Charles B. Moore, debunker, except of his own personal sighting

Charles B. Moore, debunker, except of his personal sighting--the Wikipedia article on him covers it concisely and nicely.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's also covered in this outline of sightings by Skyhook and Mogul personnel:

roswellproof.homestead.com...

Its understandable for someone to debunk things like blurd photos and other silly things after having had a clear personal sighting, but to be dogmatic about strong cases after seeing the phenomenon for oneself seems a bit strange, although doubting it is of extraterrestrial origin seems reasonable if the personal sighting only showed what looked like a strange craft but not its occupants. It's only human nature for someone who had a personal sighting to want answers. And complaining about lack of proof or arguing that it's not necessarily ET can be taken as a challenge to investigate these things better. Let's keep in mind that next time there's a major UFO event like the Phoenix Lights, somebody had better file FOIA requests for the relevant U.S. Weather Bureau and FAA radar data.

And in cases of these sightings by balloon trackers and missile trackers, since these were professionals, one might think their word should carry more weight than usually given to eye-witness testmony.

And in cases of these sightings by balloon trackers and missile trackers, since these were professionals, one might think their word should carry more weight than usually given to eye-witness testmony.

Eye witness testimony is just that. Hear say.

And although having a more credible witness does much more for certain cases, we can't take someone simply because of their position in society whether it be professional or social, and equate their opinion as being any more reliable or accurate than someone not of their standing.

There are so many other factors that completely negate people's social and professional standings. And, in many cases, is one of the major problems in society being that certain people's words are so much more powerful and not allowed to even be properly criticized or scrutinized.

In scientific matters, evidence is tested, re-tested and can be done by anyone for the same result.

Although I admit UFO sighting is not really a scientific venture, the absolute discovery of alien life will be. As some form of physical evidence will be needed to finally put the issue to bed.

Interesting thought that came up with this thread... If you were really seeking to make a name in the UFO/Alien crowd/industry. You could come out as an avid debunker for a few years, then do a 180 publicly, citing some fantastic event, information, or otherwise as the major factor that changed your stance.

It would for all intents and purposes make you seem more credible to a great number of people.

It's probably a good idea for anyone looking to start off in that field trying to cash in.

Almost like what Greer did by coming in saying that he had solid evidence (Although he never ran the "opposite thinking" angle.) it didn't take long for him to go completely off the deep end as most people do.

Hoaxland for sure has won the award for best "UFO advocate gone nuts" award.

reply to post by boncho


I agree with boncho on eyewitness testimony being hearsay.

It is good for instigating an investigation or corroborating tangible evidence but other than that it's a personal experience and a good story. People such as pilots or these balloon scientists should definitely hold more water but only in the sense it should warrant further investigation.

Other than that what can you really do with eyewitness testimony from a scientific standpoint?

Originally posted by homeskillet

Other than that what can you really do with eyewitness testimony from a scientific standpoint?

Accidental double post. Sorry.

Originally posted by homeskillet

Other than that what can you really do with eyewitness testimony from a scientific standpoint?

What I'm doing is developing software that turns some old hardware into robotic witnesses able to automatically detect anything of substantial size that arrives on the scene in broad daylight and stops and hovers, whereupon the system adjusts the aim of two motorized cameras, zooms them, and starts taking 3D video with tracking data stamped below each frame. If what is caught is not something mundane like a balloon or helicopter, then requests will be made for the weather and FAA radar data. And it's so fast that a UFO that only lingers for two seconds before jumping to another location will be caught, even though humans on the ground looking at the sky might miss it. Some say what looks like flying saucers may not be alien. Well, this system will let the public get a good look at it, not that that will necessarily reveal the origin of the phenomenon. At least it has the potential of producing far better photographic evidence than has been available to the public so far.

But with human witnesses, maybe scientists will be able to capture the visual portion of memories and display them. There is a claim of something like that already. If they can, then maybe eye-witness testimony won't be considered such a low form of evidence anymore.

Originally posted by xpoq47

Originally posted by homeskillet

Other than that what can you really do with eyewitness testimony from a scientific standpoint?

