Witnesses and Corroborating Accounts

[stereologist]

Since we are in a thread using many UFO hoaxes such as:

• Valentich case
• Hudson Valley case
• McMinnville case
• Zamorra case
• Cash-Landrum

Let's continue to see how poor witnesses are.

[stereologist]

5 minutes ago, Vaz said:

Just one more point. This thread is for people interested in UFO's.  I refuse from this point on to debate with you because it's like a turkey shoot.  It's no contest and no fun.  

Sorry but you are not able to stop people from posting. Get a blog if you want to be a censor.

If you want to post the same sort of awful rubbish you post in the GP thread then go get a blog if you can't take the heat of being shown to be wrong all of the time.

[stereologist]

The simple fact is that witnesses are notoriously bad at getting things right.

Another problem is that memory is not like a tape recorder. Memories are reconstructed and use available information and mistakes to form the memory.

Witnesses change from no sound to sound, and change the size and distance they think happened as they hear other tales, read about an incident, etc.

 

[stereologist]

Here is a lovely hoax:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_British_flying_saucer_hoax

Quote

When each of the saucers was later reported to the police each was cordoned off. The British army's southern command, several police forces, army bomb disposal units, RAF helicopters were all mobilised.^[2] The Ministry of Defence was informed and the army blew up the saucer found at Chippenham. The one on the Isle of Sheppey was removed by helicopter. Another was sent to the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and one to the guided weapons division of the British Aircraft Corporation. When one of the saucers was drilled into, the mixture inside exploded, covering police officers in foul-smelling slime.

Good hoax!

 

They even drilled into one of these saucers to see what was inside.

 

[stereologist]

As Irwin might have stated,

Krikey, it's an ominous sounding UFO - let's get closer!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-41110193

Quote

The saucers were also filled with a flour and water mix that fermented inside and turned into foul-smelling slime.

And check out the response by the media

Quote

Dr Clarke and Mr Southall agree that in 1967 the public imagination was already gripped by UFO fever - at the time the Ministry of Defence was receiving near-daily reports of sightings.

But despite this climate, the apprentices did not expect the huge media response, which included international coverage and double-page spreads.

"It was more than we hoped for," Mr Southall said.

The events of that day remain something of a blur for him, but he remembers trekking to a TV studio in the evening after the hoax had been exposed.

By the time the papers went to press, journalists had been told about the prank, but it didn't deter them from reporting it as an alien invasion, Mr Southall said.

For those that have not heard of this amazing hoax check out the link and the photos.

[Vaz]

Australia's biggest ever mass sighting.

More direct witness accounts this time from Jeff Holland (Form 3A in 1966).  Graham Simmonds.  Marilyn Smith (nee Eastwood), Brendan Dickson (Also form 3B), 

The clip says more about how Tanya was incapacitated after having touched the craft.  Reminds me of the injury that Stephen Michalak sustained in Canada in 1967.  Interesting that the description also bears similarity to the Michalak case.  Only one year apart so one has to wonder whether it was the same craft.  No joins or seams.  Michalak always said that he saw 2 craft.  One landed while the other flew away which again sounds similar to the Westall sighting.    The clip contains a drawing from on of the witnesses.

 

[stereologist]

The Westall UFO case is another case well discussed here at U-M.

https://www.davidhalperin.net/what-was-the-westall-ufo-a-theory-and-some-evidence-in-support/

Quote

Whatever the object was, it wasn’t especially dramatic.  If you and I had been there, we might not even have noticed it.

The witnesses’ view of the object seems to have been blocked for a time by the tall pines of the area called “the Grange,” just to the south of the school.  But no, the UFO was not seen to land among those trees; and the idea that it was responsible for flattened areas of grass in the Grange–which one UFOlogist who investigated the sighting said could have been caused by strong winds over the previous week–was conjecture after the fact.

 

Quote

But no, the mass stampede from the school into the Grange, so vividly depicted in “Westall ’66”–“all the students were just running all over the place, hysterical”; “like a whole lot of zebras being terrified by crocodiles,” to quote two of the witnesses–didn’t happen.

