The idea that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable"

reply to post by MaximRecoil

You're not using the term "intellectually dishonest" correctly.

yes I am.

I quoted the news article, which said that they all agreed it was a disc-shaped craft. If you believe this is an error, take it up with the author of the article. Even if you can establish that he made an error, and that it was intentional, that would be a case of ordinary dishonesty. If it was unintentional, it would be an ordinary mistake. Intellectual dishonesty occurs in arguments/debates, when one "massages" or otherwise misrepresents information to suit their purpose; or, as Wikipedia puts it:

its intellectually dishonest to say ALL people witnessed a "disc shaped craft" because its not true. You now know its not true also because I quoted a NACRAP article.

In other words, when you read that witnesses saw a metallic saucer-shaped craft hovering and then rapidly accelerating vertically, and then you attempt to reduce that to "you can say that they saw something that nobody could identify", that is an intentional oversimplification for the purpose of making the reports seem drastically more vague and open to interpretation than they actually were.

I read a number of accounts from the article I linked that gave ME the impression of ambiguity and NOT of metallic "CRAFT". If YOU focus on a couple of the cooler accounts and ignore the others, you get the impression of some kind of alien craft.

Its shape was identified,

agree

its status as a gray metallic craft was identified,

disagree

and its aerial maneuvers were identified.

strongly disagree

That's fine, but it doesn't constitute a reasonable doubt. The witnesses said that it did just that. If you could, for example, establish that they were all drunk on the job, that would be grounds for reasonable doubt.

straw man

"Shiny" is reflective by definition.

You have to read the whole report. There were differences in the accounts about this.

That is in fact a solid description of it flying through the clouds, and of its high speed.

I will give you that one but still how many people describe it like this? I count only one. The others went: the "object" was gone and there was a hole in the clouds or they looked away and then there was a hole in the clouds. read the article is all.

No, the craft (controlled flight = "craft" by definition), plus, from your link, page 6 and 7:

subjective descriptions. there was a perception of something that appeared stationary, it disappeared, there was hole in the cloud. I can animate this effect if you like without anything actually moving. Not saying it wasn't an alien craft but I AM saying it doesn't have to be. I am also saying it doesn't have to be a craft of any kind.

He said almost the same color as the clouds.

In other words, ambiguous.

From the Chicago Tribune article:
Some said it looked like a rotating Frisbee, while others said it did not appear to be spinning.

That's a very ambiguous statement.

from page 11. a whole bunch of people saw it and thought it was a balloon. a balloon != controlled craft like thing performing extreme maneuvers. Neither does someone dismissing it as a bird.

But either way, whether or not it was spinning is not a critical detail.

Why wouldn't it be? If there was indeed something spinning rapidly, that would rule out a whole bunch of known things like clouds, balloons, birds. For instance a never before seen concept car might spin. I think that would be important info. Why don't you? Are you saying that witnesses could have been wrong?

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil

 

You're not using the term "intellectually dishonest" correctly.

yes I am.

This is mere gainsaying, and as such, can be dismissed.

its intellectually dishonest to say ALL people witnessed a "disc shaped craft" because its not true. You now know its not true also because I quoted a NACRAP article.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, this is a textbook example of it. You quoted/linked to the article in the same post in which you said "Saying that they ALL agreed it was a "disc-shaped craft" is intellectually dishonest."

So your claim is that it is intellectually dishonest because I "now know its not true also because I quoted a NACRAP article", despite the fact that this purported intellectual dishonesty happened before you "quoted a NACRAP article"? Your claim of intellectual dishonesty is inherently false, unless you can establish that I was able to gaze into the future to see your NARCAP article quote before you posted it.

As I said, I simply quoted from the Chicago Tribune article, which said they all reported seeing a disc-shaped craft, and you can consider your claim of "intellectual dishonesty" refuted.

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty (again), I just noticed that you have gone back and edited your post after I'd already replied to it, and not just a trivial edit either, but rather, an edit that substantially changes its content. Nothing remotely similar to the following content was in your post when I replied to it:

People still know what cars are. Your argument is a straw man. by substituting "never-before-seen concept cars", your hypothetical example got more hypothetical. How often are concept cars "witnessed" on the street?

[...]

If you have several people describing a circle, then they are probably seeing something circular. Something blurry can look circular. Circular shapes are pretty common and occur in a variety of perceptions. however, car shapes are common amongst cars, concept cars or not.

