77 replies to this topic

[Chrlzs]

ufoscan, on 18 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

But would someone who did film a "real" UFO be inclined to add it to the hundreds of CGI fakes or misidentifications already present on YouTube ?
They might prefer just keeping it to themselves to avoid the ridicule and the endless questions.
...
These people, you will never hear about in the news or on the internet.  They will never tell their experiences publicly.

While I understand where you are coming from, I'm not sure I sympathise...  Plus, I think this can be a copout, especially given the ease of being anonymous on the Interwebz..  There is nothing stopping anyone posting a video using an anonymous account, and posting the story at forums like these.  And I would have to observe that sightings *usually* get a pretty fair and easy run, if:

1. The poster is sensible, provides information (and no, that info does not have to identify them or their precise location!), and listens to opinions.

2. The poster doesn't consider their sighting as some sort of unquestionable truth, or definitive evidence for ET, or the 'Best ever..', and then get all upset when the viewers don't seem to share their enthusiasm..

So yes, people's 'sightings' are sometimes attacked vigorously, but let's face it, it depends on the nature of the sighting and the forum - and a lot of the flack happens when they respond badly to criticism.  I've seen many examples of sightings that have been sensibly discussed/debated, where the poster happily engaged with us 'evil debunkers' and accepted the questioning and investigation in the knowledge that it was a quest for truth/explanation, rather than an attack on their 'baby'..  In several cases I have assisted behind the scenes to do some deeper analysis to help - if they are willing to back up their sighting, so am I willing to help, even though the explanations are almost always prosaic - you never know when a decent one might appear..

Yes, there are many anecdotes out there.
(and.. that's largely because there are many things up in the sky and as observers, we are all pretty crappy at it (myself included), yet easily impressed)

So .. No, the plural of anecdote is not data (let alone evidence, or proof, or wisdom..)

I agree that:

Quote

they are a more interesting alternative to waiting for a YouTube uploader to actually put up a legitimate UFO clip.

and..

Quote

My point here is that video or photography was never, is not and will never be proof in itself - very simply because it is too easy to fake such data.

Absolutely!!  And I have often made the point here that I think the new ability to easily/convincingly/cheaply hoax video footage is *great*.  At last it is becoming clear that it isn't all about the images - it's what actually happened that is important, and that means looking in great detail at the *story* of the sighting, and other things like corroboration.

If the person posts the imagery and runs for it, or doesn't engage properly in any discussions, or is posting someone else's imagery where the same applies... it's just another anecdote, worth exactly what I paid for it.

[Paranoid Android]

psyche101, on 18 April 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

I would agree with you. Whilst character can play a role in determining one's integrity, that particular instance is not doing such at all, that is just misusing an example to help one feel satisfied that they have an answer

That's what a lot of this type of discussion comes down to - proving oneself right and others wrong.  Very few people actually care about any actual truth.  To be fair, the same can be said for both sides, whether they be believer or sceptic.  The difference is, in terms of aliens/bigfoot/whatever, the sceptics outnumber the believers by about a thousand to one.  That means that those who "believe" are going to be bombarded with disagreements, while those who are sceptics may only receive a mild smattering of arguments.  

That's not a criticism, and I don't necessarily believe that aliens have visited earth and are conducting secret experiments on some unsuspecting people.  I'm just sharing my observations

~ Regards,

[Paranoid Android]

Night Walker, on 19 April 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

Paranoid Android - Would you be willing to start a new thread on this in the Cryptozoology section?

This video is widely considered to be a hoax yet there remains that element of doubt. There is bugger-all information about this video available online so an open discussion with information provided by someone who was actually there would be greatly interesting and educational.

I did start a thread on this.  Several years ago (2007-2008, not sure exactly when).  I didn't mention my own involvement in that event in order to avoid any claims of bias, but the general consensus was that it was a Chewbacca costume (and I am an admitted Star Wars buff, I just didn't think it looked very much like Chewie at all).  I'm not sure there's really any point in going over it again, chances are the answers will still be "Hey, it's Chewbacca".  My point in sharing wasn't really to bring up Bigfoot.  Maybe my friends hoaxed it, maybe they didn't.  My point was that if a claim is put out there then every little statement made about that is put up to intense scrutiny, and even the slightest misstep in speech is going to lead to claims of lies, hoaxes, and plain falsehoods.  If you like though, I will start a thread about it again, just ask.  I don't normally hang around that section of the forum, it's just something I shared about my past

~ Regards,

[psyche101]

Paranoid Android, on 19 April 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

That's what a lot of this type of discussion comes down to - proving oneself right and others wrong.  Very few people actually care about any actual truth.  To be fair, the same can be said for both sides, whether they be believer or sceptic.  The difference is, in terms of aliens/bigfoot/whatever, the sceptics outnumber the believers by about a thousand to one.  That means that those who "believe" are going to be bombarded with disagreements, while those who are sceptics may only receive a mild smattering of arguments.  

