Why isn't observer evidence like eyewitness accounts counted as evidence for UFO's?

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
even if you take a clear picture they say"cgi'

Implying that all the clear pictures aren't CGI. Show some examples of the clear pictures you're talking about that you think aren't CGI, or hoaxes. All the clear pictures I can think of are one or the other.

The proliferation of smartphones with cameras has made the lack of supporting pictures and videos even more problematic. We've seen things documented now some of us didn't believe until we saw it like cops beating up people, which shows that cameras are everywhere and documenting things people had a hard time believing, but still nothing significant on UFOs. There's a reason for the expression "pics or it didn't happen" and while that's not strictly true on any individual case, in aggregate of the billions of cell phones in the world we'd expect to see at least something intriguing captured on camera UFO-wise but we never seem to see that, though we see plenty of other intriguing and unexpected things captured with cell phone cams.

When we do have pictures of some significance like the Phoenix lights, both incidents have been debunked and show that witnesses are not reliable and tend to have perception issues as known by researchers. Our brains try to "connect dots" even if there is no connection which is one of the things that happened in Phoenix, and you can easily confirm your own brain does this by looking at a book of optical illusions based on similar principles. This phenomenon happened in one of the "top ten best UFO cases" in Yukon, and Jim Oberg provided documentation of another excellent case of this happening on a similar UFO incident in Kiev from which these drawings were captured:

www.jamesoberg.com...


Multiple observers of the same incident drawing pictures of what they saw looking like space ships is not totally unlike the Phoenix lights or Yukon UFO cases but we now are fairly certain that none of those cases involved any space ships, so someone would have to not want to know the truth to ignore these cases and trust eyewitness claims completely. Of course we can trust that they saw some kind of lights in the sky, there's no doubt about that in any of the mentioned cases, but what those lights were is what the witnesses mis-perceived. It would be silly to think those are the only three cases where it happened.

a reply to: DJW001

Thanks

My apologies but I'm not sure what you meant by the link back.

Again, you have unfortunately let emotion get in the way of your message to me.

I'm afraid you strike me as person who wants an argument, tit for tat, rather than exchange views with a view to learning and influencing others. Enjoy your day, cheers.

a reply to: neoholographic

Newton used eyewtiness accounts in the Principia when talking about comets. He came up with a theory on comets based on recorded sighting throughout the world like a boy saw a comet and this is what he described. There wasn't any internet to even verify the credibility of these eyewitness accounts yet Newton used them to come up with a theory about comets which helped lead to his equations of Gravity.

So if eyewitness accounts are so unreliable, how did Newton use them to come up with his theories?
.
.
....Newton didn't have any of these things yet he came up with a theory about comets based on eyewitness accounts.

I don't know if this has already been pointed out but- You conveniently skipped over the fact that Newton had discussions and shared data with other known astronomers of the time such as Edmond Halley and John Flamsteed to help support his idea of comets. He found the movement and arc of comets were consistent and further supported the theory of the gravitational pull of the sun, etc. Which was added onto Copernicus>Kepler's fundamental theory of planetary motion. Comets were included as an extension of his baseline theory.
Halley (the unnamed boy you mention) observed a comet as a child and through later research saw a pattern throughout history and brought this information to Newton while working with him years later. He was able to correctly predict that every 75/76 years the comet would reappear. Astronomers were able to conduct real-world observations and research on the phenomena which supported the theory. Other than his "own" named comet, Halley also used Newton's theory of motion and gravity to support the path orbits of other comets. Newton himself observed a comet which he used as part of his theory.

You're placing far too much weight on eyewitness testimony in this example. It was based on a combination of astronomical observations, consistent data, mechanical principals, and his own observations that he worked through his theory. Not based on random questionable witness accounts where he couldn't: "verify the credibility of these eyewitnesses" as you stated. Although, that does correctly describe many UFO/alien eyewitnesses. Newton actually questioned his own theory (as any legitimate scientist would) and with the help of Halley, he was able to give it a workable model. This wasn't done through unverifiable strangers testimony or accounts. Any outside observations by unverifiable and unknown witnesses only supported the already 'established' theory.