In any event, in response to your newly-added-after-the-fact content, you are misusing the term "straw man", as it has zero application here. A straw man is when you misrepresent the opponent's argument in order to refute that fake version of the argument. For example:

Joe: Two plus two equals four.
Bob: That's absurd. Two plus two does not equal five.

And it doesn't matter how hypothetical the example is; people seeing a car accident will, with a high degree of reliability, remember seeing a car accident, regardless of whether they are concept cars or not. In fact, it would be so unusual for someone to remember seeing something completely different than a car accident (i.e., if 11 people remember seeing a car accident and the 12th person remembers seeing a dancing pink elephant instead), that it would strongly suggest that the 12th person was mentally impaired.

I read a number of accounts from the article I linked that gave ME the impression of ambiguity and NOT of metallic "CRAFT". If YOU focus on a couple of the cooler accounts and ignore the others, you get the impression of some kind of alien craft.

In the NARCAP report, someone mentioned a balloon, and someone mentioned a bird. The person who mentioned a bird; maybe he did see a bird. This wasn't a single group of people all in one place at one time. The rest of the accounts are of the "cooler" variety as you put it.

its status as a gray metallic craft was identified,

disagree

From the "Executive Summary" of the NARCAP report you linked to (page 5):

A number of highly reliable airline employees and others reported seeing a round,
revolving, gray, metallic appearing object [hereafter called an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP)]
hovering approximately above United Airline's Gate C17 in Concourse C at an altitude less than 1,900
feet above ground level (AGL) and departing sometime between 4:18 and 4:33 pm.

and its aerial maneuvers were identified.

strongly disagree

Also from the "Executive Summary" of the NARCAP report you linked to (page 5):

Based on eye witness testimony the UAP would have ranged in size from about twenty-two to eighty
eight feet diameter. It accelerated at a steeply inclined angle through the 1,900 ft cloud base leaving a
round hole approximately its own size that lasted for as long as fourteen minutes. This is suggestive of a
super heated object or otherwise radiated (microwave?) heat energy on the order of 9.4 kJ/m3.

So, NARCAP believed the craft's aerial maneuvers were identified, as they included both "hovering" and its vertical acceleration in their Executive Summary of the event.

That's fine, but it doesn't constitute a reasonable doubt. The witnesses said that it did just that. If you could, for example, establish that they were all drunk on the job, that would be grounds for reasonable doubt.

straw man

And once again, the term "straw man" has no application here (see above). You can revisit this and provide an actual argument later if you want, but until you do, it will be an unanswered point.

"Shiny" is reflective by definition.

You have to read the whole report. There were differences in the accounts about this.

"Metallic" is used in the NARCAP "Executive Summary", and also in the Chicago Tribune article, thus they feel it is a good reflection of the accounts. You said: "It was "metallic" but not reflective?" Aside from the guy who saw a bird, who said it wasn't reflective?

I will give you that one but still how many people describe it like this? I count only one. The others went: the "object" was gone and there was a hole in the clouds or they looked away and then there was a hole in the clouds. read the article is all.

Everyone who saw it depart described rapid ~vertical acceleration. Not everyone saw it depart. Again, these reports were not from a single group of people gathered together at the same time, most of them were from people by themselves and at different times. From page 18:

How did the UAP Rise? As substantiated by several witnesses, the UAP did not rise vertically but at a
slight angle to the east. Witness D who was standing about 878 feet SE of gate C17; said that the object
rose in an easterly direction (toward concourse B) and entered the cloud layer after travelling only about
one-quarter to one-half the distance between concourse B and C or between 200 and 400 feet laterally.
Witness J.H. was standing about a mile away to the east in the parking lot of the International Terminal.
She said that it rose at, "…a very slight angle towards me and to my left - very slight angle… Where we
were we could see the side ways motion and tell it was coming towards us a little."

subjective descriptions. there was a perception of something that appeared stationary, it disappeared, there was hole in the cloud. I can animate this effect if you like without anything actually moving. Not saying it wasn't an alien craft but I AM saying it doesn't have to be. I am also saying it doesn't have to be a craft of any kind.

A much more accurate summary of the sightings can be found in the "Executive Report", parts of which I quoted above. As for your suggestion that it seems it could have just disappeared without moving, see directly above, i.e., the quote which begins with the words "How did the UAP rise?" And what's this about an "alien craft"? "Alien" may be something to consider, but all we really know beyond a reasonable doubt from the reports is that it was a round, gray, metallic craft that could hover and rapidly accelerate ~vertically. This places it outside the domain of publicly-known aircraft.

