardless of the circumstances of the observation. There are many reports in the literature for which the fallibility of human perception is a completely inadequate explanation.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Eye-witness testimony is not credible evidence on it's own sorry to say. Human percepetion is too easily manipulated by outside forces and this has been proven in many many court cases in regards to false identification.



Confusing one person's face for another person's face is a reasonable and common mistake. This fact has very little bearing on the question at hand, except in the most general sense. I think that witness testimony on its own is reliable evidence in many instances, especially when multiple observers are involved. I've quoted James McDonald many times in this forum, but once again his words are applicable here:


Then, looking at the negative side, all of us who have checked cases are sometimes in near anguish at the typical inability of the scientifically untrained person to estimate angles, to even understand what you are asking for when you ask for an angular estimation. We are all aware of the gross errors in distances, heights, and speeds so estimated.

And I would emphasize to those who cite jury trial experience that the tendency for a group of witnesses to an accident to come in with quite different accounts, must not be overstressed here. Those witnesses don't come in from, say, a street corner accident and claim they saw a giraffe killed by a tiger. They talk about an accident. They are confused about details. There is legally confusing difference of timing and distance, and so on; but all are in agreement that it was an auto accident.

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.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join