Now the thread title should give away my intentions quite clearly. I've read through a load of the latest threads on UFO disclosure, the upsurge in
MSM interest etc, and one counter-argument keeps coming back from the sceptics.
Disclaimer - scepticism is healthy and necessary; it's what puts the charlatans and delusionals in the minority on ATS.
The argument is such - that the sworn testimony of thousands of people is not a valid form of evidence when it comes to the reality of the UFO
phenomenon, and their alleged extraterrestrial origins (in at least some cases). Often, people providing the testimony are of sound mind and good
repute; professionals with experience in avionics, radar tracking, command and intelligence structures of the military and so forth. Yet, the
sceptics will come back with the simple argument that 'witness testimony is not evidence'. They apply this argument even when the same sorts of
testimony are widely and independently corroborated by experts throughout the nations of the world.
My first reaction to this apparent counter-argument was the sheepish "I guess they're right".
Then I realised something about humans. We tend to trust each other - particularly when someone with little or nothing to gain is willing to put
their own reputation or freedom on the line, in order to attest to the validity or otherwise of some cause or other.
Our various national and international legal systems make this apparent. Eyewitnesses are often counted on as a massive boost for the prosecution or
defence in a legal case.
Throughout history, people have been incarcerated or even put to death on the evidence of eyewitness testimony. If then, eyewitness testimony is
valid in the grave matter of a man/woman's life or liberty, then how can it be 'one rule for this, another for that'? Surely, on considering this
line of thought, anyone can see that the argument against the validity of eyewitness testimony is weak - or even false?
Not all eyewitnesses can be trusted to deliver accurate or reliable (truthful) information. That's the reason a legal professional will endeavour to
prove the character of the witness - either positively or negatively, depending on his / her role in the case. I think that most people (with even a
half-open mind) will agree that while much testimony can be debunked as a result of flaws in the character of the person presenting the evidence, or
apparent alternate motives, much remains (in regards to UFO testimony) that can be appropriately considered as coming from reputable, qualified, sane
people with nothing to gain from providing their testimony - nothing to gain that is, except the knowledge that they have acted rightly and
honourably.
And yet, the argument keeps rearing its head. Why is that? Why have we been willing to send people to their death on the testimony of (even just
one) or several witness/es - yet we are not willing to believe when thousands of highly credible people across the decades have
testified to the extraterrestrial nature of at least some of the UFO phenomena we have witnessed, and continue to witness in our skies?
This is a logical argument, hence there is no need for any particular sources in order to consider the question posed, namely: Why do we continue
to suggest that eyewitness testimony is not valid as a form of evidence?It's been good enough to support various legal lines of thought and
process over the centuries, but suddenly, it's no longer valid when it relates to something which may seriously fubar our comfy
paradigm?
Will be back later to throw down some sources relating to credible witness lists, and perhaps some case studies - but there's hundreds of people on
this site with vastly more experience than me in compiling such data. I'm relatively new to all this research (though I've been personally
interested for a long time) so if anyone wants to help by contributing anything they think is useful in supporting this argument, I would appreciate
it.
I don't know if this has been discussed before - I deliberately didn't run a search, because I think a new thread is necessary - to bring the
subject straight to the fore, in the midst of recent developments in the field of UFOlogy and space exploration (eg planetary discovery, press
conferences detailing such testimony, the increase in MSM interest and the seeming reduction in stigma, Royal Society meetings, UN scandal/hoax, and
so on).
I'd be interested to see any arguments against the validity of eyewitness testimony as a form of evidence, and of course if you agree that it is
valid as evidence, I'd be grateful for your support and perspective.
Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
I'd be interested to see any arguments against the validity of eyewitness testimony as a form of evidence, and of course if you agree that it is valid
as evidence, I'd be grateful for your support and perspective.
In some cases it's character of the witness, but more often we are just too
easily fooled.
Here's a simple example. Do you see a green dot going around the circle? Most people do unless they are color blind.
But there is no green dot. So the fact that someone swears to me they see something, doesn't mean it's really there, even if I believe them. I see the
green dot too, but I also know it's not there.
Also, consider that eyewitness testimony is the #1 cause of wrongful convictions based on exonerations from DNA evidence.
It seems like disclosure is imminent, with all the media coverage as of late. It makes me feel uneasy because I believe that politicians are starting
to see just how big the UFO audience really is. With sites like ATS and shows like Coast 2 Coast they know that playing to the UFOers (for lack of a
better word) could get them lots of voters. I would distrust the intentions of a disclosure by the US government.
Let me get back on topic here. I believe eye-witness testimony is evidence. Eye witness testimony is widely used by ufologists to help, along with
other data, to get a better idea of any single event. But at this stage in the game there has been 10's of thousands of eye witness testimony,
photographs, and videos. There is also Drake's Equation and Kardashev Scale. All of this helps build the case for UFO's and advanced alien
civilizations. People either believe or they don't. The fact remains that there is no definative proof that makes the UFO phenomena absolute fact.