Here are some of the "questionable" eyewitness accounts Newton used as part of researching his theory on comets:
- Hipparchus (astronomer)
- Tycho Brahe (astronomer)
- Astronomy students of the above
- Cornelius Gemma (astronomer)
- Johannes Hevelius (astronomer)
- Gottfried Kirch (astronomer)
- Edmond Halley (astronomer and mathematician)
- John Flamsteed (astronomer)
- Adrien Auzout (astronomer)
- Robert Hooke (physicist) witnessed 1665 comet and along with Auzout, interpreted data
- James Bradley (Oxford professor of astronomy)
- Johannes Kepler (astronomer and mathematician)

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Your post supports exactly what I'm saying and these accounts are right there in the Principia. Have you read it? Newton for instance listed a boy who saw a comet and others eyewitness accounts as well.

You're simply making the case for U.F.O.'s.

I can list Police officers, Army personel, Government officials and more. So yes, Newton used eyewitness accounts from credible witnesses and witnesses he couldn't verify to come up with his theory. Again, he lays it out in the Principia.

The point is, eyewitness accounts can be used by Science especially when dealing with aerial phenomena. Here's more on meteorites:

Although meteors have been known since ancient times, they were not known to be an astronomical phenomenon until early in the 19th century. Prior to that, they were seen in the West as an atmospheric phenomenon, like lightning, and were not connected with strange stories of rocks falling from the sky. In 1807, Yale University chemistry professor Benjamin Silliman investigated a meteorite that fell in Weston, Connecticut.[27] Silliman believed the meteor had a cosmic origin, but meteors did not attract much attention from astronomers until the spectacular meteor storm of November 1833.[28] People all across the eastern United States saw thousands of meteors, radiating from a single point in the sky. Astute observers noticed that the radiant, as the point is now called, moved with the stars, staying in the constellation Leo.[29]

en.wikipedia.org...

ASTUTE OBSERVERS

We can also have ASTUTE OBSERVERS with U.F.O.'s that give very credible and detailed reports. The problem is, many skeptics are dishonest when it comes to U.F.O.'s. We have cases and descriptions of these objects in the sky dating back to Ancient Egypt yet we can't identify these things because the best explanation which is extraterrestrial visitation is blindly rejected.

The skeptics do the same dishonest thing when these reports occur.

First they try to find a known object that fits the sighting. That's fine.

Secondly they start to yell fake or today everything is CGI if it "Looks to good to be true." Dishonest

They then try to attack the witnesses. When Edgar Mitchell started talking about extraterrestrials he went from a hero to a kook and a senile old man. Again, dishonest.

Again, there's mountains and mountains of evidence. Just look at www.ufoevidence.org... and this is just one source. The only reason U.F.O.'s are unidentified is because the best explanation for U.F.O.'s is blindly rejected. If you accept U.F.O.'s are connected to extraterrestrial visitation then many of these things are easily explained.

originally posted by: neoholographic
We have cases and descriptions of these objects in the sky dating back to Ancient Egypt yet we can't identify these things because the best explanation which is extraterrestrial visitation is blindly rejected.

It's rejected because it isn't a good explanation. There is no good explanation, aliens included.

a reply to: neoholographic

I pretty much agree with the OP, but the presence of these alien starships in our atmosphere, signifies a technology that is far superior to our own --- And I can only speculate as to how these foo fighters function on land, sea and air --- Not to mention obvious superluminal capabilities on interstellar journeys with these wonderful flying machines.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: neoholographic
We have cases and descriptions of these objects in the sky dating back to Ancient Egypt yet we can't identify these things because the best explanation which is extraterrestrial visitation is blindly rejected.

It's rejected because it isn't a good explanation. There is no good explanation, aliens included.

It's a great explanation and the best explanation. It makes no sense that there isn't a good explanation as you say and we have mountains of evidence that dates back to descriptions in Ancient Egypt of these objects flying in the sky.

Why can't we identify these things the same way we did with comets or meteors? It's because U.F.O.'s behave in a way that's not natural and under intelligent control. You have U.F.O.'s that drop in and out of radar, evade planes and malfunction nuke sites. Extraterrestrial visitation is the best explanation for U.F.O.'s.

Look at these eyewitness accounts about comets from 1680. This is from a book The Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America:

At first it was tailless and dim, like a nebulous cloud, but at the end of a week the tail began to show itself and in a second week had attained a length of 30 degrees; in the third week it extended to 70 degrees, while the whole mass was growing brighter. After five weeks it seemed to be absorbed into the intense glare of the sun, but in four days more it reappeared like a blazing sun itself in the throes of some giant convulsion and threw out a tail in the opposite direction as far as the whole distance between the sun and the earth.

