Witnesses and Corroborating Accounts

[ChrLzs]

10 minutes ago, TomHaider51 said:

So you're saying with 100% certainty that every single witness is wrong, when identifying it as an extraterrestrial craft ?

For me, while that is pretty close, it's a silly way to put it.

Let me explain - you (I presume) are claiming that some of them are.  Perhaps only one or two, or is it many? - feel free to be more specific.

Then please, Tom, right here and right now, post your very best evidence for that.  What's the best example?

To be more specific, post/cite evidence that an extra-terrestrial has definitely visited earth.

If not, then the status quo, ie that we have not (yet) been visited by E-T's, is the correct and default position to take, don't you think?

[TomHaider51]

5 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

For me, while that is pretty close, it's a silly way to put it.

Let me explain - you (I presume) are claiming that some of them are.  Perhaps only one or two, or is it many? - feel free to be more specific.

Then please, Tom, right here and right now, post your very best evidence for that.  What's the best example?

To be more specific, post/cite evidence that an extra-terrestrial has definitely visited earth.

If not, then the status quo, ie that we have not (yet) been visited by E-T's, is the correct and default position to take, don't you think?

Well I presume since you have never witnessed a sighting yourself, hence the skepticism. I would take it that no matter which evidence I provide you, the witnesses are always wrong ex. mentally ill, intoxicated, wishful thinking, delusion etc..

[ChrLzs]

20 minutes ago, TomHaider51 said:

Well I presume since you have never witnessed a sighting yourself, hence the skepticism. I would take it that no matter which evidence I provide you, the witnesses are always wrong ex. mentally ill, intoxicated, wishful thinking, delusion etc..

I knew that you had nothing substantial whatsoever and just like every tinfoiler before you, you would run from that horrible word - EVIDENCE.

Thanks for verifying it, but maybe next time just apply a bit of honesty and answer the dam question.

 

As for your claim that everything would be dismissed, how is it that Science has this huge body of verified and verifiable knowledge?  I don't dismiss anything that is properly evidenced, so you just told us (as if we didn't know), that your best evidence is pitifully short.

And as for your list of reasons for inaccurate witness accounts, it is HIGHLY notable that you only picked out those reasons that are insulting.  In the past I have explained in great detail; all of the potential reasons for incorrect anecdotes, and there are MANY, MANY more - most are simply 'human nature'.  We are not good observers, that's why science reaches out for evidence, not campfire stories.

So, thanks for responding as you did - my pigeonholing was 100% correct - you wear that tinfoil hat with pride, as you are exactly the sort of immature, biased, strawmanning misinformer that one might expect.

[TomHaider51]

7 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

I knew that you had nothing substantial whatsoever and just like every tinfoiler before you, you would run from that horrible word - EVIDENCE.

Thanks for verifying it, but maybe next time just apply a bit of honesty and answer the dam question.

 

As for your claim that everything would be dismissed, how is it that Science has this huge body of verified and verifiable knowledge?  I don't dismiss anything that is properly evidenced, so you just told us (as if we didn't know), that your best evidence is pitifully short.

And as for your list of reasons for inaccurate witness accounts, it is HIGHLY notable that you only picked out those reasons that are insulting.  In the past I have explained in great detail; all of the potential reasons for incorrect anecdotes, and there are MANY, MANY more - most are simply 'human nature'.  We are not good observers, that's why science reaches out for evidence, not campfire stories.

So, thanks for responding as you did - my pigeonholing was 100% correct - you wear that tinfoil hat with pride, as you are exactly the sort of immature, biased, strawmanning misinformer that one might expect.

Ok let me ask you this. lets just say hypothetically that you yourself have witnessed an alien craft  in your back yard. You couldn't pull out your phone camera in time. How would you provide your sighting as evidence?

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by TomHaider51
Typo

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, TomHaider51 said:

So you're saying with 100% certainty that every single witness is wrong, when identifying it as an extraterrestrial craft ?

