Here’s More Evidence of UFO Reality!, page 4

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 37 times

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 04:51 PM by Runciter33

I'd like to bring this point up to people who are saying that eyewitness testimony is not evidence. It may not be conclusive evidence, especially if from a single source, but in a court of law eyewitness testimony weighs heavily and can easily be the main thing that causes a judgment of guilty verdict. Is it proof? Maybe not. But there are too many people who sound like they are just being straight up and sincere when they relate their stories that the weight of numbers at some point must really make us stop and seriously consider there may be something to all of this.

That or there is a conspiracy of people all over the world and from early times to perpetrate some epic elaborate hoax, which is far more ridiculous to me than the possibilities of both interdimensional and ETH or some combination thereof. Sure there are those who make up their stories for attention or money, and then those who are probably the vast majority who misidentify something, but too many qualified people such as air force, pilots, police, military etc. etc. report sightings that imo to not think there is something strange going on in the sky is pretty much being in denial, for whatever reason that is, probably fear of the unknown or for other reasons, but i think fear is a big factor.

edit on 7-10-2012 by Runciter33 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2012 by Runciter33 because: sloppy editing wow

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 05:05 PM by longlostbrother

reply to post by Runciter33

Eyewitness testimony alone will almost never be taken as proof of anything.

The standards of a court of law are much higher than your own.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 05:55 PM by schuyler

reply to post by Runciter33

Well, don't tell greeneyedleo that. Eye-witness testimony ain't what it's cracked up to be. Besides, I don't see many people saying, "You didn't see that." The real question is, can you tell us what it is without making stuff up?

But I'd like to address more of the "trained observer" issue. I hear this all the time. The meme is that pilots, policemen, military personnel, etc. are more qualified observers than the rest of us because they are somehow "better trained" as observers.

There is no real evidence of that. They are people just like us, with the same tendancies of interpretation that anyone has. I'm a pilot and I've been in the military. I have a relative and two friends who are cops, and I see no evidence they are better at observation either. They can't even shoot straight at a range (something I gleefully point out to them when I whoop their butts!) I've been through flight school to the commercial level, and not once was there any special "observation training" that made me a better observer than you are. I've been trained in tha air and the only "observation training" I've been taught is "Avoid blinking lights" because whether it is a radio tower, another airplane, or a UFO, you don't want to hit it.

So I don't believe certain classes of people are better observers, and I use my own experience as an example. There is no credible evidence that this is true and using it as an argument is not credible either. In the absence of any evidence of trickery I'm willing to take accounts at face value and accept them. So a guy saw a light in the sky. Someone else saw a metal disk. OK. Fine. I believe you. Now what? In almost all cases, that's where we have to stop.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 07:04 PM by Runciter33

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Runciter33

Eyewitness testimony alone will almost never be taken as proof of anything.

The standards of a court of law are much higher than your own.

The standards of a court law give much weight to witness testimony, especially if there are several witnesses, which is the case in several instances of ufo sightings.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 07:12 PM by Runciter33

Originally posted by schuyler
reply to post by Runciter33

Well, don't tell greeneyedleo that. Eye-witness testimony ain't what it's cracked up to be. Besides, I don't see many people saying, "You didn't see that." The real question is, can you tell us what it is without making stuff up?

But I'd like to address more of the "trained observer" issue. I hear this all the time. The meme is that pilots, policemen, military personnel, etc. are more qualified observers than the rest of us because they are somehow "better trained" as observers.

There is no real evidence of that. They are people just like us, with the same tendancies of interpretation that anyone has. I'm a pilot and I've been in the military. I have a relative and two friends who are cops, and I see no evidence they are better at observation either. They can't even shoot straight at a range (something I gleefully point out to them when I whoop their butts!) I've been through flight school to the commercial level, and not once was there any special "observation training" that made me a better observer than you are. I've been trained in tha air and the only "observation training" I've been taught is "Avoid blinking lights" because whether it is a radio tower, another airplane, or a UFO, you don't want to hit it.

So I don't believe certain classes of people are better observers, and I use my own experience as an example. There is no credible evidence that this is true and using it as an argument is not credible either. In the absence of any evidence of trickery I'm willing to take accounts at face value and accept them. So a guy saw a light in the sky. Someone else saw a metal disk. OK. Fine. I believe you. Now what? In almost all cases, that's where we have to stop.

I would respectfully disagree with you, and i have no idea who greeneyedleo is.