What I'm doing is developing software that turns some old hardware into robotic witnesses able to automatically detect anything of substantial size that arrives on the scene in broad daylight and stops and hovers, whereupon the system adjusts the aim of two motorized cameras, zooms them, and starts taking 3D video with tracking data stamped below each frame. If what is caught is not something mundane like a balloon or helicopter, then requests will be made for the weather and FAA radar data. And it's so fast that a UFO that only lingers for two seconds before jumping to another location will be caught, even though humans on the ground looking at the sky might miss it.

I have to say, if you can pull this off and it works we will all be indebted to you. People will still try to debunk it, mind you, but it will be a far step above simple eye-witness testimony. I agree that some people's testimony should be given a heavier weight than, say, my own (I've had a sighting and can't personally debunk it - but it is not provable to anyone else and I have no credentials other than general sanity and honesty to recommend me).

If an air traffic controller, pilot, military or other respectable, trained observers have testimony, (and possibly some radar data or other information to back it up) - I personally give them way more credence than a dude and his friends having a 'sighting' while drinking themselves silly and dropping amazed f-bombs on some blurry youtube video.

Thanks so much for the work you are doing and the goal you are attempting. Can't wait to see how it turns out!

peace,
AB

reply to post by xpoq47


Eye witness testimony is just that. Hear say? Actually that would be Ear witness testimony.
Or in other words, there is no proof that we just read Boncho boys post.

I work with a guy that goes around all day saying "homeskillet". Hard to believe that someone else actually identifies with that saying. Of course without eyewitness proof, there is no proof I just read his that either.

And there is no proof that for such an ugly dude you always have such hot chicks hanging around you.

I have read thru that website with the balloon info before and there is a lot of proof in there for people who understand that eye witness info is reality, and not a cop out.

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
reply to post by xpoq47

 

Eye witness testimony is just that. Hear say? Actually that would be Ear witness testimony.
Or in other words, there is no proof that we just read Boncho boys post.

I work with a guy that goes around all day saying "homeskillet". Hard to believe that someone else actually identifies with that saying. Of course without eyewitness proof, there is no proof I just read his that either.

And there is no proof that for such an ugly dude you always have such hot chicks hanging around you.

I have read thru that website with the balloon info before and there is a lot of proof in there for people who understand that eye witness info is reality, and not a cop out.

big deal if they saw what they saw. what do you want from it? someone to pop out and say, "ok, you did see alien craft from another world. you win the prize!"

ultra believers act like the aliens wont reveal themselves until a certain percentage of humans believe in them. they seem to blame the skeptic for holding this magical revelation back from them.

It's either that magical thinking or the idea that the government has the power to reveal anything and the skeptics are yet again foiling there desires.

so in the end, YOU see it. YOU believe it. and when they are here in our faces no one else will have the ability to deny it. until then, all we can do is just report and log observations and not much more.

and whats with the attack on my screen name? it's a dumb word and meant to be a dumb name. how's that relevant to anything we're discussing?

reply to post by homeskillet


You must understand, I work with a guy who goes around saying your name all day, everyday.
This morning I showed my coworker your picture and he laughed. He SWEARS he made up the name homeskillet. Apparantly not.

reply to post by spiritualarchitect


i used to work with a kid almost 10 years ago who used to say it too. that's where i got it from. i only picked that name because i didnt think i'd be really doing any posting so i didnt put thought into it.

Just to clarify there is no definition of hearsay that would include a first person eye witness account. Hearsay is when you report something you heard someone else saying not when you report something that actually happened to you.

Science's argument with eyewitness testimony is not because it is hearsay but rather it can be unreliable.

Originally posted by homeskillet
reply to post by boncho

 

I agree with boncho on eyewitness testimony being hearsay.

Eyewitnessing an event is not 'hearsay'. 'hearsay', is "I heard X say that he saw a UFO", as opposed getting it from X directly.

Nevertheless eyewitness accounts of unusual events can be unreliable or misleading.

Originally posted by xpoq47

roswellproof.homestead.com...

And in cases of these sightings by balloon trackers and missile trackers, since these were professionals, one might think their word should carry more weight than usually given to eye-witness testmony.

dont confuse these sightings and witnesses's testimony with their hypothesis ( it must be from outerspace !!!!)...

these people's testimony are flawless in that they see unknown flying objects near their balloon, and it happened more than once.. they can theorize but that is out of bound from their testimony. Nothing in the event indicate that it is even physical object nor their origin. Attributing every unknown flying things as a craft from outerspace is not scientific observation, its just a guess but certainly no more than that.. just a wishful thinking..