UFO Frustration Rant.

[badeskov]

PA,

Please allow myself to interject myself here.

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).

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

...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]

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..)

..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]

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]

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.

[S2F]

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]

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.

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!

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?

Surely you can't disagree with that.

Don't be too sure.

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]

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.

[booNyzarC]

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.

It depends on more than just what memories we are talking about. It depends on a variety of factors. The length of the sighting. The capacity of the witness to see all of the details. The ability of the witness's mind to accurately retain the memories. The resilience of the witness against suggestions and fabrications; whether intentional or not. The communication abilities of the witness to describe the memories accurately. And many more things.

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

I'd prefer 'thanks'... and if you opt for the Ganges jump I'll tell you to bite me.

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?

I don't remember what we were wearing at the time. I wasn't wearing shoes. She didn't have her glasses on. Beyond that, I can't tell you. I don't even remember the details of the kite at this point. My recollection is that it was bobbing up and down like a flying jellyfish. It was a dark blob against the dusky sky. I don't even remember the time of year. I could look it up though because I reported it here on the forum within a very short time frame. It wasn't raining. That's all I got right now.

Don't be too sure.

I'm sure that I'm right. I'm not sure that you agree with me. But I do hope that you agree with me, or that you can show me why I shouldn't be sure about being right. I'll accept either.

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?

You don't need anything from me. That isn't the core point at all. And yet that really is the point that I'm making...

The point is that not everyone has your memory retention and there is no way for any of us to know one way or the other. If we take a witness statement solely on their word and interpret their descriptions as accurate, we could very easily be assuming something that is completely false right off the bat. Conversely it could be accurate, but if we make that assumption we are still just making an assumption.

[S2F]

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.

So I crack a (admittedly lame) joke and you get all serious on me? Fine! I'll just pretend that people who have personally witnessed your sense of humor are deluded! </joke>

[booNyzarC]

So I crack a (admittedly lame) joke and you get all serious on me? Fine! I'll just pretend that people who have personally witnessed your sense of humor are deluded! </joke>

Sense? Humor? You must have me confused with someone else...

[lost_shaman]

It depends on more than just what memories we are talking about. It depends on a variety of factors. The length of the sighting. The capacity of the witness to see all of the details. The ability of the witness's mind to accurately retain the memories. The resilience of the witness against suggestions and fabrications; whether intentional or not. The communication abilities of the witness to describe the memories accurately. And many more things.

Hey booN,

I'd like to see memory studies that look at UFO sightings not crimes.

I'd prefer 'thanks'... and if you opt for the Ganges jump I'll tell you to bite me.

Lol!

I don't remember what we were wearing at the time. I wasn't wearing shoes. She didn't have her glasses on. Beyond that, I can't tell you. I don't even remember the details of the kite at this point. My recollection is that it was bobbing up and down like a flying jellyfish. It was a dark blob against the dusky sky. I don't even remember the time of year. I could look it up though because I reported it here on the forum within a very short time frame. It wasn't raining. That's all I got right now.

A lot of this I wouldn't expect you to remember because what you were wearing doesn't mean anything as per the sighting.

I'm sure that I'm right. I'm not sure that you agree with me. But I do hope that you agree with me, or that you can show me why I shouldn't be sure about being right. I'll accept either.

You don't need anything from me. That isn't the core point at all. And yet that really is the point that I'm making...

The point is that not everyone has your memory retention and there is no way for any of us to know one way or the other. If we take a witness statement solely on their word and interpret their descriptions as accurate, we could very easily be assuming something that is completely false right off the bat. Conversely it could be accurate, but if we make that assumption we are still just making an assumption.

I guess I disagreee to an extent. How many people who report Celestial events have it so wrong that you must ignore them?

[WhyDontYouBeliEveMe]

i dont get it.

some of you guys. are actually saying i THINK they are real, but... you need prove to BELIEVE .?

\and after a long search . you just simple give up ? because of some hoaxes ?

just be like me .! dont waste your time trying to PROVE .you simple cant.. and above all dont THINK. because if you do . you ll go crazy .. its just to much for our mind.

the only thing you need to do is TO BELIEVE.

and remember you are not the only 1 .. that knows .. the truth .

[ChrLzs]

LS, I don't think our thoughts are that much different on this, but a few minor points..