He said almost the same color as the clouds.

In other words, ambiguous.

No, not ambiguous. Saying that it was almost the same color as the clouds makes it even more specific than simply saying it was gray.

From the Chicago Tribune article:
Some said it looked like a rotating Frisbee, while others said it did not appear to be spinning.

That's a very ambiguous statement.

The statement itself isn't ambiguous at all. It is ambiguous as to whether or not it was spinning like a Frisbee, which as I said, isn't a critical detail anyway.

from page 11. a whole bunch of people saw it and thought it was a balloon. a balloon != controlled craft like thing performing extreme maneuvers. Neither does someone dismissing it as a bird.

Did you pay attention to the context of that? None of "the whole bunch of us" are among the official witnesses, except for the person talking (witness B); the claim was that they thought it was a balloon but they weren't sure, none of them saw it depart, and the "half hour ago" time frame means they may not have even been seeing the same thing (kind of like the bird guy).

Why wouldn't it be? If there was indeed something spinning rapidly, that would rule out a whole bunch of known things like clouds, balloons, birds.

Because those things are already ruled out by the multiple witnesses that saw a round, gray, metallic craft, and they are especially ruled out by the multiple witnesses that saw it rapidly accelerate ~vertically and punch a hole in the clouds in the process. The balloon and bird people didn't even see it depart, so they have nothing to report on the most compelling aspect of the sighting (i.e., the performance of an aerial maneuver that no publicly-known craft can do).

For instance a never before seen concept car might spin. I think that would be important info.

No, it wouldn't actually, given that in my scenario the only important information is that a car accident was remembered by the witnesses.

Why don't you? Are you saying that witnesses could have been wrong?

Of course witnesses can be wrong; I said so in my OP. However, the more fundamental the details, the more reliable they become. In my scenario, they would all report that a car accident had occurred, but they may, and probably would, vary on the lesser details.

MaximRecoil
People like pilots and astronauts are probably the most credible, though this level of credibility is overkill for many sightings. ....

Setting aside the provable fact that most "astronaut UFO sightings" are media fictions, and you aren’t “believing” what the astronaut “said”, you’re foolishly believing what some anonymous UFO writer SAYS the astronaut said, you face the widescale myth that “pilots are trained observers” as if that meant their observations are factually reliable.

Pilots are trained pilots, and that training involves awareness of threats and rapid and effective response. To live a long and full life, they must sometimes QUICKLY avoid danger. Waiting to be sure can be fatal – far safer to react via interpreting anything strange in its most hazardous possible form, another craft. THAT is how pilots are trained and be thankful for it – it makes for SAFER flying.

In the two measures of eyewitness goodness – chance of an interpretation error and TYPE of misinterpretation – there aren’t any comparative figures for pilots versus the rest of us on measurement #1. But for measurement number two, HOW do they misperceive when they DO misperceive, data strongly suggests they misinterpret things as other vehicles far more often than ‘ordinary’ folks.

And that’s exactly HOW we all should want it. We live long. Pilots and their passengers, under such training.

Too much time has been wasted theorizing about HOW people of different professions OUGHT to be able to perceive – as in the statement on pilots – and not on what the observational data can tell us. So naturally we’ve gotten nowhere on trying to backtrack raw perceptual reports to potential original stimuli.

reply to post by MaximRecoil


The impression I get from the report in its entirety is that what they saw was ambiguous. Was it metal beyond a shadow of a doubt. No. Did it move at high rate of speed beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. Are there such things as optical illusions that can account for metallic appearance, color, movement? Yes! Can you rule that out? Nope.

The impression I get from this report was that there was possibly something there that was a safety concern for air traffic. This would include a balloon.

Could it have been something else that did what you think? Sure. But without any other supporting evidence of something physical, there is no way to say that it was that. There is no way to determine that it was any type of craft doing anything.

People misidentify things. Multiple people can see the same types of illusions and make the same mistakes without being "drunk". Please tell me how a misidentification can be ruled out. Essentially you are telling people to ignore some basic facts about human perception.

I am not even trying to explain this case as it is impossible to know exactly what someone perceived. People saw something. That's it. The rest is what you believe they saw. I lean towards something more prosaic, you don't. There is nothing wrong with either view. People are NOT recording devices. Far from it.