 

Just like in so many cases the witnesses have conjured up a memory that is wrong. This case is just another excellent example when the stories told today are not what happened.

 

[stereologist]

So what happened can be seen in the differences between old memories from kids 40 years later and an interview with an adult close to the time of the incident.

Quote

“Pro” item #1:  Basterfield’s notes from a tape recording, transferred to CD by the Special Collections of the library of the University of Arizona (Tucson), of Dr. James E. McDonald’s interview with Westall science teacher Andrew Greenwood, 28 June 1967.  (Basterfield, Source 15.)  This is a precious resource: a near-contemporary account of the incident by an adult observer.  Nearly all the testimony in “Westall ’66” is from people who were students at the time, and what they remembered after a 40-year interval.  With a few possible exceptions soon to be noted, Greenwood was the only grownup who actually saw the UFO.

“AG said that a girl student raced into class saying ‘Flying saucer outside.’  She left the room, then 5-10 minutes later it was morning recess time, so AG went outside to take a look. … He couldn’t see the object at first due to the lack of contrast (the kids pointed it out to him).”  The object was gray against a blue-gray sky; “if it wasn’t pointed out to you, you might not see it.”  (This was the explanation Greenwood gave for the Dandenong Journal‘s inability to find anyone in the area who’d noticed it.)

“The object was airborne at all times,” and although “at one stage the object disappeared behind a tall row of pine trees,” there’s no hint that Greenwood saw it land or come anywhere close to doing that.  The landed UFO, the “close encounter of the second kind,” belongs to the psychological rather than the physical reality of the episode.

What we learn is that the stampede in the reenactment was a fake event that never happened.

When people post videos of reenactments they are basically pushing a fictional story in most of these UFO cases. It's all about conning people. It's about entertaining people. It's not about present the facts of the case.

 

[stereologist]

So there are the claims in the reenactment of threats from people representing the government in some capacity.

But it turns out that is a modern invention. I suppose that was for entertainment purposes. It helps to fool the extremely gullible.

Quote

Also unmentioned in Greenwood’s testimony to McDonald:  the visit paid to his home one week later by two Royal Australian Air Force officers, which he was to describe to Shane Ryan many years later.  These officers threatened Greenwood under the Official Secrets Act, threatened to spread rumors he was an alcoholic (“Westall ’66”), threatened him with the loss of his teaching career if he talked about what he’d seen (Ryan in the 2013 interview).  More than 40 years after the event, speaking to Ryan, Greenwood remembered that ominous visit.  Speaking with McDonald hardly more than a year afterward, he’d evidently forgotten it.  Or else he didn’t think it was worth mentioning.

 

[Vaz]

Comparison.  Presented for interest only.

Westhall Australia 1966

 

Falcon Lake May 1967 (Michalak)

 

 

[stereologist]

The Westall case of 1966 is one of those cases where story telling has gone crazy. It is one of the best examples of why witnesses cannot be trusted.

The stories they told initially are completely unrelated to the stories they have told 40 years later.

There are all sorts of embellishments told today not mentioned at all close to the event.

• Who took photos?
• Why did they not mention the threats by the military?
• Why did they claim a landing they could not see?
• Why do they now claim a stampede of fear?
• Why do they not mention that weather balloon was launched nearby?
• Why do they not mention that the airport had pilots doing drogue chases?
• Why do they not mention that this was in the news?

[stereologist]

18 minutes ago, Vaz said:

Comparison.  Presented for interest only.

Westhall Australia 1966

Falcon Lake May 1967 (Michalak)

 

 

You really should list the source of these images to avoid a possible copyright infringement issue.

[stereologist]

The military did show to the school. They arrived 3 days later making the claims of the confiscated camera unlikely.

They did inspect where some people thought something might have landed. There was nothing to be seen.

 

[Vaz]

John Lennon describes 

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The military did show to the school. They arrived 3 days later making the claims of the confiscated camera unlikely.

They did inspect where some people thought something might have landed. There was nothing to be seen.