Here's an Artist depiction of the comet of 1680.



From these EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS, Researchers can get some good information about comets and compare these accounts to other accounts and then you can begin to see it's a natural aerial phenomenom.

You can't do this with U.F.O.'s because they behave as if they're controlled by intelligence. The best explanation is extraterrestrial visitation.

Here's an account from Andrew Danziger who was a Pilot for Obama on election day.

In 1989, First Officer Andrew Danziger was on a flight from Kansas City to Waterloo, Iowa, and had ascended to 4,500 meters (15,000 ft) when he noticed a white disk visible through clouds to the right of the plane. He conferred with the pilot, who also spotted the object. After ruling out the possibility that it was the Moon, a searchlight, or any mundane aerial object, they continued to engage in flight duties, occasionally glancing at the object.

After 20 minutes, Danziger realized that the white disk had been replaced by a massive red ball floating above the cloud cover, which was maintaining a parallel course with the flight. When the plane dropped to 4,000 meters (13,000 ft), the ball descended and vanished behind the clouds. Then there was a burst of multicolored lights within the cloud.

Danziger reported that the cloud itself started to stretch apart “like Silly Putty,” and then the object, lights, and cloud collectively vanished. After confirming with air traffic controllers that nothing had been seen on radar, the pilot and Danziger were asked nonchalantly, “Do you want to report a UFO?” They were given the number to the National UFO Reporting Center, who told them other pilots had reported similar incidents on a fairly regular basis.

listverse.com...



Here's another one and again, look at the description then compare it to the description of the comet in 1680. Eyewitness accounts can give Researchers very good information.

In 2007, Captain Ray Bowyer was flying an Aurigny plane from Southampton to Alderney when he spotted a number of UFOs through binoculars near the British island of Guernsey. Initially, he described the UFOs as flat yellow disks that he thought were caused by the Sun’s reflection from Guernsey greenhouses.

But then he realized they were something else because they did not hurt his eyes as looking at the reflection of sunlight would. He later described himself as “pretty shook up” by the experience. Allegedly, the objects were also reported by passengers on the plane and other pilots in the area.

Bowyer described one of the objects as a “very sharp, thin, yellow object with a green area. It was 2,000 feet up and stationary. [ . . . ] At first, I thought it was the size of a 737. But it must have been much bigger because of how far away it was. It could have been as much as a mile wide.” He saw a second, identical object to the west when making his descent toward Alderney.

The point is, there's tons of information like this out there and the only reason U.F.O.'s aren't identified is because there isn't a natural explanation for them like with comets or meteorites and the best explanation is extraterrestrial visitation.

originally posted by: neoholographic
It's a great explanation and the best explanation. It makes no sense that there isn't a good explanation as you say and we have mountain of evidence that dates back to description in Ancient Egypt of these objects flying in the sky.

There is a mountain of evidence, but not necessarily of alien craft flying around in the sky. Unknown or unidentified does not equal aliens. Only aliens equal aliens, and there's not a bit of evidence proving anything of the sort.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: neoholographic
It's a great explanation and the best explanation. It makes no sense that there isn't a good explanation as you say and we have mountain of evidence that dates back to description in Ancient Egypt of these objects flying in the sky.

There is a mountain of evidence, but not necessarily of alien craft flying around in the sky. Unknown or unidentified does not equal aliens. Only aliens equal aliens, and there's not a bit of evidence proving anything of the sort.

Of course it equals Aliens when you have descriptions like these plus photo's, trace evidence and video. On top of that you have some of the top Scientist in the world reaching the conclusions that Aliens most likely exist based on the growing evidence.

People are not just saying, they're unknown so they must be Alien people are actually listening and reading the description of these objects and there's no other credible conclusion that can be reached that explains how objects can drop in and out of radar, evade capture and malfunction nuke sites.

If there was a better explanation U.F.O.'s would be explained but there isn't one.

a reply to: neoholographic

Danziger's UFO sighting is very similar to my November, 1976 nighttime double foo fighter sighting, approximately 40 miles west of Washington D.C. --- With a bluish-white, possible rectangular shaped light, going from east to west, from the direction of the capital with incredible speed above the low thin cloud cover --- One minute later ---- A huge ball of magnetically contained ball of fusion plasma [with no fiery tail] making a slow straight perpendicular descent to earth, appearing about 1 mile away beneath the low cloud cover.