With all the compelling evidence out there many will not believe until ET shows up on the White House lawn. Even if this did take place the first
video of it posted here on ATS would be flamed as CGI until other sources corroborated the event. Some of the most compelling eye-witness testimony is
the oldest! Look at artwork that was done before human flight was invented that contains UFOs. Read about Ezekial's Wheel. There is enough testimony.
It's time to see for ourselves with a grand first contact.
The first thing I would say is that eye witness testimony actually IS considered evidence of the UFO phenomena, I doubt you would find many people
willing to say that people never see anything that they can't identify in the sky. That though is all that it can prove as that is all that people
usually report seeing.
Extending that into proof of Alien life or inter dimensional beings though is just speculation.
While it's attractive to try and see all of the UFO accounts as pointing towards a single thing being true they can't infact do that as hardly any
two UFO accounts agree with each other as to what was seen, If we had an account of a single incident that was seen by 1000 people at the same time it
would be a slightly different matter and even then it couldn't be used as proof of Aliens as again it would only be conjecture based upon
speculation.
I can't think of many people that have been convicted based solely on a single unsupported eye witness account that didn't at least have some kind
of corroborating evidence, even if it was circumstantial apart from in cases like the Salem Witch Trials where people were indeed convicted because of
eyewitness accounts of bizarre things, and we all know how well that went.
i've read all sides of this debate (and i do mean all sides, or at least several sides!). i've concluded the following:
I. it's divisive, divide and conquer tactics. This is achieved by
..A. associating sightings solely with new age religions
..B. teaching new agers that it is the fundamentalist faiths that are holding back disclosure
..C. teaching the fundamentalist faiths that it is the new agers trying to perpetuate a false religion, called ufology
...D. showing the reactions of both sides of this divisive argument, to the opposing sides who are now firmly entrenched in the idea that something
is seriously amiss regarding ufos and disclosure, there by inflaming them further against each other.
...E. ignoring or withholding evidence that both sides of the argument have alot more in common on the subject than has been publicized or allowed in
the mainstream ufology books on the topic..
...F. using fundamentalist religions as a smoke screen reason to avoid disclosure.
...G. Eventually it becomes obvious to both new agers and fundamentalists, that something is indeed going on and that it ties into every aspect of
history for thousands of years. To keep this united front from forcing disclosures that might alter the plans of the world's governments and reveal
state and technological secrets. a new divisive tactic is added: Enter the Skeptical Atheist who is indoctrinated into the whole sordid, divisive
affair by appealing to their distaste for ancient history and any evidence in religious text or experience, which has been ruled mythological and
translated to imply just that.
...H. Now reenter the scene, the Vatican, who begins to champion the cause of the new agers and fundamentalists who realize something is indeed
going on, to the chagrin of atheists who despise the Vatican in the first place, adding yet more divisive fuel to the fire.
So to answer your question: Somebody already predisposed skeptics to view ufology as a religion and they will treat it that way until personal
experience of some kind replaces the original notion.
Eyewitness testimony is not considered evidence in matters pertaining to UFO phenomena because of a number of factors.
I would say that the most important one is that the search for extra terrestrial intelligence is a scientific endevour, so evidence as a word ceases
to have the same meaning you would find in a court room, or a police station. Evidence can be physical , or circumstantial in those arenas, but in
PURELY scientific terms , the only evidence which is important is physical, that which can be tested against real world situations , in order to
produce a result which fits the hypothesis, or proves the hypothesis wrong.
Eye witness accounts can be brilliant for legal and criminal prosecution but not for science.Let me give you an example :
I see somebody get shot. I see the shooter, of whom I can give a description, and maybe I can tell what kind of weapon it was (pistol, smg , assault
rifle, hunting rifle, shotgun, blah blah). Now , in this case, there will be other evidence to support my claim that A) someone was shot... there will
be a body , blood , bullet casings and slugs either in the body or in whatever terrain or architecture might happen to be around the place, and B)
that I saw who did it. Assuming the investigating officers can locate a suspect in good time, evidence like gun shot residue, blood spatter, possesion
of the weapon, etc, will confirm that he is guilty, and confirm that my statement is accurate.
However, without those things, the body , the blood , the bullets, the residue, the weapon, none of what I said can be confirmed, only suspected.
They are in a scientific sense, the only real evidence of a crime having been commited, and until they find the physical clues, my testimony could be
the ramblings of an escaped mental patient for all they know. Therefore, without physical confirmation, science cannot record an incident as having
taken place, because there is no proof that it did.