To say a person who's occupation requires them to fly or be able to observe the sky would certainly be better qualified to observe aerial phenomena. Take nuclear facilities, military bases which require those dispatched there to be able to identify any potential invasion of air space from potential foreign planes or any potential missiles or air based threats would most definitely need to be more qualified, there is really no question about that. They wouldn't be there if they were seeing pink elephants in the sky.

I don't take witness testimony as absolute proof of alien spaceships. I do however believe due to the overwhelming number of witness reports over the years that there is *something* that cannot be identified flying in the skies all over the world. The nature of what it is, who can say. If it can be determined, who can say either. But why that should prevent people from studying the phenomena in attempts to better understand it seems a defeatist attitude to me.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 08:06 PM by squarehead666

What is the point in attepting to analyse a story of this type? We only have OPs word for it that the story itself exists, let alone the events described in it.....Without testimony from the 'former Air Vice Marshal' in question the whole thing is meaningless.

As an aside, here's an apparently fairly complete list of former Air Vice Marshals.....Looks like most of these guys are dead, but some are still going strong:

www.rafweb.org...

A glance at the biographies might have proven enlightening if there were just a few more details in the story, like when this happened, what type of aircraft were involved, or where they were based, but of course none of this critical information is provided.

So, in summary the story A: Is hearsay & B: Contains no evidence or even useful detail of any kind.

Thus I call BS at least until such time as the 'former Air Vice Marshal' is identified.

edit on 7-10-2012 by squarehead666 because: S&P/Content

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 08:43 PM by elrem48

reply to post by schuyler

The problem with reports such as the OP's, besides the ones already brought up, is that you can't do much with them. In the final analysis, all you have is a UFO, even if perfectly described and faithfully related. It's a light in the sky or a "metal disk" and by God we saw it so we know it is real! But that's all you really know about it. It didn't have Starfleet's logo on the side in large letters, so no one really knows what it is. So what do we do?

We speculate, we dream, we imagine, we hope and we just wait on every report, sighting, and book....that maybe TODAY will be the day that full disclosure comes in some form, and confirms what we've known to be undeniable in our little minds for such a long time!

edit on 7-10-2012 by elrem48 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 10:57 PM by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by squarehead666
Thus I call BS at least until such time as the 'former Air Vice Marshal' is identified.
edit on 7-10-2012 by squarehead666 because: S&P/Content

You can call it anything! Your call doesn't change anything.

So, you mean if the former air vice marshal is identified, it would be proof? Do you then intend to conduct a court of inquiry yourself?

I didn't know the Indian Air Force and Army are taught how to spew baloney and tell lies as part of their combat training. Especially officers in the highest ranks!

I call your BS, BS. I know him personally and I can assure you he isn't used to flights of imagination, He's fought two wars, been decorated, been part of the UN and served as a military attache twice abroad. Therefore, he isn't any nitwit, liar or a bluff master as you seem to suggest.

Nuff said.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 11:51 PM by charlyv

To Believe something, is to fixate it into the permanence of your reality. The use of the word "Believe" is often misused and more or less becomes a term variable by context, which is wrong.

For causative interpretation, you can get away with "I believe water is a liquid", which is perfectly ok, since it is substantiated by our knowledge of the world, and has no repercussions if some day, science should change views of what is solid or liquid or gas.

It is ok to say "I Believe in UFO's", because basically you are saying that you are certain that there are flying objects in the atmosphere or space that have not been identified, and you would be totally correct.

If, however, you say "I believe that UFO's are extraterrestrial", then, by definition, you have thrown away all your objectivity in the matter, and fixated it in your belief system as an absolute truth, yet it has no substantiation because the real truth has not yet been verified.

Belief is both a dangerous word and a dangerous attitude, and it has caused major trouble for all of us, since we were able to think.

edit on 8-10-2012 by charlyv because: spelling where caught

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 01:53 AM by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by charlyv
To Believe something, is to fixate it into the permanence of your reality. The use of the word "Believe" is often misused and more or less becomes a term variable by context, which is wrong.

For causative interpretation, you can get away with "I believe water is a liquid", which is perfectly ok, since it is substantiated by our knowledge of the world, and has no repercussions if some day, science should change views of what is solid or liquid or gas.

It is ok to say "I Believe in UFO's", because basically you are saying that you are certain that there are flying objects in the atmosphere or space that have not been identified, and you would be totally correct.

If, however, you say "I believe that UFO's are extraterrestrial", then, by definition, you have thrown away all your objectivity in the matter, and fixated it in your belief system as an absolute truth, yet it has no substantiation because the real truth has not yet been verified.