That's not a criticism, and I don't necessarily believe that aliens have visited earth and are conducting secret experiments on some unsuspecting people.  I'm just sharing my observations

~ Regards,

I guess that would come down to the claim though wouldn't it? If a person has an experience out of the ordinary, it depends on what that person relays. If a person says, I just saw a "light in the sky with erratic movement" or "I just saw what looked like a very tall robust person" I think that there would be somewhere to go, and a general reaction might be more subtle, but when people come out and say "I just saw an alien spaceship" or "I just had an encounter with Bigfoot now I know he is real" People are bound to react with skepticism and ask for some level of proof. There are far too many who are willing to make complete determinations from fleeting glimpses. Whilst there is a contingent of people wo are completely genuine with an "I do not know what that was" there are also the David Ickes and Billy MIers of the world who seem to get their kicks from fooling the general public. These people ruin it for everyone I always felt. I agree the same can be said for both sides, a zealous outlook can only end in one way I feel.

[Night Walker]

Paranoid Android, on 19 April 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

I did start a thread on this.  Several years ago (2007-2008, not sure exactly when).  I didn't mention my own involvement in that event in order to avoid any claims of bias
…
If you like though, I will start a thread about it again, just ask.  I don't normally hang around that section of the forum, it's just something I shared about my past

Is this it? Australian Yeti

Stuff potential claims of bias – you were there! Your own involvement in and understanding of the case could provide some valuable insights. You seem equally open to the possibility that it was a hoax as you are to it being genuine rather than the typical response: ”There’s NO WAY my friends would have hoaxed it!” which is a positive sign.

Please do start a new thread about it. I’d be very interested in your perspective on this case and I’ll see if I can dig up further information about it. The link provided by the Sasquatch Detective no longer works: Katoomba, NSW, video clip investigation

[badeskov]

PA,

Please allow myself to interject myself here.

Paranoid Android, on 19 April 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

That's what a lot of this type of discussion comes down to - proving oneself right and others wrong.  Very few people actually care about any actual truth.

I would actually respectfully disagree with that sentiment. My humble opinion is that in UFO cases it is very hard to find evidence for whatever a given sighting/tracking/story was and thus it boils down to discussing evidence of secondary or tertiary nature. In the end I think most actually want to find the truth (whatever it might be) rather than having to be right by all means (although people like that exist as well).

Quote

To be fair, the same can be said for both sides, whether they be believer or sceptic.

This I have said before, but I rather do not like those stamps that we get "blessed" with. Personally, I find that at UM we have a very broad field of people that I would neither call skeptics nor believers. We have people that do not believe ET visitation is happening and are skeptical of any evidence put forth, and similarly you will have people that believe ET visitation is happening, but are skeptical of the evidence put forth nonetheless. And then you have the cynics and the credulous believers on the outside.

Quote

The difference is, in terms of aliens/bigfoot/whatever, the sceptics outnumber the believers by about a thousand to one.  That means that those who "believe" are going to be bombarded with disagreements, while those who are sceptics may only receive a mild smattering of arguments.  

This, again, I am not sure I agree with. I think you will find that on subjects that are pretty "far out" so to speak, yeah, those skeptical only receive a mild smattering of arguments simply because the vast majority (including those believing in ET visitation)  find themselves on the skeptical side and actually agree with what is argued from that point of view. However, looking at the Best evidence thread and numerous other threads I find there has been a healthy debate with a lot of good arguments from both sides and I certainly do not find that there was only a mild smattering of either side.  

Quote

That's not a criticism, and I don't necessarily believe that aliens have visited earth and are conducting secret experiments on some unsuspecting people.  I'm just sharing my observations

Likewise

Cheers,
Badeskov

[quillius]

badeskov, on 20 April 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

This I have said before, but I rather do not like those stamps that we get "blessed" with. Personally, I find that at UM we have a very broad field of people that I would neither call skeptics nor believers. We have people that do not believe ET visitation is happening and are skeptical of any evidence put forth, and similarly you will have people that believe ET visitation is happening, but are skeptical of the evidence put forth nonetheless. And then you have the cynics and the credulous believers on the outside.




This, again, I am not sure I agree with. I think you will find that on subjects that are pretty "far out" so to speak, yeah, those skeptical only receive a mild smattering of arguments simply because the vast majority (including those believing in ET visitation)  find themselves on the skeptical side and actually agree with what is argued from that point of view. However, looking at the Best evidence thread and numerous other threads I find there has been a healthy debate with a lot of good arguments from both sides and I certainly do not find that there was only a mild smattering of either side.  