The fallibility of our observations/perceptions and memories, and more importantly the ability of our minds to alter memories as time progresses, depends on numerous factors and I don't think the nature of the event is particularly important, except as it pertains to the stress/excitement it may have presented, and/or whether it is something we are likely to want to brag about vs. keep to ourselves.

And a crime involves - an actual crime, a murder weapon, recognisable people, motives, etc.. Whereas a UFO sighting involves just seeing something in the sky that is unexplainable - there is nothing tangible for our minds to relate/attach the information to.

Speaking for myself, immodestly I would claim to have extremely good eyesight (when wearing my spec's!), a very good knowledge of the day and night sky and all the known things that are in it - I live near a helicopter-monitored freeway and between two very large airports and spend a lot of time star-gazing and satellite-watching. That should make me an excellent observer. And yet I've been tricked, quite comprehensively, by things I either couldn't identify at all initially, or things I wrongly (but confidently) identified at first, and then found to be something quite different... Plus, if I'm perfectly honest I am sure that some of my childhood 'memories' (including one ufo) have been embellished/changed with time (and retelling), and that the *real* imagery may not have been much like what I now 'clearly' remember. And then there was an uncle of mine who was notorious for making up stories from the war - and yet he very fervently believed them..

So.. I still think witness testimony is highly over-rated..

To WDYBM, can I have your email address*? I have some great email offers for you - believe me...

{*joking, in case it isn't obvious..}

Edited April 22, 2012 by Chrlzs

[DONTEATUS]

I have no fallibility on memory,nor lack of ability to discern what I saw,nor the ablilty to pass on what I saw !

And I have no need to ever worry that anyone believes what I saw. It is afterall ,Something that Matters only to me . YOu can just go out and fine E.T on your own ! Good luck,ANd even more Good luck telling others about it !

[badeskov]

i dont get it.

some of you guys. are actually saying i THINK they are real, but... you need prove to BELIEVE .?

\and after a long search . you just simple give up ? because of some hoaxes ?

I don't think that was what was said. If there was actual proof there would be no need to believe - we would know. The difference is huge.

I, for one, believe that ET is out there in many shapes, forms and colors. I do not, however, believe that they are here or have ever been. But I still want to know, thus I require evidence when ET visitation is postulated.

just be like me .! dont waste your time trying to PROVE .you simple cant.. and above all dont THINK. because if you do . you ll go crazy .. its just to much for our mind.

the only thing you need to do is TO BELIEVE.

If you are satisfied with just believing and not knowing that is your prerogative. I cannot do that. For instance, I would like to believe that I am rich, but my belief would never change the fact that I am not rich. Nor would my disbelief in ET visitation change whether it is factual or not.

and remember you are not the only 1 .. that knows .. the truth .

What truth?

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

some well said points there Badeskov,

Thanks quillius

Cheers,

Badeskov

[booNyzarC]

Hey booN,

I'd like to see memory studies that look at UFO sightings not crimes.

I hear you on that one, I would too.

I think you've seen the closest thing to this that I've ever found, which was the Morristown Hoax. Found is the wrong word though. Hazzard pointed this out in the BE thread if memory serves. To me this hoax illustrates the relevant points and I documented those points in a thread that I'm sure you recall. I'd track down the reference but I'm pretty occupied with something else at the moment.

A lot of this I wouldn't expect you to remember because what you were wearing doesn't mean anything as per the sighting.

True enough.

I guess I disagreee to an extent. How many people who report Celestial events have it so wrong that you must ignore them?

I'm not saying that we should ignore them. I'm only saying that these reports need to be taken with a huge grain of salt because you simply can't rely on them to be completely accurate. Are some of them accurate? Most certainly. Are all of them? Most certainly not. But how do you tell the difference?

[psyche101]

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.

Hi Lost Shaman

I would consider a celestial event quite different in that the time frame for celestial events tends to be decent in most cases. Comets, even solar flares can last for hours and days at a a time giving one opportunity to study, but in most cases, UFO sightings are but fleeting glimpses in most cases.

Good to see you around.

Cheers.

[lost_shaman]

LS, I don't think our thoughts are that much different on this, but a few minor points..

