Anyone who thinks UFOs don't exist read this!!!

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

Multiple highly credible witnesses good. One crack hoe not so good.

She's only stating her opinion on UFOs/eyewitness testimony. No reason to call her names like that, JimTSpock.

We have a myriad of evidence. Credible eye witness accounts from fighter pilots, civilian pilots, radar operators, police officers etc etc etc etc. Photographic evidence from before photoshop was invented. Radar tracks recorded. Video from the likes of NASA etc etc etc. Military and air force reports of failed interceptions etc etc etc.
Phage I refer you to one of my previous posts where I said if 2 people describe the same thing but have never met then it must be true etc etc etc.
It's true eye witness accounts can be unreliable but they can also be very reliable if your talking about people like fighter pilots, radar operators etc who know what the # they're talking about.

reply to post by trysts

Seriously??? Why would you insult her for giving her opinion? And btw, Phage is right. **correction. directed at OP**

reply to post by DeadSeraph

I guess we should never investigate anything, ever, because eyewitness testimony can't be trusted! Thanks for clearing that up, phage.

Who said that?
The point is one has to very careful about the conclusions reached based on eyewitness testimony. People misidentify things. Groups of people have been shown in testing to collectively misidentify things. I guess this would be a good time to repeat a personal anecdote:

While walking down to the beach one fine summer day I came upon a group of people looking up with their hands shading their eyes from the Sun and pointing at the sky. I looked up but couldn't see anything. As I got closer to them I could hear comments; "It's huge!", "Look how fast it's going!"

Really curious now, I asked what they were looking at. One of them said, "It's a UFO. Look, right there." I looked. I saw. A black toy balloon about 10" in diameter and maybe 100' in the air, drifting with the wind.

An object isolated in the sky, with no points of reference, can fool the eye. The observers had made the assumption that this was a very large object. Going from that assumption, because it looked so small, it must be very high in the sky. From there, its motion must be very fast instead of just drifting with the wind, the way balloons do. As a group, they had come to the wrong conclusion about what they were looking at. Their excited chatter feeding the illusion.

I said, "Um, I think it's a balloon." There was an immediate, "Yeah, right. Look how big it is." But then there were some abashed giggles as the observers' perspective changed. The group dispersed as the balloon passed under a cloud, making it obvious what was being seen.

And the same thing can happen with "trained observers". If an airplane pilot is trying to identify an airplane he can probably do a good job of it but if it isn't an airplane, if it's a meteorological or astronomical phenomenon with which he has had no prior experience, all bets are off. It happens, documented, confirmed cases.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by JimTSpock
An interesting point is that just say you have 2 or more people who have never met or communicated with each other in any way who describe the same incident exactly. Then it must be true. What other conclusion can there be? Mass hallucination? How is that even possible.

If two people who never met before describe the same unexplainable event you just have an unexplainable event. Anything else is an assumption or leap of faith.

Also more than one person can be mistaken at a time. Ive seen magicians fool audiences of 100's people, each one of these people have essentially 'got it wrong' and when they talk of what they have seen they are not telling what really happened, only what they think happened.

edit on 21-8-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

I don't agree with that at all. Not talking about magicians in a theatre are we. Simple objects in the sky. There is no mistake about it.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

I guess we should never investigate anything, ever, because eyewitness testimony can't be trusted! Thanks for clearing that up, phage.

Who said that?
The point is one has to very careful about the conclusions reached based on eyewitness testimony. People misidentify things. Groups of people have been shown in testing to collectively misidentify things. I guess this would be a good time to repeat a personal anecdote:

While walking down to the beach one fine summer day I came upon a group of people looking up with their hands shading their eyes from the Sun and pointing at the sky. I looked up but couldn't see anything. As I got closer to them I could hear comments; "It's huge!", "Look how fast it's going!"

Really curious now, I asked what they were looking at. One of them said, "It's a UFO. Look, right there." I looked. I saw. A black toy balloon about 10" in diameter and maybe 100' in the air, drifting with the wind.