Belief is both a dangerous word and a dangerous attitude, and it has caused major trouble for all of us, since we were able to think.
edit on 8-10-2012 by charlyv because: spelling where caught

I think it's best to keep an open mind. We don't know for sure what the heck is really going on. The debunkers who claim that that there are no such things as UFOs and aliens and that we are the only 'intelligent' race in this huge universe are farther off course than those who 'believe' in the possibility that there may be ETs out there.

After all, this universe is at least 15 billion years old and there are trillions of star systems that came into being billions of years before the birth of our Solar System. I should therefore think that there is every possibility that intelligent life sprouted millions of years even before life started on Earth. Logically speaking, it is possible that they have achieved technological levels that's sci fi to us.

The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers' flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible", only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later. And look what we've achieved in a little more than a hundred years - including putting men on the Moon! And we're talking of millions of years of technological advancement! Where would we ourselves be by then?

So then, the possibility exists of UFOs traveling those vast distances of interstellar space by esoteric forms of propulsion that would seem science fiction to us considering our present level of technology.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 02:16 AM by DENBY

For Humans at this point the main obstacle to long distance space travel is our lack of FLD.
Faster Than Light Drive.
Once we develope that - Go 'way while we're busy!

Or maybe TPTB already have it and just do not want to let the 'Little People' get in on the fun.

Or could they be using this Hi-Tech to keep us frightened and in line?

??????????

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 04:28 AM by hesse

Very interesting story! Any info on what year this happened? Anyway, I don´t see any evidence of this having something to do with aliens. But some advanced tech for sure!

Thanks you for sharing this!!

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 07:16 AM by longlostbrother

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by charlyv
To Believe something, is to fixate it into the permanence of your reality. The use of the word "Believe" is often misused and more or less becomes a term variable by context, which is wrong.

For causative interpretation, you can get away with "I believe water is a liquid", which is perfectly ok, since it is substantiated by our knowledge of the world, and has no repercussions if some day, science should change views of what is solid or liquid or gas.

It is ok to say "I Believe in UFO's", because basically you are saying that you are certain that there are flying objects in the atmosphere or space that have not been identified, and you would be totally correct.

If, however, you say "I believe that UFO's are extraterrestrial", then, by definition, you have thrown away all your objectivity in the matter, and fixated it in your belief system as an absolute truth, yet it has no substantiation because the real truth has not yet been verified.

Belief is both a dangerous word and a dangerous attitude, and it has caused major trouble for all of us, since we were able to think.
edit on 8-10-2012 by charlyv because: spelling where caught

I think it's best to keep an open mind. We don't know for sure what the heck is really going on. The debunkers who claim that that there are no such things as UFOs and aliens and that we are the only 'intelligent' race in this huge universe are farther off course than those who 'believe' in the possibility that there may be ETs out there.

After all, this universe is at least 15 billion years old and there are trillions of star systems that came into being billions of years before the birth of our Solar System. I should therefore think that there is every possibility that intelligent life sprouted millions of years even before life started on Earth. Logically speaking, it is possible that they have achieved technological levels that's sci fi to us.

The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers' flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible", only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later. And look what we've achieved in a little more than a hundred years - including putting men on the Moon! And we're talking of millions of years of technological advancement! Where would we ourselves be by then?

So then, the possibility exists of UFOs traveling those vast distances of interstellar space by esoteric forms of propulsion that would seem science fiction to us considering our present level of technology.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

yessssss... but none of that "absence of evidence" is evidence either... it's fair enough to say that logically aliens COULD exist, but to then extrapolate that that's any sort of reason to believe that they DO exist is a stretch...

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 07:19 AM by longlostbrother

Originally posted by Runciter33

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Runciter33

Eyewitness testimony alone will almost never be taken as proof of anything.

The standards of a court of law are much higher than your own.

The standards of a court law give much weight to witness testimony, especially if there are several witnesses, which is the case in several instances of ufo sightings.

Actually, no.

If a group of people all claimed they saw you do something, but there was no other proof, and you claimed you didn't do it, very few courts would convict, esp juries. You need more than just a group of people claiming something, in most cases.

As for sightings with multiple witnesses, very few of those claim "aliens" - they usually just describe some odd event.

So again, that's NOT evidence for aliens, just for multiple people seeing something odd.

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 07:55 AM by ArMaP

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers' flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible", only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later.

