The idea that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable"

reply to post by draknoir2


Draknoir...

Another valid point, eyewitness estimates of size and distance are rarely accurate. However this was not what I was trying to say in my post.

The point was, the UFO, described in all but one case as large, black and triangular, was hovering at what appeared to be low altitude to each and every witness. This is what I meant when I said ¨500 feet¨ in the air. Not: eyewitnesses are good at estimating altitude.

What I tried, and apparently failed to articulate was that the witness probably wouldn't be concerned with the exact number of windows or lights on the craft considering how amazed they must be at the objects size, behavior and appearance.

thesearchfortruth
reply to post by draknoir2

 

Draknoir...

Another valid point, eyewitness estimates of size and distance are rarely accurate. However this was not what I was trying to say in my post.

The point was, the UFO, described in all but one case as large, black and triangular, was hovering at what appeared to be low altitude to each and every witness. This is what I meant when I said ¨500 feet¨ in the air. Not: eyewitnesses are good at estimating altitude.

As I said, the most basic and common aspects of the testimonies are most likely accurate. And this is a very rare case of multiple, simultaneous, highly credible eyewitness accounts by trained observers. Even so, it does little to explain the nature of sightings.

It is OK to question such strange reports of flying saucers and aliens, but please try to tell that to people like Travis Walton or the dying CIA officer, or Jim Sparks.
There are many others out there that may never come forward because of the grief given by some people on forums like this one.
Think about how you would feel if you saw an alien up close and also see how the people that share what they saw receive nasty comments from others.
If you want to have reports, just listen and keep quiet.
I'll be willing to take as many lie detector test as anyone wants to pay for and I'm sure there are others out there that would still not believe the reports.

reply to post by waltwillis

I'll be willing to take as many lie detector test as anyone wants to pay for and I'm sure there are others out there that would still not believe the reports.

For what they are worth, polygraph tests provide evidence that a subject believes what they are saying. That does not mean that what they believe is factual.

Put a Christian on a polygraph and you'll have proof that God is real, right?

reply to post by Phage


Every effect has a cause. The cause is greater than the effect.
"For every house is built by some man; but he that built all things is God"
The world and the universe are here. This raises the question: how did it all come into existence?
We no of nothing I. This world that has no cause. Thus we must recognise that there is a cause behind this world and universe.
There must be an intelligent First cause God.

Phage
reply to post by waltwillis

 

Put a Christian on a polygraph and you'll have proof that God is real, right?

It is true that the most that any form of "lie detector test" could ever achieve is determining whether or not the subject believes he is telling the truth. However, your example is poor, as very few Christians claim to have seen God. In fact, any Christian claiming to have seen God will likely be rebuked by another Christian with the following Bible verse:

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

reply to post by MaximRecoil


Great points and everything you're saying is just basic common sense. With the blind debunker they want to look at things within ufology or the paranormal in black and white terms. This truly shows how strong the evidence is.

It's just basic common sense that some eyewitnesses will be strong and credible and some eyewitnesses will be weak. The blind debunker wants to label all eyewitnesses when it comes to close encounters or abduction experiences either mistaken, delusional or lying. Just think of how insane this sounds. If you have to try and paint every eyewitness when it comes to UFO's unreliable, then you're just living in a fantasy land. Yes some eyewitnesses are weak and some are strong and credible. This is just basic common sense.

They make these silly claims because if they used common sense then of course things like abduction experiences and close encounters would be seen as evidence as investigators gather information.

Let's look at polygraphs. Of course polygraphs are not perfect but even Police still use them when they're gathering evidence in a case. The blind debunker says you can't use polygraphs when it comes to things within ufology or in areas labeled paranormal.

So let's add this up. Blind debunkers say an investigator into these areas can't use these things:

EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, ALIEN ABDUCTIONS, PICTURES, VIDEOS, RADAR REPORTS, TRACE EVIDENCE, ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS AND PAINTINGS.

Think of how insane this is. How can anyone investigate these matters if none of these things is considered evidence when it comes to UFO's. If you can't use these things as evidence and every eyewitness is unreliable, then the blind debunker has just created a world of make believe.

In the real world, Investigators use these tools to gather evidence which helps lead them to a conclusion. How can you take blind debunkers seriously, when they start with the priori that all eyewitnesses in these areas are unreliable? It's just asinine. They do it because no matter how strong a case is or how credible witnesses are they can just bury their heads in the sand and say it doesn't matter because all eyewitnesses are unreliable. MR. ROARKE, THE PLANE, THE PLANE!!!