 

Your wasting your time my friend.  I have zero interest in anything you say and have no wish to engage with you. 

[Vaz]

John Lennon describes his 1974 sightng in New York:

Was it really the same craft as one of those seen in Westall in 1966?

Lennon's girlfriend MayPang gives her account of the object:
 

The youtube video could not be embedded:

May Pang talks about John Lennon's UFO on ABC News

 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Vaz

[preacherman76]

56 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So what happened can be seen in the differences between old memories from kids 40 years later and an interview with an adult close to the time of the incident.

What we learn is that the stampede in the reenactment was a fake event that never happened.

When people post videos of reenactments they are basically pushing a fictional story in most of these UFO cases. It's all about conning people. It's about entertaining people. It's not about present the facts of the case.

 

So one off detail destroys the entirety of the sighting? That’s some logic you got there. 
Seems to be a pattern. 

[stereologist]

30 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

So one off detail destroys the entirety of the sighting? That’s some logic you got there. 
Seems to be a pattern. 

What one off detail? You mean no major issues actually occurred as now claimed.

 

[stereologist]

So John Lennon saw a weather balloon that somehow miraculously stayed aloft all those years.

 

This is goofier than the claims in the GP thread.

 

What is clear is that witness statements about anything including UFO cases are bad and over time the statements degrade even further.

 

[stereologist]

One of the claims in the Westall case is that the military burned the fields to hide evidence.

 

It was the farmer because he stated he was sick and tired of the people stomping over his fields.

 

 

[stereologist]

One thing that the Westall case teaches us is that as time goes by more and more people join in on being witnesses to the incident.

Originally, it was one faculty member at the school and several students.

After a bit over 200 witnesses joined the ranks of the original small group.

The same has happened in other cases like the Phoenix Lights or the War of the Worlds broadcast.

 

[stereologist]

A typical example of a made up story comes from someone named Tanya that states they touched the craft in the Westall '66 case.

That comes from someone that didn't even see the craft. They came much later and gave a fake story. And it worked. It has fooled people that even today mention Tanya.

Good grief. The original people couldn't see if it landed and those that went to look couldn't find it. But someone that was not there claims to have touched the craft.

Tanya is a great example of why witness reports that come in much after the fact cannot be trusted.

[preacherman76]

52 minutes ago, stereologist said:

A typical example of a made up story comes from someone named Tanya that states they touched the craft in the Westall '66 case.

That comes from someone that didn't even see the craft. They came much later and gave a fake story. And it worked. It has fooled people that even today mention Tanya.

Good grief. The original people couldn't see if it landed and those that went to look couldn't find it. But someone that was not there claims to have touched the craft.

Tanya is a great example of why witness reports that come in much after the fact cannot be trusted.

No she isn't. She is just a good example of why witnesses should be vetted properly.

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

What one off detail? You mean no major issues actually occurred as now claimed.

 

As claimed by who? Some poor slob who was harassed to death by people like you? What about the several other witnesses who's accounts I just listened to?

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

As claimed by who?

You. You're the one who said it was 'one-off detail.  He referred to the original report made at the time, and the fact that other reports completely differ.  Now either you insanely accept that they are all true (they can't be), OR, in a blinding explosion of understanding, you accept that evidence is needed for ANY extraordinary story, as people frequently talk bulldung on these cultural phenomena..

Quote

Some poor slob who was harassed to death by people like you?

Please link to where that happened, or politely admit you are exaggerating.

Quote

What about the several other witnesses who's accounts I just listened to?

Did they precisely match, and were they independently collected at the time?  Please go through the details that matched, and then we'll take a listen, OK?  Otherwise I'm not wasting my time on your claim.

Edited November 6, 2019 by ChrLzs
spelin

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

No she isn't. She is just a good example of why witnesses should be vetted properly.

It seems that the story of Tanya was not even made up by Tanya. Very likely someone else used that false story to explain why she left the area at about that time.

How could you vet someone that was no longer available?

The story cannot be trusted because it came in much after the incident.