And why did he said that? Because he was not aware of the advances several people had made into understanding what was needed to achieve heavier than air flight, as at that time Otto Lilienthal had already made hundreds of glider flights, based on his study of the birds' flight, and his discoveries were used by many aviation pioneers, including the Wright brothers.

That shows that the most important thing is knowledge, because at the time other people had enough knowledge to know that heavier than air flight was just a matter of time.

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 08:23 AM by longlostbrother

A growing body of research now supports this speculation, indicating that mistaken eyewitness identification is responsible for more convictions of the innocent than all other factors combined. The Innocence Project determined that 75% of the 239 DNA exoneration cases had occurred due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony. It is important to inform the public about the flawed nature of eyewitness memory and the difficulties relating to its use in the criminal justice system so that eyewitness accounts are not viewed as the absolute truth.

en.wikipedia.org...:

Tons of info about how and why eyewitnesses make poor "evidence". Very poor.

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 10:52 AM by K-PAX-PROT

Originally posted by longlostbrother

A growing body of research now supports this speculation, indicating that mistaken eyewitness identification is responsible for more convictions of the innocent than all other factors combined. The Innocence Project determined that 75% of the 239 DNA exoneration cases had occurred due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony. It is important to inform the public about the flawed nature of eyewitness memory and the difficulties relating to its use in the criminal justice system so that eyewitness accounts are not viewed as the absolute truth.

en.wikipedia.org...:

Tons of info about how and why eyewitnesses make poor "evidence". Very poor.

For anyone to say that there is NO possibility of advanced ETs having the nanotechnology to visit here or put it this way , that NOT one UFO high strangeness case ,(due to fight characteristics, manoeuvrability ect),has NO genuine possibility of a ET source is nonsense,the possibility has to remain as a possibility until PROVEN otherwise.

edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 10:59 AM by longlostbrother

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

Originally posted by longlostbrother

A growing body of research now supports this speculation, indicating that mistaken eyewitness identification is responsible for more convictions of the innocent than all other factors combined. The Innocence Project determined that 75% of the 239 DNA exoneration cases had occurred due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony. It is important to inform the public about the flawed nature of eyewitness memory and the difficulties relating to its use in the criminal justice system so that eyewitness accounts are not viewed as the absolute truth.

en.wikipedia.org...:

Tons of info about how and why eyewitnesses make poor "evidence". Very poor.

For anyone to say that there is NO possibility of advanced ETs having the nanotechnology to visit here or put it this way , that NOT one UFO high strangeness case ,(due to fight characteristics, manoeuvrability ect),has NO genuine possibility of a ET source is nonsense,the possibility has to remain as a possibility until PROVEN otherwise.
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)

They're possible, no doubt, very few people believe otherwise, but is there evidence, actual evidence, of their existence. No. There's unexplained stuff, but that's not evidence of UFOs. There's stuff fringe UFO nuts claim is UFOs, but again, not evidence of UFOs/aliens.

I def believe they COULD exist, but have seen NO evidence I'd consider strong for them. I read these threads hoping to see that evidence, but... this thread like all others before it, is just a bunch of people making claims...

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 11:35 AM by K-PAX-PROT

Originally posted by longlostbrother

A growing body of research now supports this speculation, indicating that mistaken eyewitness identification is responsible for more convictions of the innocent than all other factors combined. The Innocence Project determined that 75% of the 239 DNA exoneration cases had occurred due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony. It is important to inform the public about the flawed nature of eyewitness memory and the difficulties relating to its use in the criminal justice system so that eyewitness accounts are not viewed as the absolute truth.

en.wikipedia.org...:

Tons of info about how and why eyewitnesses make poor "evidence". Very poor.

Also very poor rejections of those witnesses that are sources of credibility due to there military rankings, scientific backgrounds ect. There have been credible sources who have not only listened to various witness testimonies but investigated their reports too,a one Dr James E MacDonald springs to mind.To dismiss ALL witness testimony or play down this form of evidence does not add up, justifiable or is a valid scientific protocol that justifies outright rejection or perceived as a invalid for of evidence. Witness testimony IS a very valid form of evidence in a court of law and those that play down this fact are not addressing the real issues of how witness testimony plays a major and vital role in the evidence format to the prosecution and defence professions.

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 12:32 PM by ExpansiveMind

I've heard many accounts of UFOs looking long an cylindrical, my father saw one once and he said it looked long orange and cigar shaped. Very interesting read, thank you.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^