An object isolated in the sky, with no points of reference, can fool the eye. The observers had made the assumption that this was a very large object. Going from that assumption, because it looked so small, it must be very high in the sky. From there, its motion must be very fast instead of just drifting with the wind, the way balloons do. As a group, they had come to the wrong conclusion about what they were looking at. Their excited chatter feeding the illusion.

I said, "Um, I think it's a balloon." There was an immediate, "Yeah, right. Look how big it is." But then there were some abashed giggles as the observers' perspective changed. The group dispersed as the balloon passed under a cloud, making it obvious what was being seen.

And the same thing can happen with "trained observers" if an airplane pilot is trying to identify an airplane he can probably do a good job of it but if it isn't an airplane, if it's a meteorological or astronomical phenomenon with which he has had no prior experience, all bets are off.

You are 100% correct. But the "5%" of cases we are talking about here, do not fit your anecdote. Some of these cases left physical trace evidence, examined by doctors and other academics, with no solid conclusions reached.

We can (and should) assume the simple explanation is the correct one, but we can't even begin a proper investigation if we relegate eyewitness testimony to some kind of twilight zone where nobody can be trusted.

All things requiring investigation benefit from eye witness testimony. The 5% of cases we are talking about here, are not cases where a few people on a beach think a balloon is an alien space craft.

I respect your skepticism immensely, and appreciate it (applaud it even). But there are truly "unexplainable" cases out there.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Some of these cases left physical trace evidence, examined by doctors and other academics, with no solid conclusions reached.

Including, in most cases, any way to directly connect the trace evidence with the sightings. But "no solid conclusions" is far from "it's ET".

The 5% of cases we are talking about here, are not cases where a few people on a beach think a balloon is an alien space craft.

Quite right. The 5% we are talking about here are the cases which COMETA thought could best be attributed to ET. Their opinion. No evidence.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Some of these cases left physical trace evidence, examined by doctors and other academics, with no solid conclusions reached.

Including, in most cases, any way to directly connect the trace evidence with the sightings. But "no solid conclusions" is far from "it's ET".

In that, we agree.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by rigel4

 

In a court of law the case would be proven beyond reasonable doubt 10 times over. People are sent to the death penalty on less evidence.

Ah. Criminal Law. My favorite topic

Fact is, witness testimony is factually the least reliable piece of evidence in all cases....and it is hard to win a case on witness testimony alone...now days.

And death penalty cases are being overturned thanks to the Innocence Project....you know why? Because witness testimony SUCKS...and well now we have the science to prove so

edit on August 21st 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

I've always wondered about this. Are people who are wrongly convicted on the basis of witness testimony generally "identified" by one or two witnesses, or are there very many cases in which the wrong person is consistently picked out of a lineup by 40 or 50 people? Because if you shuffle out five or six guys who all look somewhat similar and ask a few dozen witnesses to a particular crime to pick out the guy who did it, and all of them pick the same guy, and it happens to be the wrong guy, that would be something. I'm just curious how closely this talk of faulty witness testimony in criminal trials parallels the unreliability of UFO witnesses in multiple-witness cases. Maybe it's very close, but maybe it's not close at all. Any thoughts or insights into this?

1952 Washington D.C. UFO incident. One of my favorite ones. Have a go at that. Oh it's um a um mass hallucination or a bird. Yeah right. Some people just don't want to accept reality. This single incident is irrefutable in my opinion.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by rigel4

 

In a court of law the case would be proven beyond reasonable doubt 10 times over. People are sent to the death penalty on less evidence.

Ah. Criminal Law. My favorite topic

Fact is, witness testimony is factually the least reliable piece of evidence in all cases....and it is hard to win a case on witness testimony alone...now days.

And death penalty cases are being overturned thanks to the Innocence Project....you know why? Because witness testimony SUCKS...and well now we have the science to prove so

edit on August 21st 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

While true, this does not render eye witness testimony useless. To even begin an investigation with such a premise would mean 60% or more of murder cases would never go to trial due to lack of evidence.

All investigations start with eye witness testimony. While it may not be the nail in the coffin in a court of law (but often is), one cannot investigate anything if one assumes everyone is delusional or lying.