I never stated that or anything close to that. Where did you get that idea?

 

[TomHaider51]

Well it seems you think that eyewitnesses don't hold any weight, when it comes to claiming they have seen a phenomenon. I understand people can misidentify things and they could be wrong, but they aren't lying about what they saw, et or not. But that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about you having to be 100% certain, because all it takes is one witness to have actually have encountered a real sighting for you to be wrong.

Like I said to ChrLzs, lets just say hypothetically that you yourself have witnessed an alien craft  in your back yard. You couldn't pull out your phone camera in time. How would you provide your sighting with evidence?

Edited January 7, 2020 by TomHaider51

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, TomHaider51 said:

So you're saying with 100% certainty that every single witness is wrong, when identifying it as an extraterrestrial craft ?

Yes. Not one has ever identified a craft as alien. 

People have made claims that they briefly saw something they could not identify and some have made a wild leap to extraterrestrial visitors.

How in fact would you possibly positively identify alien craft exactly. The Phoenix Lights have been discussed extensively in this thread. What positively identifies that as even a possible alien craft?

[stereologist]

52 minutes ago, TomHaider51 said:

Well it seems you think that eyewitnesses don't hold any weight, when it comes to claiming they have seen a phenomenon. I understand people can misidentify things and they could be wrong, but they aren't lying about what they saw, et or not. But that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about you having to be 100% certain, because all it takes is one witness to have actually have encountered a real sighting for you to be wrong.

Like I said to ChrLzs, lets just say hypothetically that you yourself have witnessed an alien craft  in your back yard. You couldn't pull out your phone camera in time. How would you provide your sighting with evidence?

Again you need to read my posts. Where have I stated witnesses are lying?

Where have I suggested anything like what you are claiming? Please quote me. I know you can't and then you can tell me you are wrong about this 100% certain thingy of yours.

[ChrLzs]

2 hours ago, TomHaider51 said:

.. lets just say hypothetically that you yourself have witnessed an alien craft  in your back yard. You couldn't pull out your phone camera in time. How would you provide your sighting with evidence?

1. I have witnessed things that *at the time* I thought were possibly of ET origin.  But I grew up, and learnt stuff and was able to determine what those things were.  I do have, and have reported here, a couple of sightings that were of very rare phenomena that most folks here would not have recognised.  Multiply that out by the population of the world, and add all the other reasons for misidentifcations, and YES, every sighting is, to date, explainable and no decent evidence of alien origin exists.

2. As a person who is interested in how the mind works, I've personally tested out some things for myself.  For example, I've deliberately taken myself to the brink of utter exhaustion, and as has been noted in scientific studies, I experienced intense hallucinations.  I've also experienced (on just a few occasions) lucid/vivid dreams, where upon awakening I could not initially be certain that the dream was not 100% real.  Add that to a bit of tiredness or alcohol/drugs and hey presto, it becomes reality.

 

Tom, aliens are almost certainly out there.  (But far away, as Father Ted would say..)  When we began to learn about space and thought about the possibility of life elsewhere, especially in the 50's thru today, visitation by aliens was an exciting prospect, hence all the movies and books, hence all the hysteria/delight/mystery/fantasy, hence all the me-too reports.  Now we are starting to learn about the rarity of life and the fact we might be rather alone in this area of the galaxy...

But it's still fun to tell stories, to watch SciFi movies...  And I'll patiently wait until the day the aliens do arrive (if that happens in my lifetime, which I kinda doubt), as I know they won't be clandestinely being invisible (except when they get a little confused and leave their lights on) and not leaving a trace...

 

Now, answer my two questions:

Given sky surveillance is now many magnitudes greater than it has ever been, and most folks carry a phone, dashcams and skycams are everywhere.... why aren't we seeing any decent footage?  Reports are going down not up....

If you see a distant light in the sky that is non-terrestrial, why aren't the folks who are much nearer, ie underneath it, supplying much better footage - what could possibly stop them from posting their footage of alien behavior / craft?