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: neoholographic

I pretty much agree with the OP, but the presence of these alien starships in our atmosphere, signifies a technology that is far superior to our own --- And I can only speculate as to how these foo fighters function on land, sea and air --- Not to mention obvious superluminal capabilities on interstellar journeys with these wonderful flying machines.

Good points,

Eyewitness accounts can accounts can be very detailed and reliable and Science has used them in the past as with meteorites and comets.

There's no other credible explanation. If there was a credible explanation outside of extraterrestrial visitation U.F.O.'s would no longer be unidentified.

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: neoholographic

Danziger's UFO sighting is very similar to my November, 1976 nighttime double foo fighter sighting, approximately 40 miles west of Washington D.C. --- With a bluish-white, possible rectangular shaped light, going from east to west, from the direction of the capital with incredible speed above the low thin cloud cover --- One minute later ---- A huge ball of magnetically contained ball of fusion plasma [with no fiery tail] making a slow straight perpendicular descent to earth, appearing about 1 mile away beneath the low cloud cover.

You are a Pilot? I have had 3 sighting myself and 2 looked like probes. The other was surrounded by green and yellow lights. Here's another sighting by Captain Lawrence Coyne and crew.

originally posted by: MaximRecoil

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Eyewitness testimony is a type of evidence, and until the word "evidence" evolves to mean something else, that fact remains.

Interpreting what an observer has seen based on their testimony is like trying to build a bicycle based on their drawing from memory.

That's a strong case for UFOs then, considering that all of those bicycles in your link are close enough to be recognizable as bicycles, i.e., they all have two wheels, a frame of some sort, handlebars, and a seat.

And given that you didn't actually address the statement of mine which you quoted, your tacit concession regarding it is noted.

except we know for a fact bicycles exist and most certainly what they look like.

Add to that... When there's irrefutable evidence, there wouldn't be a need for interpretation!

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Well said!!

a reply to: neoholographic

There is still no evidence for aliens.

a reply to: neoholographic


No...I'm not a pilot, nor did I see the possible foo fighter from an airplane. The three of us were coming east back to Baltimore, Maryland, from a survey expedition in the mountains of West Virginia, in a full windowed Ford Econoline Van; going 55 mpg on a divided highway overlooking a mountain valley.

a reply to: neoholographic

Your post supports exactly what I'm saying and these accounts are right there in the Principia. Have you read it? Newton for instance listed a boy who saw a comet and others eyewitness accounts as well.

You're simply making the case for U.F.O.'s.

You're backpeddling. In your very first paragraph of this thread, you talk about Newton using eyewitness accounts where, before the internet, he had no way to verify the credibility of the witnesses:

He came up with a theory on comets based on recorded sighting throughout the world like a boy saw a comet and this is what he described. There wasn't any internet to even verify the credibility of these eyewitness accounts yet Newton used them to come up with a theory about comets...

The unverifiable character of witnesses is the connection to many UFOs and alien cases. It's obvious that Newton overwhelmingly uses professional astronomer data for his calculations rather than random eye witness accounts.

I mentioned the boy in my response. Unless there was another boy I'm not aware of, it was a young Edmond Halley. Halley financed and worked with Newton on Prinicipia in later years.

...these accounts are right there in the Principia. Have you read it?

Nope... never read it. That's how I was able to call you out on the mistake of Newton basing his theory of comets on unverifiable eyewitness accounts. /sarcasm
Although I admit I had to go back to correctly name many of the astronomers.

The point is, eyewitness accounts can be used by Science especially when dealing with aerial phenomena. Here's more on meteorites:

There's no connection with UFO sightings and those of comets and meteors. Both are phenomena with repeatable patterns giving astronomers the ability to observe and study them. So, it doesn't stand alone as a story. Depending on the trajectory, comets can be in the sky for long periods, while meteors usually happen in multiples. Both give an open opportunity for study by astronomers, professional or amateur, or anyone with a telescope. With that study, the source can be determined by scientists. UFOs are sporadic and don't have a consistent pattern. You're making an argument as if UFOs have the same pattern that can be studied and the scientific community just refuses to study them. There is no pattern and there's nothing relatable to comets and meteors other than they're seen in the sky. You're also comparing a natural phenomenon to one that's not.