The fallibility of our observations/perceptions and memories, and more importantly the ability of our minds to alter memories as time progresses, depends on numerous factors and I don't think the nature of the event is particularly important, except as it pertains to the stress/excitement it may have presented, and/or whether it is something we are likely to want to brag about vs. keep to ourselves.

Hey Chrlzs,

So if time is a factor, then what if we just look at fresh memories of recent events? Would UFO sighting reports that are fresh be fundamentally different than those reported 5 years after the sighting? If they are... that would be an interesting thing to know.

And a crime involves - an actual crime, a murder weapon, recognisable people, motives, etc.. Whereas a UFO sighting involves just seeing something in the sky that is unexplainable - there is nothing tangible for our minds to relate/attach the information to.

But I'd argue that is why memories of 'crime' are so unrelaible. A witness doesn't know the motivation of a criminal in a randon act, such a witness has multiple oppertunities to create a 'False Memory' of a weapon or of people involved or what they were wearing BUT a UFO sighting is quite simplistic in comparison and doesn't offer so many 'oppertunities' for the creation of 'False Memories'. Would you agree to that?

Speaking for myself, immodestly I would claim to have extremely good eyesight (when wearing my spec's!), a very good knowledge of the day and night sky and all the known things that are in it - I live near a helicopter-monitored freeway and between two very large airports and spend a lot of time star-gazing and satellite-watching. That should make me an excellent observer. And yet I've been tricked, quite comprehensively, by things I either couldn't identify at all initially, or things I wrongly (but confidently) identified at first, and then found to be something quite different...

Yes, well that makes you a person like myself although I'm not old enough to need glasses yet.

And yes, nature can trick people of course that is true with or without UFO sightings, the latter seems to be fundamentally different i.e. a portion of the 'good faith' reports seem to represent some unknown or unexplained phenomena.

Plus, if I'm perfectly honest I am sure that some of my childhood 'memories' (including one ufo) have been embellished/changed with time (and retelling), and that the *real* imagery may not have been much like what I now 'clearly' remember. And then there was an uncle of mine who was notorious for making up stories from the war - and yet he very fervently believed them..

So.. I still think witness testimony is highly over-rated..

Well most people who report UFO sightings are not reporting childhood memories but rather events witnessed relatively recently.

[ChrLzs]

So if time is a factor, then what if we just look at fresh memories of recent events? Would UFO sighting reports that are fresh be fundamentally different than those reported 5 years after the sighting? If they are... that would be an interesting thing to know.

I'm being lazy with links, but yes, they will change - I'll see if I can find some articles that don't have to be paid for..

But I'd argue that is why memories of 'crime' are so unrelaible.

Do you mean more unreliable than UFO sightings? I'm not sure how you could quantify that.

A witness doesn't know the motivation of a criminal in a randon act, such a witness has multiple oppertunities to create a 'False Memory' of a weapon or of people involved or what they were wearing BUT a UFO sighting is quite simplistic in comparison and doesn't offer so many 'oppertunities' for the creation of 'False Memories'. Would you agree to that?

My problem is the bit in bold.. For any *simple* UFO sighting, eg a strange light in the sky, we really have't got anything of much use - it's just a light in the sky we can't easily explain. Maybe the speed/angles might be important, but without knowing distance, those aren't much use either. So you're comparing a simple apple with the theft of a truckload of oranges.. If however it is a Rendlesham-type incident where a witness reports a light in the sky, then the landing, then he goes up and touches it or watches the alien come out.. - it's a whole different ball game and of course lots of other issues like motivations for falsifying the story need to be considered. In exactly the same way as happens with a major publicised crime - the authorities may have to deal with more than one person saying "I did it!"...

And yes, nature can trick people of course that is true with or without UFO sightings, the latter seems to be fundamentally different i.e. a portion of the 'good faith' reports seem to represent some unknown or unexplained phenomena.

No problem with that - there are many genuine UFO sightings (although there are a LOT more than can be explained and therefore should be dismissed). But then I am using the dictionary definition.

Well most people who report UFO sightings are not reporting childhood memories but rather events witnessed relatively recently.

I dunno about that! Watching this board, there are a few folks who seem to be into heavy duty recycling, if you get my drift..

[Ashotep]

I wish they would get rock solid proof UFO/Aliens have been here.

[booNyzarC]

I wish they would get rock solid proof UFO/Aliens have been here.

I wish I could win the lottery.