A weak premise, imo.

For instance:

Let's assume that 30 people all see a defendant shoot a victim in broad daylight. None of the witnesses are connected personally, and further investigation reveals none of them have any relationship to the shooter or the victim. Let's also assume that the murder weapon is not found (as the shooter made his or her escape and effectively disposed of the evidence and the body, as the shooting occurred in a car).

The victims body is found later, but forensic evidence is unable to tie the shooter to the victim, despite 30 people witnessing the shooter and identifying him as shooting the victim.

By your logic, the shooter should be acquitted...

edit on 21-8-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

It is not my logic. It is the facts. I have pointed this out across numerous threads....but do some research and you will find that witness testimony is the LEAST reliable piece of evidence.

And as one whos major is criminal forensics and criminal law......it will be a very hard case to win if forensic evidence does not show in favor of the prosecution. THAT is a defense attorney's dream situation.

I seriously doubt that 30 witnesses are going to give the exact detailed testimony. No way. No how. A person's memory and their inability to recal specific details or have mistakes is VERY HIGH. Out of those 30 you are going to have some conflicting information. Defense would rip those 30 witnesses to shreds while forensics point towards the defendant being either innocent or no result at all.

Studies over and over and over show: witness testimony is unreliable in most cases.

Again, for those who argue that even with the 5% cases, those are "just opinions and not evidence", this video by Colonel Uyrangê Hollanda, who had 1st hand experience and extensive investigation into the Colares incident.

Unfortunately, he died by strangulation but they attributed it to "suicide".

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by rigel4

 

In a court of law the case would be proven beyond reasonable doubt 10 times over. People are sent to the death penalty on less evidence.

Ah. Criminal Law. My favorite topic

Fact is, witness testimony is factually the least reliable piece of evidence in all cases....and it is hard to win a case on witness testimony alone...now days.

And death penalty cases are being overturned thanks to the Innocence Project....you know why? Because witness testimony SUCKS...and well now we have the science to prove so

edit on August 21st 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

While true, this does not render eye witness testimony useless. To even begin an investigation with such a premise would mean 60% or more of murder cases would never go to trial due to lack of evidence.

All investigations start with eye witness testimony. While it may not be the nail in the coffin in a court of law (but often is), one cannot investigate anything if one assumes everyone is delusional or lying.

A weak premise, imo.

For instance:

Let's assume that 30 people all see a defendant shoot a victim in broad daylight. None of the witnesses are connected personally, and further investigation reveals none of them have any relationship to the shooter or the victim. Let's also assume that the murder weapon is not found (as the shooter made his or her escape and effectively disposed of the evidence and the body, as the shooting occurred in a car).

The victims body is found later, but forensic evidence is unable to tie the shooter to the victim, despite 30 people witnessing the shooter and identifying him as shooting the victim.

By your logic, the shooter should be acquitted...

edit on 21-8-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

It is not my logic. It is the facts. I have pointed this out across numerous threads....but do some research and you will find that witness testimony is the LEAST reliable piece of evidence.

And as one whos major is criminal forensics and criminal law......it will be a very hard case to win if forensic evidence does not show in favor of the prosecution. THAT is a defense attorney's dream situation.

I seriously doubt that 30 witnesses are going to give the exact detailed testimony. No way. No how. A person's memory and their inability to recal specific details or have mistakes is VERY HIGH. Out of those 30 you are going to have some conflicting information. Defense would rip those 30 witnesses to shreds while forensics point towards the defendant being either innocent or no result at all.

Studies over and over and over show: witness testimony is unreliable in most cases.

edit on August 21st 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

You've completely dodged everything else I've said through out the thread, but I expected as much.

reply to post by JimTSpock

Everyone's entitled to their opinions and I respect others opinions but I agree with the authors of Cometa. There is no other plausible hypothesis other than extra terrestrial space vehicles controlled by intelligent beings.

"General Letty, as president of COMETA, points to the main theme of the report, which is that the accumulation of well documented observations compels us now to consider all hypotheses as to the origin of UFOs, especially extraterrestrial hypotheses."

