The idea that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable"

reply to post by MaximRecoil

..... In the O'Hare siting for example, "United Airlines employees, ranging from pilots to supervisors" saw a "metallic, saucer-shaped craft hovering over Gate C-17" which then rapidly accelerated vertically, punching a hole in the clouds in the process.

I don't know if this has already been addressed, but... Where did you gather your information that a supervisor or even a controller saw this object? Would that be from internet UFO sites or UFO biased TV programs, by chance?

I say this because the actual air traffic controller heading ground control that day, and heard on the taped conversation, said that he saw absolutely nothing. He stated that the 15+ employees including supervisors, controllers, and traffic management staff in the tower, all looked for this object but saw nothing. This is a building designed to see 360 degrees around the entire terminal. If there was any unidentified traffic spotted in this airspace, they would have immediately shut down traffic. There's no doubt about that. Especially post 9/11.

If he did see this object, as you say... How do you explain the terminal keeping on their flight departures every 38 seconds without interruption? These are airport employees with the sole responsibility of safety and with many lives in their hands. That alone makes no logical sense for a reported 15 minute hovering UFO.

This sighting alone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there exists or existed at least one metallic, saucer-shaped craft on Earth which is capable of hovering and rapid vertical acceleration.

Wrong, this case does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You have many other witnesses with an entire profession relying upon visually directing air traffic safely, that looked in the exact same area and saw nothing. These are the exact type of people that believers frequently point out are "trained observers"... yet, they saw nothing. You have conflicting reports by multiple witnesses. That puts into question what exactly was seen. So, it's not a slam dunk- "This was a UFO, end of story" incident.

draknoir2
Get in the way of what, accurately eyeballing speeds of that magnitude? Unless the pilot happens to be Steve Austin that's all it is - a guess, and the greater the speed the less likely it is to be an accurate one.

Yes, of course its a guess! What else could it be? BUT! What would you do? Ignore any such data simply you don't believe an accurate value can be arrived at?

You are aware that almost everyone can infer a velocity. for most of us that value we get won't be very accurate; we don't normally experience speeds in excess of around 60 mph.

A pilot, even a "low level" one experiences speeds greater than 100mph, routinely! The bigger the aircraft, the more speed the pilot experiences. These folks have very good ideas of what these higher velocities "look like", and are therefore capable of rendering a relatively accurate estimate. If you doubt this, go "test" one at random.

The whole point is; this velocity is relevant to the event, and leaving it out because you are too afraid to make an estimate is irresponsible data analysis. By the way; a responsible witness would hesitate to give any actual "value" to the "observed speed", and would characterize it with some other descriptive method. What One should come away with in the present case is that the velocity was far to great for terrestrial technology.

reply to post by tanka418


hey tanka, I think you are reading into the post a little. The point is that its a guess from a person. I don't think anyone is discarding the guess out of fear. Just trying to put it into perspective.

tanka418

draknoir2
Get in the way of what, accurately eyeballing speeds of that magnitude? Unless the pilot happens to be Steve Austin that's all it is - a guess, and the greater the speed the less likely it is to be an accurate one.

Yes, of course its a guess! What else could it be? BUT! What would you do? Ignore any such data simply you don't believe an accurate value can be arrived at?

You are aware that almost everyone can infer a velocity. for most of us that value we get won't be very accurate; we don't normally experience speeds in excess of around 60 mph.

A pilot, even a "low level" one experiences speeds greater than 100mph, routinely! The bigger the aircraft, the more speed the pilot experiences. These folks have very good ideas of what these higher velocities "look like", and are therefore capable of rendering a relatively accurate estimate. If you doubt this, go "test" one at random.

The whole point is; this velocity is relevant to the event, and leaving it out because you are too afraid to make an estimate is irresponsible data analysis. By the way; a responsible witness would hesitate to give any actual "value" to the "observed speed", and would characterize it with some other descriptive method. What One should come away with in the present case is that the velocity was far to great for terrestrial technology.

I experience velocities greater than 55mph daily, yet I cannot tell the difference between a car approaching at 50 or 60. How does "experiencing" speed convert the human eye into a Lidar speed gun capable of even measuring speeds of 18,000mph, much less accurately?

That was rhetorical.

reply to post by MaximRecoil

Another reason this isn't a case of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the fact that the witnesses description of the object varies. For example, one witness said the object was no more than 6 to 10 feet across, while another said 22 feet. With your car crash analogy, that's equivalent to a witness saying they saw a 12 foot Mini Cooper and another saying it was 30+ foot limousine. Someone else claimed it was the size of a quarter at arms length which came out to roughly 88 feet across. Another aircraft taxi mechanic said he looked up at it for 30 seconds and dismissed it as a bird and walked away. One said it was "spinning pretty fast" while another said it was completely motionless.

My points above and previously point out to you why this is not a case "beyond a reasonable doubt". Your car crash analogy does not apply to this incident.

Ectoplasm8
reply to post by MaximRecoil

 

Another reason this isn't a case of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the fact that the witnesses description of the object varies. For example, one witness said the object was no more than 6 to 10 feet across, while another said 22 feet. With your car crash analogy, that's equivalent to a witness saying they saw a 12 foot Mini Cooper and another saying it was 30+ foot limousine. Someone else claimed it was the size of a quarter at arms length which came out to roughly 88 feet across. Another aircraft taxi mechanic said he looked up at it for 30 seconds and dismissed it as a bird and walked away. One said it was "spinning pretty fast" while another said it was completely motionless.

My points above and previously point out to you why this is not a case "beyond a reasonable doubt". Your car crash analogy does not apply to this incident.

There is a great difference between a trained observer and a smuck. As a cop I had to differentiate and assign a number factor to every field interview in every report summited for the record.
Yes, there are more poor observers then there are good ones but you would be wise to not through out the baby with the bath water.