This is just Fantasy Island logic. Again, the goal isn't to investigate these things with an open mind. The goal is to shut down any investigation before it even starts by labeling every eyewitness a unreliable idiot. It's just looking at these things through a black and white lens so you don't have to pay attention to the mosaic of colors in the details of these experiences.

Here's another one, Hypnosis. Now I'm a Certified Hypnotherapist and I took these courses just out of curiosity. Hypnosis isn't magic or hocus pocus, it's very real. In fact, Police use it and it's called Forensic Hypnosis. Forensic Hypnosis has a 80% success rate.

Again, when it comes to close encounters and alien abductions the blind debunker puts on the black and white glasses again. So an Investigator into these areas can never use this technique to gather evidence because all hypnosis sessions in this area must be unreliable. So let's look at it again. We basically can never evaluate and investigate the evidence in these areas because the blind debunker basically says there isn't any evidence. Everything is unreliable LOL. It's just crazy. We can't use:

EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, ABDUCTION EXPERIENCES, PICTURES, VIDEO, TRACE EVIDENCE, ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS, PAINTINGS AND ADD ON HYPNOSIS.

Why even look into these things? Why even investigate UFO's if the blind debunkers have labeled all of the evidence unreliable before the investigation even begins?

Plato was right about how people will love the Cave. Anything outside of the Cave of their beliefs is met with fear and illogical behavior. Just think about it. How can their ever be an honest effort to investigate these things when blind debunkers deem all evidence unreliable before the investigation even starts? It's so bad, many of them will not even label these things evidence. All eyewitnesses, pictures and video are unreliable. They label things this way so no matter what you may find in an investigation it doesn't matter because it's based on something that's unreliable. This isn't seeking the truth. This is just trying to live in the comfort of the Cave that you believe in.

reply to post by neoholographic


I think this 'blind debunker' is an even more illusory creature than Bigfoot, and calling people 'insane' who disagree with you is a sign of one's own inadequate rationality.

NOBODY has claimed that all eyewitness reports are unreliable.

The argument is that enough unreliability exists within the witnessing processs to create a subset of collected reports which may not accurately reflect original stimuli.

MAY not, not 'DO not'.

And through post-event selection processes, these misperceptions tend to be gathered together. Accurate perceptions of normalcy can fail to rise to the level of widespread recognition.

It's why I think the satellite reentry cases have critical lessons to teach ufology.

JimOberg
reply to post by neoholographic

 

NOBODY has claimed that all eyewitness reports are unreliable.

Some people in this very thread have made such a claim, and if you were to exhaustively search the entire ATS forum database, you'd find a lot more, to say nothing about somehow searching the entire internet or the entirety of human history in general, i.e., everything ever said or written down.

The very first reply in this thread was:

Jefferton
No witness is reliable. The human brain is flawed, and can't be trusted.

Which alone refutes your claim that "NOBODY has claimed that all eyewitness reports are unreliable."

waltwillis
Think about how you would feel if you saw an alien up close and also see how the people that share what they saw receive nasty comments from others.

If this is as far as you have gone; "seeing ET up close"...then you really have no idea just how "nasty" and insipid those comments can get. Y'all should try "being" ET for an hour...

The ability of the Sentient (Human) mind to reject valid data, either through enforced ignorance, or insisted misunderstanding is incredible. Many people, some of decent education, knowledge, ad experience reject, "out-of-hand" ay idea connected with ET and anything "alien", even when all of the data indicates the ETH

neoholographic
So let's add this up. Blind debunkers say an investigator into these areas can't use these things:

EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, ALIEN ABDUCTIONS, PICTURES, VIDEOS, RADAR REPORTS, TRACE EVIDENCE, ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS AND PAINTINGS.

Incredible isn't it?!??!!

There is a very easy way to determine what is valid evidence and what isn't. There are actually a somewhat formal set of rules just for "evidence"...and they include most of your wee list.

Y'all should try this: do a search (google it!): "Rules of Evidence"...there actually IS a set of rules that define just what evidence IS. All y'all would do quite well to use this "legal" definition (actually...you really have no choice...think of it like this: "what's good for the Goose, is good for the Gander."

So, y'all (debunkers) need to get off your "evidence horse" and step up to something with a bit of stature.

Phage
reply to post by waltwillis

 

I'll be willing to take as many lie detector test as anyone wants to pay for and I'm sure there are others out there that would still not believe the reports.

For what they are worth, polygraph tests provide evidence that a subject believes what they are saying. That does not mean that what they believe is factual.

Put a Christian on a polygraph and you'll have proof that God is real, right?

