Roswell officer speaks from the grave

[Bonecrusher]

Psyche,mate

I think we have to agree to disagree here.

You are truly a scholar on the UFO subject and I hasten to add a gentleman.

Your one of the reasons I generally don't scuff and deride debunkers and skeptics.

You provided a compelling case and addressed every point perfectly.

However there's still a teeny-weeny glimmer of doubt in my eyes about the official story.

Despite all this I've still got a limit of belief when it comes to certain incidents.

[quillius]

Mate, if you want to debate Roswell, I am sure I can accomodate you rather well

Psyche,mate

I think we have to agree to disagree here.

You are truly a scholar on the UFO subject and I hasten to add a gentleman.

Your one of the reasons I generally don't scuff and deride debunkers and skeptics.

You provided a compelling case and addressed every point perfectly.

However there's still a teeny-weeny glimmer of doubt in my eyes about the official story.

Despite all this I've still got a limit of belief when it comes to certain incidents.

wise choice me thinks walnut.....I wouldnt fancy my chances against Psyche on this one

I do agree with your post with regards to doubt in the official story although mine is far more than a teeny weeny glimmer.......having said that doesnt make ET the next and/or only viable alternative, even if it is my prefered choice.

[Quaentum]

Personally I would need to see something more along the Walter Haut claims to make it valid for me. I tried listening to the MP3 but the volume was so low I couldn't make out anything.

Then there is this site http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Haut.html#anchor_8 Towards the bottom of the page you will see his 2002 affidavit followed by his 1993 affidavit. The differences in the affidavits are a problem for me.

Then there are sections like this one from the 2002 affidavit:

(11) By the time the news release hit the wire services, my office was inundated with phone calls from around the world. Messages stacked up on my desk, and rather than deal with the media concern, Col Blanchard suggested that I go home and "hide out."

The bold part is of concern. Having been in the military, if something comes up that needs to be dealt with, your superiors do not tell you to go home and hide. They tell you to deal with it.

[quillius]

The bold part is of concern. Having been in the military, if something comes up that needs to be dealt with, your superiors do not tell you to go home and hide. They tell you to deal with it.

is it possible that standard protocol is not the right path with something so ....monumental.

or how do you deal with media concern when the 'concern' is real...umm well we caught an alien but dont worry folks go back to bed.....its ummm.....ok...we think....its ok....

[synchronomy]

Personally I would need to see something more along the Walter Haut claims to make it valid for me. I tried listening to the MP3 but the volume was so low I couldn't make out anything.

Then there is this site http://roswellproof....t.html#anchor_8 Towards the bottom of the page you will see his 2002 affidavit followed by his 1993 affidavit. The differences in the affidavits are a problem for me.

Then there are sections like this one from the 2002 affidavit:

The bold part is of concern. Having been in the military, if something comes up that needs to be dealt with, your superiors do not tell you to go home and hide. They tell you to deal with it.

I agree. Maybe his memory of the exact wording has been lost.

Perhaps Col Blanchard was implying, "You screwed up. It's out of your hands, I will deal with it"

I still think the initial report stating they had recovered a flying saucer was to cover up the Mogul crash by using the newly coined term "flying saucer" thinking it would not attract media attention. Turned out that backfired so they made a more believable tale about a weather balloon.

Edited December 11, 2012 by synchronomy

[Bonecrusher]

wise choice me thinks walnut.....I wouldnt fancy my chances against Psyche on this one

I do agree with your post with regards to doubt in the official story although mine is far more than a teeny weeny glimmer.......having said that doesnt make ET the next and/or only viable alternative, even if it is my prefered choice.

Let's just say I'm a fence-sitter but with one eye on the truth.

I'm not a fully-fledged member of the woo-woo club yet.

However the Roswell thing is still shrouded in mystery.

It continues to haunt discussion boards long after the fact.

This is a prime example of it's continuing fascination with the masses.

[tipotep]

Mate, is that not exactly what I said in the first instance?

LINK

Which is a convincing number, How many people are still sitting in jail wrongfully convicted ny eyewitness testimony? Out of all the cases that were convicted by eyewitness testimony, those that have been reinvestigated with DNA evidence have proven that 75% of eyewitnesses in these cases were completely incorrect i the first instance.

Mate, I think one is too many. And considering what happens when we do have the opportunity to admit more evidence, then you surely have far more faith in testimony than I.

Its not what you did say , it's what you don’t ....

Quillius summed up what I was trying to explain .........

Morning mate, What I am driving at here is that it is not 75% of people convicted by eyewitness testimony but 75% of those found to be wrongly convicted.....Yes I am using a total count but only when directly related...let me try another way...