It's the same reason why one cannot base a scientific theory off of a case study, there are too many variables that must be accounted for. While case
studies and eyewitness testimony may provide a jumping off point for a scientific theory, they themselves are not enough. The problem you're having
is that you're applying legal standards to the UFO phenomena, while you need to be applying scientific standards. In that case the only thing that
counts as evidence is falsifiable data, which eyewitness testimony is not.
when i was young, i got a ticket for "not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign" near my house. i went to court over it and told the judge that
i did come to a complete stop. the judge said, "since i have only your word vs. the word of the police officer, i'm ruling in favor of the
officer." the police officer was trained to have very good observational skills. and that was that. and i paid my ticket. now here's a few
hypotheticals with real world ramifications.
1. let's say that same police officer sees an ufo and reports it. should the judge rule that he's not imagining things or calling a mundane thing
an ufo, because he's trained to have very good observational skills? a few things come into play that weight the decision making process:
A. he's not trained to observe aircraft, so how would he know what it is/was
B. he's not an astronomer, so how would he know what it is/was
C. he's not a weather specialist, so how would he know what it is/was
therefore we must go to scenario #2
2. let's say that an astronomer sees an ufo. should the judge rule that he's not imagining things or calling a mundane thing an ufo because he's
trained to have observational skills related to space and things in space? a few things come into play that weight that decision making process:
A. he's not trained to observe aircraft, so how would he know what it is/was
B. he's not trained to be honest (police officer) to the judge, so how would the judge know if he was being truthful or not
C. he's not a weather specialist, so how would he know what it is/was
therefore we must go to scenario #3
3. let's say that an aircraft specialist sees an ufo. should the judge rule that he's not imagining things or calling a mundane thing an ufo
because he's trained and knows what man made technological flying machines are actually in the sky and could tell the difference? a few things come
into play
A. he's not a weather specialist etc
B. he's not trained to be honest to the judge etc
C. he's not familar with what planet, etc, might be in the sky, is not an astronomer, so how would he know if it was indeed a craft and not a
heavenly body?
therefore we go must go to scenario #4
4. let's say an astronaut, who is trained to be honest to government officials, who must first be a pilot of aircraft before qualifying for space
craft piloting, who must know astronomy and atmospheric data, who knows what flys in and out of the earth's atmosphere, sees an ufo. should the
judge rule that he's imagining things or calling a mundane object an ufo because the judge didn't see it himself? or better yet, what if the
astronaut not only claims he's aware of the reality of the ufo phenomenon but knows we've been visited by extra-terrestrials from other planets?
the problem we have here is an ever receeding evidential horizon
No-one denies that people see things in the sky they cannot identify. The UFO phenomenon has been studied extensively. You seem to confuse things seen
in the sky with extra-terrestrial spacecraft. There is no connection, so all the sightings of difficult or impossible to identify things in the sky do
nothing to support the ET hypothesis. Even if the 1% of sightings that cannot be explained as simple mis-identification of mundane things is examined,
there is still no reason to favor extra-terrestrial spacecraft over "sky demons," Valkyries, ghost airplanes or, my personal preference, Garudas, a
gigantic bird from Buddhist mythology (convince me I'm wrong),
The whole UFO phenom is a hoax. UFO stands for Ultra-High Frequency Follow on and is a sattellite used to manipulate humans with "terrestrial" or
electromagnetic waves. It is a type of weapon developed by the Soviet Union in the 1940's, right about the same time the first sightings were, and it
is called psychotronics. Read the following links from official military documents for further proof.
Eyewitness testimony is evidence, but unfortunately, it's the least reliable evidence, as many witnesses aren't trained to notice details, and
accounts will vary wildly even of the same event.
It's evidence, but not great evidence. It's used best when corroborated by other evidence.
edgar mitchell says we landed on the moon too. so why would he lie about extra terrestrials, ufos, visits from extra terrestrials, and roswell but
not about landing on the moon?
edit on 5-10-2010 by undo because: (no reason given)
edgar mitchell says we landed on the moon too. so why would he lie about extra terrestrials, ufos, visits from extra terrestrials, and roswell
but not about landing on the moon?
What does that have to do with the original post? Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but evidence needs to be connected of necessity to the
proposition it supports. What does seeing something in the sky necessarily have to do with extra-terrestrial life?
that's like saying, what does sugar have to do with whipped cream. who is more qualified to state whether there are or are not extra terrestrial
visitors in extra-terrestrial craft, coming to earth, you or an astronaut?
They are lying about seeing ET's because it is a government experiment in mind control and they are doing the experiments on US citizens. Also they
may have set up things so that respectable people did see soemthing to go along with their hoax. There are only certain people within the government
that know the truth. Most Presidents don't even knwo about it, especially Democratic Presidents, they are told that the information is top secret
and are not allowed to view any info about it because this whole program is run by the illuminati or the New WOrld Order participants.
Would the President be Briefed on a UFO Special Access Program www.ufoskeptic.org...
Notice who the director of the CIA was in the above article.