Cheers,
Badeskov

some well said points there Badeskov,  

[ufoscan]

Chrlzs, on 19 April 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

While I understand where you are coming from, I'm not sure I sympathise...  Plus, I think this can be a copout, especially given the ease of being anonymous on the Interwebz..

What you may be missing is that the people I am talking about don't even see the point in starting to spend time posting on the internet.  They had a strange experience, one they know they would get ridiculed about if they told it, so they keep it to themselves.  It's only when one talks about the subject in social circles that they may approach you with their story.

And for me, an anonymous post doesn't do much more than provide a story.  It's not the same as having direct interaction with the witness where one can get a better sense of their personality and honesty.

In my case, some of the people that appproached me have been long time friends and even family.

Chrlzs, on 19 April 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

There is nothing stopping anyone posting a video using an anonymous account, and posting the story at forums like these.

Well, the problem is that there are already hundreds of these on YouTube and most of them are obvious fake.  It's pretty hard now to sift through all these in an attempt to find the few legitimate ones.  But it's also rather discouraging for anyone that did shoot genuine footage to just put it up there with all the hoaxes and expect that people will believe that "this one is real".  Many people simply don't care for that kind of attention or ridicule...

[ufoscan]

Paranoid Android, on 18 April 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

...Nevertheless, some major debunker dude came and interviewed them about it.  Every time a story sounded somewhat suspect, he took it as "contradiction" and proof of a hoax.  For example, one question asked him where his wife was, he said she was inside "preparing for dinner".  In another sentence, he told them that his wife was "waiting for the delivery driver to bring dinner".  Well, there's one definite lie - was she preparing dinner or waiting for it to be delivered.  This was one reason why he said it was an obvious hoax.

I was there, she was doing both.  She (and I) were preparing for dinner, setting out plates and cutlery and cooking the mulled wine.  We were also waiting for the delivery driver.  But debunkers will take any and every minor point, scrutinise it in detail and unless the things are a perfect match it was an obvious hoax.  

If I filmed something I couldn't explain, if I put it on youtube and some debunker guy came to me, would I want that kind of exposure, to have every innocuous sentence scrutinised and seeming contradictions pointed out to discredit me?  I don't know, I've never been in that spot, but it is a bit of a deterrent.  

There are two types of debunkers:  The ones that think there's nothing to UFOs (or any type of unusual or paranormal phenomena) and want at all costs to discredit everything... and there are those that try to remain objective and look at all facets of a case.

I haven't seen the clip you mention, but I can understand the skepticism when there appears to be contradictions.  The Rendlesham case for example.  I researched it for many years and I feel the witnesses look credible and believeable, but I keep coming across contradictions that I have a hard time ignoring...

[Chrlzs]

ufoscan, on 20 April 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

There are two types of debunkers:  The ones that think there's nothing to UFOs (or any type of unusual or paranormal phenomena) and want at all costs to discredit everything... and there are those that try to remain objective and look at all facets of a case.

No, there aren't just two types - it's not black or white - there is a huge range of styles, abilities and attitudes, spread over a wide range of greys (pun unintended..)

Quote

..I feel the witnesses look credible and believeable, but I keep coming across contradictions that I have a hard time ignoring...

I don't know why this is such a problem.  People PERCEIVE things - they do not RECORD them.  Apart from the entirely different way that they might perceive the initial event (assuming there was one) as stories get told they change, get embellished.. and over time, the teller changes their beliefs.  They are not lying - what they say may be perfectly true as far as what their brain now has stored as a memory.

That's why anecdotal evidence is not worth much at all - I know it sounds harsh, but if it can't be verified or repeated - it's just a story..

[lost_shaman]

Chrlzs, on 21 April 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

I don't know why this is such a problem.  People PERCEIVE things - they do not RECORD them.  Apart from the entirely different way that they might perceive the initial event (assuming there was one) as stories get told they change, get embellished.. and over time, the teller changes their beliefs.  They are not lying - what they say may be perfectly true as far as what their brain now has stored as a memory.

That's why anecdotal evidence is not worth much at all - I know it sounds harsh, but if it can't be verified or repeated - it's just a story..

Hey Chrlzs,

I have a slight beef with painting all memories in such a light. What you're saying is true however many of the studies that show this were dealing with witness memories of crimes that involved remembering things largely having to do with people and their actions and what those people where wearing or what they looked like. Here we are talking about UFO sightings which are more like memories of interesting celestial events than 'crimes' that involve strangers. I think there are huge differences between the two types of memories and that it is also true that different events are stored and recalled in different ways. Therefore it is likely inaccurate so describe a memory of a UFO sighting in the same way we talk about memories of a crime.