The skeptics do the same dishonest thing when these reports occur.First they try to find a known object that fits the sighting. That's fine.

Secondly they start to yell fake or today everything is CGI if it "Looks to good to be true." Dishonest

This is the procedure that should be followed with any unidentified object. You search for Earth-bound reasoning. This is where people more knowledgeable than the witnesses step in. As Arbitrageur mentioned above, Jim Oberg's pdf shows how multiple witnesses, in the moment of excitement, can fill-in-the-blanks with objects not understood. If there was an announcement on TV and/or radio beforehand where all witnesses heard of a bright re-entry of a rocket, then that "mothership" most likely wouldn't have been there. But, they're people that still refuse to let go of the UFO story, like Stanton Friedman.
Imagine if every UFO sighting came with a video. Using this site as an example, many if not all could be solved by those more familiar with different objects than the witness(es). The few unknowns remain unknown until convincing evidence says what their source is. You're wishing, like many diehard believers, that low-leveled evidence is all that's needed to explain it. It makes me question if you truly understand what intelligent alien visitation would mean if your acceptance of evidence is so easily attained.

They then try to attack the witnesses. When Edgar Mitchell started talking about extraterrestrials he went from a hero to a kook and a senile old man. Again, dishonest.

The evil skeptic once again. The dishonesty lies with the people writing a stories with an agenda $$$$$ leaving out certain parts relying on the gullible and naive to buy into. They know very few believers will fact check if it fits into their little box of belief. Then, unfortunately, the story snowballs and misinformation is spread. Here are the facts. Mitchell never saw a UFO or an alien body. His stories are all 2nd and 3rd hand. What he said about aliens and UFOs was his belief. Sorry, but his personal opinion and belief don't make alien visitation anymore of a fact. So go on and explain how what I've said is "dishonest."

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

This is just a long winded post that doesn't refute anything I'm saying.

You said:

UFOs are sporadic and don't have a consistent pattern. You're making an argument as if UFOs have the same pattern that can be studied and the scientific community just refuses to study them. There is no pattern and there's nothing relatable to comets and meteors other than they're seen in the sky.

Of course there's not an explanation because the best explanation is extraterrestrial visitation. Again, the pseudoskeptic dumps all eyewitness accounts into on big lump labeled unreliable and this is just dishonest. I just posted some very credible accounts. Here's over 150 eyewitness accounts from Military Veterans.

Significantly, the UFO activity occasionally transcends mere surveillance and involves direct and unambiguous interference with our strategic weapons systems. Numerous cases include reports of mysterious malfunctions of large numbers of nuclear missiles just as one or more UFOs hovered nearby. (Declassified Soviet Ministry of Defense documents confirm that such incidents also occurred in the former USSR.)

To date, Hastings has interviewed more than 150 military veterans who were involved in various UFO-related incidents at U.S. missile sites, weapons storage facilities, and nuclear bomb test ranges. The events described by these individuals leave little doubt that the U.S. nuclear weapons program is an ongoing source of interest to someone possessing vastly superior technology.

www.ufohastings.com...

There's many unknowns out there and we know how to classify them.

Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 was their massive statistical analysis of Blue Book cases to date, some 3200 by the time the report was completed in 1954, after Ruppelt had left Blue Book. Even today, it represents the largest such study ever undertaken. Battelle employed four scientific analysts, who sought to divide cases into "knowns", "unknowns", and a third category of "insufficient information." They also broke down knowns and unknowns into four categories of quality, from excellent to poor. E.g., cases deemed excellent might typically involve experienced witnesses such as airline pilots or trained military personnel, multiple witnesses, corroborating evidence such as radar contact or photographs, etc. In order for a case to be deemed a "known", only two analysts had to independently agree on a solution. However, for a case to be called an "unknown", all four analysts had to agree. Thus the criterion for an "unknown" was quite stringent.

In addition, sightings were broken down into six different characteristics — color, number, duration of observation, brightness, shape, and speed — and then these characteristics were compared between knowns and unknowns to see if there was a statistically significant difference.

In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically significant level: in five of the six measures the odds of knowns differing from unknowns by chance was only 1% or less. When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion.