10000 convicted

5000 of these are through eyewitness testimony alone

out of the 10000 convicted 10 are found to be innocent through modern techniques.

out of these 10 we know 7.5 are those that were convicted on eyewitness testimony.

This would mean that eye witness testimony would carry a rate of

7.5/10000 on total convictions

or

7.5/5000 on eyewitness testimony convictions...

so out of total convictions it translates to 0.00075

or

that eyewitness testimony had a failure rate of just 0.0015% on convictions based on eyewitness testimony alone

so the rest of the numbers are crucial in determing what exactly that 75% represents..

Without the appropriate numbers , I.E - total cases convicted by eye-witness testimony proven to be correct versus the total cases over turned by DNA after the fact , I don't think it is correct to use those figures to justify your position on eye-witness testimony .

I do agree that one is too many , especially if that one is you or I with our neck on the line so to speak but as a whole I would be confident in saying that eye-witness testimony has been right many more times than it has been proven to be wrong , can you agree with that ?

TiP.

[tipotep]

Psyche,mate

I think we have to agree to disagree here.

You are truly a scholar on the UFO subject and I hasten to add a gentleman.

Your one of the reasons I generally don't scuff and deride debunkers and skeptics.

You provided a compelling case and addressed every point perfectly.

However there's still a teeny-weeny glimmer of doubt in my eyes about the official story.

Despite all this I've still got a limit of belief when it comes to certain incidents.

Good move mate , don't go into a gun fight with a knife !

TiP.

[praetorian-legio XIII]

My take on Roswell has always been that the US military got caught with their pants down. At that time (40's) they did not have an effective, experienced response team or plan. Hence so much information got out about it before they could control the site and create a cover story.

Today, a "UFO" goes down and they are all over it. Total information blackout.

[Sweetpumper]

My take on Roswell has always been that the US military got caught with their pants down. At that time (40's) they did not have an effective, experienced response team or plan. Hence so much information got out about it before they could control the site and create a cover story.

Today, a "UFO" goes down and they are all over it. Total information blackout.

And it's a good take.

[psyche101]

Morning mate, What I am driving at here is that it is not 75% of people convicted by eyewitness testimony but 75% of those found to be wrongly convicted.....Yes I am using a total count but only when directly related...let me try another way...

Gidday Quillius

Sorry, but I think we are still saying the same thing in some respect, my initial post said:

Eyewitness testimony is directly responsible for 75% of Wrongful convictions overturned by DNA.

Isn't the bolded the same as your qualifier? of all wrongful convictions, that have been proven incorrect by way of DNA evidence, 75% of those examples are incorrect.

That is 75% of everything we have had the opportunity to definitively prove, and not have to rely on a witness any longer.

Which still strikes me as an alarming statistic.

This part I am good with until....:

10000 convicted

5000 of these are through eyewitness testimony alone

out of the 10000 convicted 10 are found to be innocent through modern techniques.

out of these 10 we know 7.5 are those that were convicted on eyewitness testimony.

This would mean that eye witness testimony would carry a rate of

7.5/10000 on total convictions

or

7.5/5000 on eyewitness testimony convictions...

Here, I agree with this, as this widens the scope, however of you change that 10 to 100, everything goes up by a factor of ten. So I could change that statistic and make it look the other way based on a whim. What it is, is in cases where we have an opportunity to get a hold of DNA evidence, which is a factor being discarded that I think could affect the above statistic dramatically, but I also have no idea how one would firm that figure up, but as time goes on I expect this will become more care will be taken, and DNA will be considered more important.

so out of total convictions it translates to 0.00075

or

Considering the large numbers you have used to illustrate the point, is that percentage still not translating into an alarming figure that is unacceptable? I maintain that one is too many when the judgment is based on another person, who can be affected by too many interferences. If ten in one hundred thousand are wrongfully convicted, is that acceptable? And considering CNN cited a figure of 7.3 million in the system as of 2007, that is a significant number of innocent people who at worst could be facing death on someone's say so. People fight fluoridation on less convincing statistics and it is beneficial to people.

that eyewitness testimony had a failure rate of just 0.0015% on convictions based on eyewitness testimony alone

so the rest of the numbers are crucial in determing what exactly that 75% represents..

But I do not think it is. That is a figure based upon what we have had the resources to accomplish, and within a system that still employs the method without verification. What would that figure look like of all eyewitness testimony could be reconsidered with DNA evidence? I would suggest it will rise dramatically based upon the samples we have to work with, and the statistics those sample produce. I think what is missing here is proportionating the number of total conviction against that which we have had the opportunity to sample.