It's somewhat of a pet peev of mine, I'd like to see how memories of celestial events hold up over time. I think they would be more accurate than say memories of 'crimes' that happen unexpectedly in front of witnesses and involve strangers and victims and the ability to accurately remember what different people are wearing.

[booNyzarC]

lost_shaman, on 22 April 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

Hey Chrlzs,

I have a slight beef with painting all memories in such a light. What you're saying is true however many of the studies that show this were dealing with witness memories of crimes that involved remembering things largely having to do with people and their actions and what those people where wearing or what they looked like. Here we are talking about UFO sightings which are more like memories of interesting celestial events than 'crimes' that involve strangers. I think there are huge differences between the two types of memories and that it is also true that different events are stored and recalled in different ways. Therefore it is likely inaccurate so describe a memory of a UFO sighting in the same way we talk about memories of a crime.

It's somewhat of a pet peev of mine, I'd like to see how memories of celestial events hold up over time. I think they would be more accurate than say memories of 'crimes' that happen unexpectedly in front of witnesses and involve strangers and victims and the ability to accurately remember what different people are wearing.

Memory is fallible.  Whether we are talking about memory of crimes or of UFO sightings (or anything else), it is still memory; and it is still fallible.

I think your biggest beef with this is that you still remember your sighting with crystal clarity, or at least you are under the impression that you do.  And you may be right regarding your own recollection.  I certainly don't claim to know one way or the other.  My inclination is to believe that you do recall that event with great precision because you do have an uncommonly strong attention for detail coupled with a sharp analytical mind.

Whether you remember every finite piece of that event with perfect clarity isn't the point at hand though.  Not everyone does remember like that.  A great many, in fact, will report completely delusional fantasies as realities, and some are willing to outright lie.  And then there are those who simply don't see the whole thing and therefore perceive something which isn't even close to what really transpired.

Surely you can't disagree with that.

As such, how is anyone to know who is remembering accurately and who isn't?  How is anyone to know whether certain details have been grossly embellished while others completely ignored?  Unless the event is actually recorded on camera there is no way to verify it; and even then there isn't a guarantee.

Hope that makes sense.

Cheers mate.  I've missed you man.

[Slave2Fate]

booNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 02:13 AM, said:

Unless the event is actually recorded on camera there is no way to verify it; and even then there isn't a guarantee.

If it was recorded on camera we wouldn't need to rely on memories of the event.

Nit. Picked.   

[lost_shaman]

booNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 02:13 AM, said:

Memory is fallible.  Whether we are talking about memory of crimes or of UFO sightings (or anything else), it is still memory; and it is still fallible.

Hey booN,

I don't disagree per se, but my point would be that it depends upon what memories we are talking about. Some are going to be much more accurate than others.

booNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 02:13 AM, said:

I think your biggest beef with this is that you still remember your sighting with crystal clarity, or at least you are under the impression that you do.  And you may be right regarding your own recollection.  I certainly don't claim to know one way or the other.  My inclination is to believe that you do recall that event with great precision because you do have an uncommonly strong attention for detail coupled with a sharp analytical mind.

Not sure whether to say 'thanks' or tell you to jump in the Ganges!

booNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 02:13 AM, said:

Whether you remember every finite piece of that event with perfect clarity isn't the point at hand though.  Not everyone does remember like that.  A great many, in fact, will report completely delusional fantasies as realities, and some are willing to outright lie.  And then there are those who simply don't see the whole thing and therefore perceive something which isn't even close to what really transpired.

Ok, but most people are not delusional. Let me ask you, do you still remember the 'Kite' that you thought was a UFO? If so, do you remember what you and your GF where 'wearing' at the time?

booNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 02:13 AM, said:

Surely you can't disagree with that.

Don't be too sure.

booNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 02:13 AM, said:

As such, how is anyone to know who is remembering accurately and who isn't?  How is anyone to know whether certain details have been grossly embellished while others completely ignored?  Unless the event is actually recorded on camera there is no way to verify it; and even then there isn't a guarantee.

Hope that makes sense.

Cheers mate.  I've missed you man.

Thanks booN,I enjoy discussing these topics with you as well.

Ok, let me ask you this... I've seen a UFO, so do I need you to believe my sighting in order to wonder what it was I witnessed years ago?

[booNyzarC]

Slave2Fate, on 22 April 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

If it was recorded on camera we wouldn't need to rely on memories of the event.

Nit. Picked.   

That all depends on the quality of the camera and the skill of the videographer.  Look at the 10 PM Phoenix Lights videos as an example.  A lot of people still believe that was an alien visitation even though it was nothing more than flares.