 

BTW, I very rarely ask questions that I don't know the correct answer to..  this is not one of those rare occasions.

Edited January 7, 2020 by ChrLzs

[Unusual Tournament]

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

Again you need to read my posts. Where have I stated witnesses are lying?

Where have I suggested anything like what you are claiming? Please quote me. I know you can't and then you can tell me you are wrong about this 100% certain thingy of yours.

Yes you do. You do it constantly. 

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Yes you do. You do it constantly. 

Your pathetic effort to misrepresent my posts is duly noted.

If you think you have the evidence then post it otherwise admit you are once again making up BS.

[Saru]

Keep it civil please folks.

[stereologist]

The simple fact is that witnesses do mistakes. That is the nature of being human.

Getting back to the Phoenix Lights I do realize that there is one issue that all witnesses corroborate and that corroboration is essential to the case.

All witnesses report only seeing one group of lights in the sky. They may get the number of lights wrong, the size wrong, the shape wrong, the color wrong, the speed wrong, the elevation wrong, the sound wrong, the fact that the lights were separate wrong, but they do get it right that there was only one set of lights.

Why is this so important?

Witnesses in general make a lot of mistakes. That's because they are human. When we sense something we try to understand it. That's what we do. Our guesses are based on our personal biases, i.e. experiences and what we want to experience.  Those guesses are then supported by us modifying what we sense to match up with our guess. Afterward our memories are reconstructions. Those reconstructions are formed each time we recall a memory. Reconstructions are altered by what happens to us later. We hear something or read something or see something and that will alter what we recall because it is added to the process of the memory reconstruction.

Typically, a person witnesses something that is new to them will make mistakes. What they do get right are the broad themes. In the case of the Phoenix Lights they got it right that there was one set of lights. They got it right that they saw something. Pretty much after that they get it wrong. Reports made within a day or two of the event are better than ones made a week, a month, or a year later. The more time that goes by the more errors are added to the memory.

So why is the one set of lights so important?

It was fairly clear to UFO investigators that reports of the Phoenix Lights did not match up. Nothing seemed to match up. There was no consensus. The solution for the UFO investigators was to pretend that all of the witnesses were right and that a swarm of many UFOs visited Phoenix that night. Tim Ley gets a low and slow. The telescope guy gets his individual planes. Another person gets his invisible craft in front of the Moon. And so it goes with dozens of UFOs.

The problem of course is that there are no witness reports of two or more sets of lights. The UFO believer who wishes this was a real alien case makes up a story which has no basis. They fail to accept that witnesses do make mistakes. That's just part of being human.

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by stereologist
grammar

[Golden Duck]

21 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

...

If you see a distant light in the sky that is non-terrestrial, why aren't the folks who are much nearer, ie underneath it, supplying much better footage - what could possibly stop them from posting their footage of alien behavior / craft?

...

A similar question can be asked in response to the appeal to large numbers for the Phoenix Lights.  Why were there only one thousand witnesses out a population of one million.  One person in a thousand made a report, that's 0.1 percent. 

The Phoenix climate in March looks very similar to Brisbane's during winter.  That is, it doesn't seem like it's unpleasant to be outside at night.

What is an accurate ratio of reporters to non-reporters?  That's a necessary question to the appeal to large numbers; and, one I can't recall being discussed in reasonable detail.

[stereologist]

10 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

A similar question can be asked in response to the appeal to large numbers for the Phoenix Lights.  Why were there only one thousand witnesses out a population of one million.  One person in a thousand made a report, that's 0.1 percent. 

The Phoenix climate in March looks very similar to Brisbane's during winter.  That is, it doesn't seem like it's unpleasant to be outside at night.

What is an accurate ratio of reporters to non-reporters?  That's a necessary question to the appeal to large numbers; and, one I can't recall being discussed in reasonable detail.

Good point. There is a reason that people were outside that night and it seems that this has been missed by people.