I do not think the significance of the 75% sample can, or deserves to be overlooked, or washed out. It is still innocent people who are paying for someone else's mistake because someone did not actually see what they claimed to see.

[psyche101]

Psyche,mate

I think we have to agree to disagree here.

You are truly a scholar on the UFO subject and I hasten to add a gentleman.

Your one of the reasons I generally don't scuff and deride debunkers and skeptics.

You provided a compelling case and addressed every point perfectly.

However there's still a teeny-weeny glimmer of doubt in my eyes about the official story.

Despite all this I've still got a limit of belief when it comes to certain incidents.

I would be a cad to refuse such a polite and well written response. Sir, you humble me.

With regards to your personal pursuit, please do carry on. If ever I can help you quell any doubts, and if you would like that, or other information that I can supply, please do not hesitate to ask.

[psyche101]

Personally I would need to see something more along the Walter Haut claims to make it valid for me. I tried listening to the MP3 but the volume was so low I couldn't make out anything.

Then there is this site http://roswellproof....t.html#anchor_8 Towards the bottom of the page you will see his 2002 affidavit followed by his 1993 affidavit. The differences in the affidavits are a problem for me.

Then there are sections like this one from the 2002 affidavit:

[/left]

The bold part is of concern. Having been in the military, if something comes up that needs to be dealt with, your superiors do not tell you to go home and hide. They tell you to deal with it.

There is indeed something not right with Hauts recollection altogether. The link I left on a previous page has Marcel saying Haut did it all himself:

In 1979, Major Jesse Marcel, who rounded up the "saucer" debris, told reporter Bob Pratt: "(W)e had an eager-beaver public relations officer (Haut) - he found out about it - he calls AP about it. Then that's when it really hit the fan..." ("Roswell", page 228.) In 1979 interviews with Start Friedman and Bill Moore, Marcel said, "It was...Haut...who called the AP (Associated Press) and later wrote the press release. I heard he wasn't authorized to do this, and I believe he was severely reprimanded for it..."

Yet this defies protocol, so what could Marcel be on about if this could not happen?

I think Intel Ops just seem to fit tighter at every turn.

LINK - Saucer Smear

[psyche101]

Its not what you did say , it's what you don’t ....

Quillius summed up what I was trying to explain .........

Without the appropriate numbers , I.E - total cases convicted by eye-witness testimony proven to be correct versus the total cases over turned by DNA after the fact , I don't think it is correct to use those figures to justify your position on eye-witness testimony .

I do agree that one is too many , especially if that one is you or I with our neck on the line so to speak but as a whole I would be confident in saying that eye-witness testimony has been right many more times than it has been proven to be wrong , can you agree with that ?

TiP.

I guess the confusion arrives when people take to overall count, which I find is only indicative of what the statistic could mean. What I do miss, and you rightly note such above, is that this is a sample which we have had an opportunity to re-evaluate. The overall statistics listed cannot take that into account.

I think the statistic from the provided sample is alarming enough to re-evaluate, and heavily investigate the effectiveness of eyewitness testimony, which I believe is notoriously unreliable, and I feel the statistic does indeed prove that and would be reflected if all cases were listed. From what I can tell, we have had the opportunity to work with tens of cases as opposed to hundreds or thousands. And the initial rate of overturned convictions is what I find very convincing. It is 75% of what we have done, not what the numbers are, and what we could do.

Edited December 12, 2012 by psyche101

[psyche101]

For clarification:

10000 convicted

Why does the 10,000 matter? Only the very next step is the figure being sought. Those who are directly affected by eyewitness testimony.

5000 of these are through eyewitness testimony alone

OK, so we have out sample of those convicted by eyewitness testimony. 5,000 people.

out of the 10000 convicted 10 are found to be innocent through modern techniques.

​Why are we back to the ten thousand? if the 5,000 directly pertains to eyewitness testimony? We are only considering those that have been reinvestigated are we not? And we have not got to that number yet. Why do those convicted by confession, DNA ort other get into the mix again?

out of these 10 we know 7.5 are those that were convicted on eyewitness testimony.

If, out of ten thousand, ten were selected to have DNA evidence admitted. Then we have the 75% figure that has been attained above. But above, only 5,000 were convicted be eyewitness testimony? Where did the ten thousand come from? Why not a thousand in ten thousand? The we have 750 people.

Or are you illustrating that the statistic is based on a sample of the overall population? If so, surely it does not pertain to actual convictions? The overall population does not have the opportunity for a retrial.

This would mean that eye witness testimony would carry a rate of

7.5/10000 on total convictions

or

7.5/5000 on eyewitness testimony convictions...

so out of total convictions it translates to 0.00075

or

that eyewitness testimony had a failure rate of just 0.0015% on convictions based on eyewitness testimony alone

so the rest of the numbers are crucial in determing what exactly that 75% represents..