What am I missing?

Originally posted by JimTSpock
Guys I've studied military hardware for many years and seen so much stuff on UFOs I can't even remember it all. But I'll tell you the number of highly credible incidents with eyewitness accounts from military pilots, radar operators etc etc etc. There are so many incidents which simply have no other conclusion.
I consider myself an objective logical person and I'm totally convinced I've seen enough evidence. More than enough.
It kind of sounds crazy but there you go.

Are you "down" with interdimensionality?

witness testimony might not be reliable, there may be inconsistency, but you would look for the things that are consistent across the board not to prove anything, but to get a sense of what the truth may be and where to start investigating.

witness testimony has given police descriptions of criminals many times who they later caught because of it, it might not prove the criminal is guilty but it still had a part to play in helping with the investigation. there are times when witness testimony is used in a court of law.

it is not just all thrown out as nonsense. it is used and is evidence even though it on it's own might not get a conviction.

but even then it has been used many times to convict people guilty of assault, without camera's and any such evidence other than 1 mans word against 20 who all identified him as the one who committed the assault and being present.

So this point could go on forever.

my point is you don't just toss it out as irrelevant nonsense, not when investigating and not when convicting. so it does have a role as evidence, just not when it's on it's own most of the time.

I take it a lot of people in this thread think the only evidence in favor of the 5% unexplainable events IS only witness testimony and hence it should be thrown out? and that there is no other evidence anywhere that indicates it is a real phenomenon of something unexplainable base on what we (as the general population) are aware of.

the only evidence is witness testimony right?

reply to post by CaptainBeno


I live in toowoomba. I see things in the sky i cant explain at least once a week.
Best one i saw was about a month ago. I was in my backyard with my GF and she was on the phone to her parents. I said " hey look at that bright light flying past those 2 real bright stars" Then the 2 real bright stars flew off lol my GF was like "WTF!!!" the first light continued diagonally upward and out of sight.

reply to post by lifeform11

I take it a lot of people in this thread think the only evidence in favor of the 5% unexplainable events IS only witness testimony and hence it should be thrown out? and that there is no other evidence anywhere that indicates it is a real phenomenon of something unexplainable base on what we (as the general population) are aware of.

No, there is other evidence with some of the cases. But as you pointed out, a problem is finding any consistency from from one to the next. What there is in the COMETA report is a pile of incidents in which the only common thread seems to be that they are "unexplainable".

Unexplainable does not mean extraterrestrial. More commonly it means not enough data to arrive at any firm conclusions.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by lifeform11

 

I take it a lot of people in this thread think the only evidence in favor of the 5% unexplainable events IS only witness testimony and hence it should be thrown out? and that there is no other evidence anywhere that indicates it is a real phenomenon of something unexplainable base on what we (as the general population) are aware of.

No, there is other evidence with some of the cases. But as you pointed out, a problem is finding any consistency from from one to the next. What there is in the COMETA report is a pile of incidents in which the only common thread seems to be that they are "unexplainable".

Unexplainable does not mean extraterrestrial. More commonly it means not enough data to arrive at any firm conclusions.

edit on 8/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

When I grow up, I want to be like phage

Seriously though. I suspect if you push phage far enough, he will admit that he suspects that 5% of anomalous cases are nothing more than misconstrued data, and explainable within "earthly" terms. I am by no means speaking for him, but I suspect that is the case.

I disagree. There is something strange going on (and people misidentifying the ISS as a UFO isn't part of it).

in my personal opinion, we are looking at a few options (from most, to least likely, within that 5%)

-Black ops (human, secret technologies, etc)
-Psychological phenomenon
-Inter Dimensional "beings"
-Inter Planetary/Stellar/Galactic (in order of plausibility) beings.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

in my personal opinion, we are looking at a few options (from most, to least likely, within that 5%) -Black ops (human, secret technologies, etc) -Psychological phenomenon -Inter Dimensional "beings" -Inter Planetary/Stellar/Galactic (in order of plausibility) beings.

Or something(s) else that, at least at this juncture, we have no concept.