So let me guess that you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is?
As a retired law enforcement officer and licensed pilot you imply that I may be suffering from delusions?
Or perhaps it might be the I have a drift toward bizarre thinking?
Are your accretions based on your conclusions or are you making a suggestion?

Sorry if I took you out of your comfort zone, but there really are things that you are not aware of in this world and what you don't know can
and will hurt you some day if you insist on walking around with your ears closed.

A young girl told me her mother said that I was wrong about aliens so I ask her if she believed in God.

She said she did believe in God.

I then ask her if she had ever seen God. She said she did not.

Then I told her that I don't need to believe in alien because I've seen them.

Believe what you like, but if you continue to make excuses or find a reason based on what you understand, you will drive others away from receiving the
information needed to find the truth.
To me it is all mind over matter as I don't mind because you don't matter!

Not all testimony is equally unreliable. Multiple eyewitness accounts from police officers would hold more weight than testimony from someone who is known for habitually making fantastic claims about oneself - hailing from another galaxy or having magical powers, for example.

JimOberg
reply to post by neoholographic

 

I think this 'blind debunker' is an even more illusory creature than Bigfoot,

Bigfoot is real.

Just my 0.2 cts:

Of course all the "eyewitnesses" are unreliable, humans, probably some animals too, suffer of a condition called delusion.

Did ever any of our governments or officials, whit all their technology, acknowledge the existence of ET's or out-of this world "spaceships"? Why? Simple: They exist just in the mind of some delusional folk.

People should concentrate more their efforts on day-to-day stuff, and forget about Hollywood dreams...

reply to post by neoholographic


Let me crystallize your rant:

1. Blind Debunker

2. Basic Common Sense

Got it. But what about Logic and Reason? What role does that play?

MaximRecoil

JimOberg
reply to post by neoholographic

 

NOBODY has claimed that all eyewitness reports are unreliable.

Some people in this very thread have made such a claim, and if you were to exhaustively search the entire ATS forum database, you'd find a lot more, to say nothing about somehow searching the entire internet or the entirety of human history in general, i.e., everything ever said or written down.

The very first reply in this thread was:

Jefferton
No witness is reliable. The human brain is flawed, and can't be trusted.

Which alone refutes your claim that "NOBODY has claimed that all eyewitness reports are unreliable."

edit on 3/29/2014 by MaximRecoil because: (no reason given)

Exactly!

And it goes back to simple reason and logic.

All eyewitness are not unreliable and the blind debunker can't make this simple distinction when it comes to eyewitness accounts, close encounters and abduction experiences. The truth is some eyewitnesses will be weak while other will be COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE like the paper Zeta linked to said.

reply to post by mactaties


Here's another one. You said:

Of course all the "eyewitnesses" are unreliable, humans, probably some animals too, suffer of a condition called delusion.

So all eyewitnesses are unreliable and delusional LOL!!

This is just absurd nonsense. But this is the Fantasy Island logic that you get from blind debunkers. They just can't use reason. Of course all eyewitnesses aren't unreliable. Some eyewitnesses will be weak and some eyewitnesses will be compelling and strong. There's no balance when it comes to the blind debunker. They have to see everything in black and white and put all eyewitnesses in a box labeled unreliable so they can keep living their blind delusions about these things.

How can you investigate these matters if all of the evidence is labeled unreliable before the investigation even begins? So you can't weigh the evidence and weigh which witnesses are strong vs. which ones are weak because the blind debunker starts with the priori that they're all unreliable LOL. It's why Zeta said he didn't need to read any links to any cases I posted because the ignorance you get from the statement that all eyewitnesses are unreliable affords the blind debunker to ignore little things like facts and weighing the credibility of witnesses.

They can just sit back, bury their heads in the sand label all eyewitnesses unreliable.

draknoir2
reply to post by neoholographic

 

Let me crystallize your rant:

1. Blind Debunker

2. Basic Common Sense

Got it. But what about Logic and Reason? What role does that play?

neoholographic
And it goes back to simple reason and logic.

There it is.

3. Simple Reason and Logic

reply to post by draknoir2


Yep, there's nothing wrong with a simple reason and logic because common sense tells you that these issues are not black and white. But of course, you're not dealing with common sense when debating the blind debunker. They can't make simple logical distinctions.

This is the case because if the blind debunker accepted a little reason and logic, they would have to admit that some cases are compelling with strong, reliable eyewitnesses and this would force them to actually think and come up with logical reasons to support their blind beliefs.

It's easier to just stick your head in the sand and label all eyewitnesses unreliable. It's a way to remain on Fantasy Island with Mr. Roarke and Tattoo.