I generally agree with your own criteria, however, I think it really depends on a case by case basis and what you have to work with. Most of it really
depends on your better judgement and your intelligence.
For instance, you have seen a UFO and profess to have bizarre psychic abilities. You have presented no evidence for either claims. However, as you are
fairly credible, I am inclined to believe you are telling the truth, however not entirely convinced, as it’ not proven.
Sometimes the same can be applied for certain people, who strike you as honest, credible and intelligent. Sometimes truth can be felt intuitively.
E.g. Your best friend sees a UFO, you are likely, going to be inclined to believe.
Unfortunately, the methods often used by investigators and skeptics are designed for failure. They can not prove anything. In the end, the
investigator or skeptic has to exercise a faith in a piece of evidence, which sometimes can be solely witness testimony. You will see this much less
from skeptics who are relying on fundamental methods rather on their own intellects and better judgement.
In the case of hypnotic regression, of which the proponents are such accomplished personalities like John Mack(rest in peace) a faith is exercised
that the memories being recounted, or not actually imagination, false memories or lies.
Many of us, who support the Disclosure project
are exercising a faith in it. The sheer weight of credibility, intelligence and rank of the
witnesses, is compelling us.
In your case, you feel Betty Hill's star map is credible proof, but one could easily debunk it by saying the astronomer's testimony is flawed,
wishful thinking or hoaxed, or for a more paranormal explanation, which you used to "debunk" Meiers predictions, Hill psychically obtained the
information of the star configuration. The more incredulous would just claim it is luck.
So what happens, whichever way you approach it, there is always a good element of faith involved. It's all about having good judgement.
However, the very methods of analysis used, cannot prove good judgement. Hence, why there are so many who often say "there is no proof" or "there
is no evidence"
Everything can be debunked. Even a UFO appearing over a super bowl match. A UFO is only proof that there are unidentified flying objects in our skies.
It does not prove their origin. The origin is your own faith.
I am now going to go through each of your criteria, give you my opinion, suggest popular debunking for them, and the best cases in my opinion. I think
this would speak better for my own standards on deciding credibility.
The best witness testimony cases for credibility for me personally are:
Cordell Hull’s cousin’s family are a very rich, and have not made any attempts to seek publicity or make a profit. It is also true that there was an
underground basement under the white house then.
The Disclosure Project
I cannot possibly imagine what ignorance would deny more than 400-500+ witnesses from the professionals disciplines who are willing to testify in
front of congress.
I think the less said Schneider the better, as I’m saying enough on him in the other topic. I can sum him up as one of the best witnesses I’ve ever
come across, if not the best.
1. Multiple witnesses (just more than one), or one highly credible witness (meaning someone who is used to identifying flying objects, such as a
pilot, military, etc. or who has a lot to lose coming forward, such as a policeman, etc.)
Yes, multiple witnesses is good evidence. I would also find it compelling if it was across a wide area, so they are scattered, rather than
concentrated in one area.
Possible debunks: shared delusions/hallucinations, mass hoax, multiple variant descriptions
Best case: Los Angeles UFO 1942.
Mass sightings - by thousands of people
Air and ground battery
Press coverage and photographs of UFO
Air warden testimony
Here, most skeptics cannot employ any of the above debunking explanations, without bringing to attention their feeble-mindedness. So, instead they
claim "it never happened" which is even more feeble minded actually.
2. Witnesses over an area help (i.e. corroboration from a neighbouring viewpoint) as do strange radar returns, etc.
Radar or IR returns and pilots intercepting and chasing UFO cases are very good measures for myself. I find them highly credible. The most credible
cases are, however, that have a combination of radar, visual and pilot, along with EME(electromagnetic effects) and it makes it unquestionable for
Possible debunks: Temperature inversion, atmospheric phenomena, ball lightening, equipment failure(all very weak and simple minded)
Best case: The recent Mexican airforce UFO investigation.
Airborne group sightings
IR and Radar Return
Air force testimony
There are no doubts at all in my mind, that they charted a physical flying object that was invisible and was performing manoeuvres that no
conventional craft can execute.