The result of the monumental BMI study were echoed by a 1979 French GEPAN report which stated that about a quarter of over 1,600 closely studied UFO cases defied explanation, stating, in part, "These cases … pose a real question."[32] When GEPAN's successor SEPRA closed in 2004, 5800 cases had been analyzed, and the percentage of inexplicable unknowns had dropped to about 14%. The head of SEPRA, Dr. Jean-Jacques Velasco, found the evidence of extraterrestrial origins so convincing in these remaining unknowns, that he wrote a book about it in 2005.[33]

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, your post refutes nothing. It's your opinion devoid of anything to support what you're saying.

You talked about Edgar Mitchell. You said:

His stories are all 2nd and 3rd hand. What he said about aliens and UFOs was his belief.

Again, no context at all. This is where pseudoskeptics make their biggest mistake. They don't add a little common sense to the equation. What Edgar Mitchell said wasn't just some belief in a vaccum. It was a belief based on people he talked to.

Edgar Mitchell wasn't just anyone from off the streets. He could call up Members of the Joint Chiefs and get them on the phone. So you can't weigh Edgar Mitchell's opinion the same as you weight an opinion from a guy on the street who says the same thing. Mitchell talks to high ranking intelligence Officers and Military Veterans. He could call the President and talk to him, you can't. So you have to take this into account when weighing what he's saying.

Here's a video of a Pilot in Oregon that sees these orbs. These look almost exactly like the ones I saw. Like I said extraterrestrial visitation is the best explanation and if you blindly reject the best explanation then U.F.O.'s remain unidentified. Some of them can even be inorganic life forms that form from cosmic dust.

Intriguing new evidence of lifelike structures that form from inorganic substances in space have just been revealed. The findings hint at the possibility that life beyond earth may not necessarily use carbon-based molecules as its building blocks. They also point to a possible new explanation for the origin of life on earth.

Could extraterrestrial life be made of corkscrew-shaped particles of interstellar dust? Intriguing new evidence of life-like structures that form from inorganic substances in space have been revealed in the New Journal of Physics. The findings hint at the possibility that life beyond earth may not necessarily use carbon-based molecules as its building blocks. They also point to a possible new explanation for the origin of life on earth.

Life on earth is organic. It is composed of organic molecules, which are simply the compounds of carbon, excluding carbonates and carbon dioxide. The idea that particles of inorganic dust may take on a life of their own is nothing short of alien, going beyond the silicon-based life forms favoured by some science fiction stories.

Now, an international team has discovered that under the right conditions, particles of inorganic dust can become organised into helical structures. These structures can then interact with each other in ways that are usually associated with organic compounds and life itself.

V.N. Tsytovich of the General Physics Institute, Russian Academy of Science, in Moscow, working with colleagues there and at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany and the University of Sydney, Australia, has studied the behaviour of complex mixtures of inorganic materials in a plasma. Plasma is essentially the fourth state of matter beyond solid, liquid and gas, in which electrons are torn from atoms leaving behind a miasma of charged particles.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Isn't it strange that U.F.O.'s have remained unidentified with reports dating back to Ancient Egypt? Where's the explanations for these objects? Why are these objects strongly associated with Aliens and there isn't more non-prosaic explanations in peer reviewed journals?

originally posted by: neoholographic
Here's a video of a Pilot in Oregon that sees these orbs. These look almost exactly like the ones I saw. Like I said extraterrestrial visitation is the best explanation and if you blindly reject the best explanation then U.F.O.'s remain unidentified. Some of them can even be inorganic life forms that form from cosmic dust.

This is the perfect example of why eyewitnesses can't be trusted.

As Larry Castro said in the video comments, the so called "orbs" appear to be reflections and it seems totally bizarre to jump to conclusions about aliens for a video that doesn't even appear to show a UFO. Mirages are not hallucinations, they can actually be seen and recorded by camera as in this case but it looks exactly like mirages to me. The Oldfield UFO case was a much more impressive mirage though. I don't see a single unidentified flying object anywhere in this video, so if there is one I'm missing you'll have to point out where it is, but if you think the reflections are UFOs, they are not, they are reflections.

This by the way is also another reason we need pics and videos to confirm sightings, so this video is a great answer to the topic of this thread, an example of how eyewitnesses misinterpret their sensory input. Military and commercial pilots are not exempt from such misperception, in fact J Allen Hynek noted they have a higher than average misperception rate when reporting UFOs, one of the highest of all the occupations he analyzed.