Here are the actual numbers, form the link:

There have been 301 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 36 states; since 2000, there have been 234 exonerations.

• 18 of the 300 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.6 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,036.

• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.

Races of the 300 exonerees:

187 African Americans

86 Caucasians

21 Latinos

2 Asian American

5 whose race is unknown

• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 146 of the DNA exoneration cases.

• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.

• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).

• 65 percent of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.

• An Innocence Project review of our closed cases from 2004 - 2010 revealed that 22 percent of cases were closed because of lost or destroyed evidence.

I think these more accurate figures paint a much more concerning figure than what has been proposed above?? It also strongly suggest that other factor such as racism affect the outcome of eyewitness testimony, which in turn fortifies the very fact that testimony is influenced by emotion as well. And it is definitely a great deal more than one in one hundred thousand.

Edited December 12, 2012 by psyche101

[quillius]

For clarification:

10000 convicted

Why does the 10,000 matter? Only the very next step is the figure being sought. Those who are directly affected by eyewitness testimony.

Gidday Psyche, This is in response to both of your posts for me...its that time thing again...gets worse this time of year...

anyhow the 10000 figure is crucial in determining what that 75% figure really represents

5000 of these are through eyewitness testimony alone

OK, so we have out sample of those convicted by eyewitness testimony. 5,000 people.

out of the 10000 convicted 10 are found to be innocent through modern techniques.

​Why are we back to the ten thousand? if the 5,000 directly pertains to eyewitness testimony? We are only considering those that have been reinvestigated are we not? And we have not got to that number yet. Why do those convicted by confession, DNA ort other get into the mix again?

we have to always go back to the 10k figure because we are using the number 10, this number is not resctricted to eyewitness testimony alone ...just 75% of it is.

out of these 10 we know 7.5 are those that were convicted on eyewitness testimony.

If, out of ten thousand, ten were selected to have DNA evidence admitted. Then we have the 75% figure that has been attained above. But above, only 5,000 were convicted be eyewitness testimony? Where did the ten thousand come from? Why not a thousand in ten thousand? The we have 750 people.

not sure what you mean here with regards ot the 750 people?? if we use 5000 and say 10 of these are overturned throiugh DNA then the figure would always read 100% not 75% or any other. this is because the 25% figure includes other means of conviction therefore the 10 is always out of the whole pool.

Or are you illustrating that the statistic is based on a sample of the overall population? If so, surely it does not pertain to actual convictions? The overall population does not have the opportunity for a retrial.

This would mean that eye witness testimony would carry a rate of

7.5/10000 on total convictions

or

7.5/5000 on eyewitness testimony convictions...

so out of total convictions it translates to 0.00075

or

that eyewitness testimony had a failure rate of just 0.0015% on convictions based on eyewitness testimony alone

so the rest of the numbers are crucial in determing what exactly that 75% represents..

Here are the actual numbers, form the link:

probably a good idea to look at some of the actuals although I think this will raise many more questions as stats always do...

There have been 301 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 36 states; since 2000, there have been 234 exonerations.

• 18 of the 300 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.6 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,036.

• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.

-hmm only 301 since 1989, doesnt strike me as a large number versus those convicted in same period..

-yes it is sad 18 people served time on death row....this leads me to ask though, should we exclude any method that has shown any level of fallability (confessions included) if not then we could argue that 18 out of 1million convicted through eye witness testimony is a small price to pay, as sad as it is to have any waste their life when innocent, how many methods are we left with that are 100% accurate? how many guilty would walk though if we were reduced to the infallable methods?.

Races of the 300 exonerees:

187 African Americans

86 Caucasians

21 Latinos

2 Asian American

5 whose race is unknown

this shows nothing, if 10million convicted and 9million were African Americans then the stats above would show an unbalance, you would basically expect the above stats to follow %wise the number of those convicted, i.e. if 300 are convicted would 187 be African AMericans and 86 Caucasians? if so then the abobve stats are bang on as expected...as I said the above shows us nothing in itself.

• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 146 of the DNA exoneration cases.

• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.

• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).

• 65 percent of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.

• An Innocence Project review of our closed cases from 2004 - 2010 revealed that 22 percent of cases were closed because of lost or destroyed evidence.

there is lots of big individual conversations to be had with these points. I will just say great work in convicting the real criminal in nearly 50% of these cases i.e. 146 out of 301

I think these more accurate figures paint a much more concerning figure than what has been proposed above?? It also strongly suggest that other factor such as racism affect the outcome of eyewitness testimony, which in turn fortifies the very fact that testimony is influenced by emotion as well. And it is definitely a great deal more than one in one hundred thousand.