Best Case: Iranian Air force UFO 1976.
Air force testimony - air force generals, crews and radar operators
EME (leading to weapons system failures and other onboard system failure)
This one is incredible, brilliant and for me very credible, because it is happening in a country with little to no UFO culture. This was released by
the DIA(defence intelligence agency) in 1977.
I have a prize for the first person who can intelligently and successfully debunk this case.
3. Ruling out the possibility of mistaken identity, in other words, confirming it ISN'T Venus, an aircraft, weather balloon, etc. This is
often accomplished via the witnesses describing how the object maneuvered.
Yeah, that is reasonable. Unfortunately, this type of criteria is often abused. Where the debunker will simply go through a list of prosaic
explanations, and will almost always, regardless of which case and what evidence, find one -r anging from Mother Venus to Mother Goose.
The explanation should always fit the parameters of the events and evidence. However, most “professional skeptics” would break down the case into it’s
individual constituents, until it loses it’s original form, and then debunk each with a prosaic explanation. I rarely have seen any intellectually
honest skeptics that will deal with a case as a whole and for it’s collective merit.
Example: In the Iran case(above)
Mass sightings: shared delusion/misidentification of fire flies, stars, moons
Pilot intercepts and chases: chasing balloons/balls of lightening/swamp gas/birds
Radar Detection: equipment failure
Air force testimony: misidentification, fraud, hoax
EME: equipment failiure
Physiological effects: Air/G sickness
If you confront them and say, the probability of everything going wrong, or being misidentified is vanishingly small or indeed ludicrous, then they
tell you about winning lotteries and how the mind plays tricks on people. I personally find them very funny, but what I find sad and very telling of
the populations intelligence - they actually accept their explanations. So no wonder there is no disclosure.
Note: I hope this is not surprising, but to anyone who is going to take my challenge on board to debunk the Iran case. This method of “debunking” will
not qualify as successful and intelligent debunking.
4. Excellent details (usually from highly credible witnesses) describing apparent size, altitude, speed, colours, flight behavior.
I am very skeptical of USO(Unidentified Stationary Objects) then I am of UFOs. I will often discount any case of USO, unless there is excellent
detail, describing it’s shape, composition, altitude and apparent size. Any UFO that displays excessive speed, abrupt changes of direction and size,
are very credible in my book.
I’ve seen a lot of weird objects in the sky, and I may have missed many potential UFO’s. However, as long as the object does not show me any anomalous
behaviour, I am likely to ignore it.
5. Documentation helps support it too...granted, this is mostly only available for sightings during the periods of governmental investigation, Blue
Book and the like, but police reports, air tower reports, etc. all help to support it.
Yes, professional documentation is a good bonus. However, not always applicable. Further, if it is government documentation, always take it with a
grain of salt, unless it is favouring the UFO hypothesis and is not obscuring it with misinformation(gauge it with the current standards for UFO/ET
phenomena) This is not double standards. As the government gains nothing by releasing UFO information, but has everything to lose by it.
Most of the time, UFO’s cases are only declassified because of efforts of investigators or due to leaking of information. I sincerely doubt the shadow
government would release UFO information, unless it was deliberate misinformation.
Best case: Rendelsham Forest UFO
Multiple witness testimony
Abnormal Radiation detection
Claimed ET contact
These were documents declassified by the UK Ministry of defence under the freedom of information act. They clearly describe that British government
6. Photos or video (that don't look like models, or misidentification).
I think photographic evidence is the least most credible for me. This is because:
1) They are blurry and ambiguous, and perhaps this is just the nature of anomalous effects caused by UFO’s
2) The clear ones could easily be hoaxes or models, especially in the current age of computer graphics and advanced photo editing software.
I would need the photographs to be analysed in labs by credible scientists, and even then, I would only use it to supplement other evidence, not stand
alone. I do make exceptions in photographs prior to commercial photo imaging age, and photographs that cannot be reproduced. I find video evidence a
bit more credible than photographs, as it involves motion photography, and would be much more difficult and time consuming to hoax successfully and
factor all possible errors.
