Yukon UFO "Mothership" Incident: December 11th, 1996

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: JimOberg

yup same thing as before theres no way that what the witnesses described was an re-entry

Necro-bump here but I had to reply to that comment. It's an all too common error to place too much trust in eyewitness accounts. There are innocent people being released from prison based on DNA evidence which shows they were wrongly convicted largely based on eyewitness accounts which were wrong.

Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
"Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate".

Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?

So if I can interpret your comment to mean that if what the witnesses saw was a re-entry but described something that doesn't seem much to you like a re-entry, then we could say their accounts are shockingly inaccurate. The science says, eyewitness testimony all too often shockingly inaccurate, so where does that leave us?

The science would tell us to discount what the witnesses say in favor of harder evidence which is less likely to be shockingly inaccurate, like orbital plots for example. Gradually, attorneys and judges have become more aware of the potential for eyewitness testimony to be shockingly inaccurate, so that now it's usually not possible to gain a conviction for a serious crime based on eyewitness testimony alone.