The strong suggestion you allude to with regards to racism I do not see, as the post above highlighting the insignificance of the 186 African Americans hopefullys shows this and although what you say may well be the case it is certainly impossible to gain such information from said stats

speak soon

[psyche101]

Gidday Psyche, This is in response to both of your posts for me...its that time thing again...gets worse this time of year...

anyhow the 10000 figure is crucial in determining what that 75% figure really represents

we have to always go back to the 10k figure because we are using the number 10, this number is not resctricted to eyewitness testimony alone ...just 75% of it is.

Gidday Mate

I hear you, quiet day for me too. No time to feed to trolls today. They will have to go hungry for a day.'

What I find hard to understand is that the sample of 300 cases was restricted to testimony alone. If we are to include total counts, then the sample needs to be proportionated as well, or one can shrink the percentage before starting to provide a favourable outcome. 300 cases in 10,000 is 3%, is that the total number of convictions based on eyewitness testimony?

not sure what you mean here with regards ot the 750 people?? if we use 5000 and say 10 of these are overturned throiugh DNA then the figure would always read 100% not 75% or any other. this is because the 25% figure includes other means of conviction therefore the 10 is always out of the whole pool.

Yes, the other means of conviction do not play a part when the sample was 300 people, why do they? All counted in the sample were convicted by eyewitness testimony.

probably a good idea to look at some of the actuals although I think this will raise many more questions as stats always do...

-hmm only 301 since 1989, doesnt strike me as a large number versus those convicted in same period..

That is the sample. That is why the number is small. The innocence project is a non profit organisation run via Universities mainly. It is not a Government body, and does not have that level of freedom, or resources. Such studies can show us where we might be going wrong, and to act on them.

-yes it is sad 18 people served time on death row....this leads me to ask though, should we exclude any method that has shown any level of fallability (confessions included) if not then we could argue that 18 out of 1million convicted through eye witness testimony is a small price to pay, as sad as it is to have any waste their life when innocent, how many methods are we left with that are 100% accurate? how many guilty would walk though if we were reduced to the infallable methods?.

Why can't all questionable methods be examined? A sample of 300 produced startling results, so it indicates that further investigation is certainly warranted. Just because we have always done something a certain way does not mean it is fair nor accurate. I see no reason not to at least attempt to improve a system that we know has faults.

this shows nothing, if 10million convicted and 9million were African Americans then the stats above would show an unbalance, you would basically expect the above stats to follow %wise the number of those convicted, i.e. if 300 are convicted would 187 be African AMericans and 86 Caucasians? if so then the abobve stats are bang on as expected...as I said the above shows us nothing in itself.

​In a sample of 300, I beg to differ, and feel we may have to agree to disagree. A small sample showed African Americans to be double the Caucasian count, and racism in the court system is a known quantity. This proves to me that it is likely to be a factor in eyewitness testimony as it is in general conviction processes.

LINK - SYMPOSIUM: RACISM, WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS, AND THE DEATH PENALTY

Opponents of the death penalty, by virtue of their arguments, tend to divide into two groups. The first and larger group consists of those who oppose this penalty because of the risk of convicting and executing an innocent defendant-or because of the manifest and chronic unfairness that governs the management of our death penalty system, especially when race is at issue. The members of this group oppose the death penalty on what we might call administrative, or practical, grounds.

there is lots of big individual conversations to be had with these points. I will just say great work in convicting the real criminal in nearly 50% of these cases i.e. 146 out of 301

This is merely a bonus so to speak. We not only set innocent people free, but in half the cases that the innocence project have been able to access, they managed to right the wrongs made my eyewitnesses. Not to mention the trauma that they could save eyewitnesses. How would a person feel knowing they sent an innocent person to death row? Left children fatherless? It would affect me a great deal.

The strong suggestion you allude to with regards to racism I do not see, as the post above highlighting the insignificance of the 186 African Americans hopefullys shows this and although what you say may well be the case it is certainly impossible to gain such information from said stats[/color][/font][/size][/size][/font][/size][/size][/font][/color]

speak soon

I do not find it insignificant at all when we are speaking about a sample of 300. It is more than double, and I think you would be hard pressed to prove that emotion does not play a large part of eyewitness testimony. As such, racism cannot be ruled out.

[Hawken]

They want you to think that all these hundreds of Roswell witnesses are lying. Don't believe them. These UFOs crashes are real and they have happened more than once.

Maybe the debunkers are getting paid not by the dollar, pound or euro... but by the shilling.