The most convincing singular graphical evidence for me yet, are ancient paintings, especially those of Mary and Jesus, who explicitly, and I cannot
emphasise enough how explicit it is, depict UFOs and this is an age prior to flight.
Best Case: Billy Meier’s photographs
Irreproducible photographs and motion film, even though the images are 20-30 years old. They have also stood scientific scrutiny from the likes of JPL
and oscar-winning special effects supervisors.
NASA STS space shutte videos.
This is very credible and features many UFO’s in space, sometimes performing the same gravity defying feats they are renowned for. The most amazing
one I’ve seen is the one where the UFO suddenly accelerates to mach 200+ and escapes an incoming projectile from the surface of the Earth.
7. That it happened while doing an activity OTHER than looking for UFOs (i.e. it was spontaneous)
No, I disagree. There are many who want to see UFO’s, and some of them even go UFO spotting(not me, don’t have the time) if they happen to strike it
gold, that does not make their case anymore less credible than a spontaneous one.
8. Observer doesn't actively seek promotion or profit out of sighting.
I absolutely disagree. I think this is beyond unreasonable. Simply because the observer has witnessed a UFO, does not make them any less human than
anyone else. This is a capitalist society run by materialists, and where happiness is obtained by acquisition of material, and materials are acquired
through capital - money -- greenbacks -- you get the picture? There are many people sell their stories, because there are people who are paying them
BIG for their stories.
If someone has seen a UFO’s and has good evidence, then I say go for it, let them promote themselves and if they make a buck out of it, good for them.
Who here would really turn down $10,000 for telling someone you saw a UFO?
This time I am not going to analyse each of your criteria, rather give you an overall impression:
In most cases of abductions, there is little to no objective evidence, it’s really a question of trust. Hypnotic regression is very inconclusive for
me, as it is difficult to discriminate between memories, false memories, imagination and lies.
I find multiple lie detectors tests a much more better means of evidence than hypnosis. However, this only can prove that the witness believes in
what they are saying, or they are very good at lying.
The likeness of lying reduces inversely proportional to the amount of the tests, and further reduces with multiple abductee collaboration and/or
abductee witness testimony
In general multiple abductee cases is very credible and increase in credibility with the following. All would rule absolutely conclusive for me.
1. Number of abductes
2. Whether the abductees know each other or not
3. Age of abductee; young children(5-10) are more credible
4. Similarity of accounts
Evidence of scarring, surgical procedures, implants and especially disappearing fetus in women is compelling evidence, as well as signs of
post-trauma, mentally and physically.
The perfect abduction case, and as far as I am concerned, that would be proof beyond a doubt and I would expect any intelligent person to think the
same. Would be the following:
1. Muliple/group abductees(preferably involving younger children)
2. Positive lie detector results
3. Physical and mental trauma
4. Any of the following: evidence of unknown and recent scarring/surgical incisions/missing fetus in women
5. Abductee witness testimonies(preferably unrelated to the victims)
Best Abduction cases:
The Betty Andreasson Encounter
Multiple abductee witnesses(10)
Positive lie detector results
The Manhattan Abduction (Linda Cortile Napolitano)
Multiple abductee witnesses
Multiple UFO and ET witnesses
Very credible witnesses: Javier Perez de Cuellar, the former Secretary General of the United Nations. Including his body guards
In my opinion this is the best and most convincing case I’ve ever encountered. A woman is floated outside of her high rise apartment window into a
hovering ship, by alien entities, and it is seen by so many witnesses, causes a traffic jam, and is witnessed by a former UN secretary general of the
United Nations. Really, this should have been the end-all of all skeptical inquiry into UFO's.
The Pascagoula, Mississippi Abduction (Hickson/Parker)
Multiple UFO testimony(15 people, including two police officers)
Positive lie detector results
P.S: This is an excellent topic you started
[edit on 24-11-2004 by Indigo_Child]