The reason they were outside might be a clue as to the thoughts of those people.

[ChrLzs]

Tom, I politely answered your questions, how about you now answer mine?  They are not difficult questions, and should only require a few minutes thought......

On 1/7/2020 at 2:51 PM, ChrLzs said:

Given sky surveillance is now many magnitudes greater than it has ever been, and most folks carry a phone, dashcams and skycams are everywhere.... why aren't we seeing any decent footage?  Reports are going down not up....

If you see a distant light in the sky that is non-terrestrial, why aren't the folks who are much nearer, ie underneath it, supplying much better footage - what could possibly stop them from posting their footage of alien behavior / craft?

I'll give you a few more days, and then I'll answer them for you.

[stereologist]

We should all be aware that witnesses of UFOs do not corroborate each other. Each of them reports a different story as if they were all witnessing something different.

One of the better examples of this is the Phoenix Lights in which witnesses could not agree as to:

• elevation - high or low
• speed - fast or slow
• color of the lights - red, yellow, orange, green, white
• number of lights - 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
• arrangement of the lights - Vee, triangle, boomerang, half circle

Chris Marx of BAASS proposed that the problem was not due to the witnesses being mistaken and confused about they were seeing, but that the UFOs were intentionally altering the witnesses' perception of the event.

Does this suggestion make any sense?

[HandsomeGorilla]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Does this suggestion make any sense?

Lol no. People interpret situations differently. This same thing happens when people are interviewed after witnessing an accident or crime that took place. It's just human nature. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable but it's often the only thing we have to go on. 

[+Desertrat56]

8 minutes ago, stereologist said:

We should all be aware that witnesses of UFOs do not corroborate each other. Each of them reports a different story as if they were all witnessing something different.

One of the better examples of this is the Phoenix Lights in which witnesses could not agree as to:

• elevation - high or low
• speed - fast or slow
• color of the lights - red, yellow, orange, green, white
• number of lights - 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
• arrangement of the lights - Vee, triangle, boomerang, half circle

Chris Marx of BAASS proposed that the problem was not due to the witnesses being mistaken and confused about they were seeing, but that the UFOs were intentionally altering the witnesses' perception of the event.

Does this suggestion make any sense?

Or, in the case of the Phoenix lights, there were more than one show going on.

[+Desertrat56]

4 minutes ago, Not Your Huckleberry said:

Lol no. People interpret situations differently. This same thing happens when people are interviewed after witnessing an accident or crime that took place. It's just human nature. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable but it's often the only thing we have to go on. 

Right, because one person notices shoes, another notices clothes and another might notice hair, their focus is different so they get different details and miss different details.  For example, I always notice people's shoes before I notice their hair color.  The people questioning need to take that in to account and can get a good composite if they recognize who focused on what.

[stereologist]

One of the problems I see with the Chris Marx idea is that this effect seems to be only on the witnesses and not on other people in the area.

[stereologist]

The problem for the UFO as evidence of aliens group is that there are no reports of corroboration from multiple independent witnesses. When witnesses report large differences it becomes a problem for those pushing the alien agenda.

Consider the Yukon highway incident. About all that can be stated is that multiple people saw something. What did they see? They reported a ball shape and a cylindrical shape and a string of lights shape. They reported close and they reported far away. They reported over the lake and behind the mountains. They even reported flying into a mountain.

People that work with witnesses know that they will make mistakes especially when confronted with a novel situation. In the case of this Yukon sighting people witnessing the event had no idea they were seeing a second stage of a Russian rocket reentering the atmosphere. As we see they did their best to describe what they saw. A witness will often create a model of what they think is happening and then continue to add to that model without rejecting it when what they see conflicts with their model.

Chris Marx on the other hand would like to employ special pleading. Just as witnesses in other situations make mistakes, they make mistakes when they see a UFO. But Chris Marx would like special pleading to avoid that witnesses of the unexpected do make mistakes.

 

[stereologist]

Too bad the merged threads have nothing in common.