If you are ever going to get to the bottom of this phenomenon, people need to understand how people form perceptions and memories.

reply to post by MaximRecoil


you are being more intellectually dishonest. My intellectual dishonesty is just intellectual dishonesty to prove a point about how intellectually dishonest you are TIMES INFINITY!

How come smoking gun UFO sightings with military radar and eye witness confirmation are not stickied at the top of the Aliens/UFO forum? It would do away with the skeptics who are too lazy to research...

JimOberg

MaximRecoil
People like pilots and astronauts are probably the most credible, though this level of credibility is overkill for many sightings. ....

Setting aside the provable fact that most "astronaut UFO sightings" are media fictions, and you aren’t “believing” what the astronaut “said”, you’re foolishly believing what some anonymous UFO writer SAYS the astronaut said, you face the widescale myth that “pilots air trained observers” as if that meant their observations are factually reliable.

Nothing you have typed here even remotely logically follows from anything I said. For example, I never mentioned any specific astronaut sightings, much less did I share my "belief" with regard to any specific astronaut UFO sightings. I said that "People like pilots and astronauts are probably the most credible", period. Also, it is comically ironic that you would say that "I'm foolishly believing something" while you are typing out an utter non sequitur, i.e., replying to a pure product of your own imagination as opposed to anything I actually said, thus establishing yourself as "foolish". In any event, consider your non sequitur dismissed.

Pilots are trained pilots, and that training involves awareness of threats and rapid and effective response. To live a long and full life, they must sometimes QUICKLY avoid danger. Waiting to be sure can be fatal – far safer to react via interpreting anything strange in its most hazardous possible form, another craft. THAT is how pilots are trained and be thankful for it – it makes for SAFER flying.

In the two measures of eyewitness goodness – chance of an interpretation error and TYPE of misinterpretation – there aren’t any comparative figures for pilots versus the rest of us on measurement #1. But for measurement number two, HOW do they misperceive when they DO misperceive, data strongly suggests they misinterpret things as other vehicles far more often than ‘ordinary’ folks.

And that’s exactly HOW we all should want it. We live long. Pilots and their passengers, under such training.

Too much time has been wasted theorizing about HOW people of different professions OUGHT to be able to perceive – as in the statement on pilots – and not on what the observational data can tell us. So naturally we’ve gotten nowhere on trying to backtrack raw perceptual reports to potential original stimuli.

Military and airline pilots are probably among the most credible for various reasons, such as, their sobriety and sanity are practically givens, as is their good eyesight. They all have a relatively high level of training, discipline, and education under their belts, which greatly reduces the chances of idiocy and being given to "flights of fancy". They are very familiar with known aircraft and their capabilities, which is prerequisite to recognizing when something falls outside of known aircraft/capabilities. They also tend to be better than the average person at estimating size, distance, velocity, direction, and altitude of aerial objects. But, regardless of that, this is all beside the point (the point can be found in my OP).

reply to post by MaximRecoil


You are just being ridiculous now...and angry.

MaximRecoil
Military and airline pilots are probably among the most credible for various reasons, such as, their sobriety and sanity are practically givens, as is their good eyesight. They all have a relatively high level of training, discipline, and education under their belts, which greatly reduces the chances of idiocy and being given to "flights of fancy". They are very familiar with known aircraft and their capabilities, which is prerequisite to recognizing when something falls outside of known aircraft/capabilities. They also tend to be better than the average person at estimating size, distance, velocity, direction, and altitude of aerial objects. But, regardless of that, this is all beside the point (the point can be found in my OP).

You've just proven my point. You don't ask, "what does the record show about pilot-unique forms of perception and misperception," you trot out a string of rational-sounding reasons why 'a priori' pilots OUGHT to be 'good observers'. But in practice -- and you should pay more attention to practice rather than theorizing -- pilots, for example, are NOT preferred as witnesses to air accidents, according to NTSB aviation investigators I've talked to. It's for the same reason I brought up earlier -- they interpret things based on their own operational needs, and for accidents the've seen, BECAUSE they are so familiar with aviation, they tend to instinctively form explanatory scenarios and theories about the event. This is bad for any investigator, because being human, such witnesses then subconsciously edit their perceptions to be consistent with the way they deduced it must have happened. This is a pattern.

Please keep this possibility in mind, check it out, and see how it cuts the foundation out from under your 'must-be' reasoning about witness reliability. Talk to people who actually USE witness reports, from pilots in particular, to see how their own experience gives them a very different spin on the subject. And ask yourself, which view -- that of the field investigators, or of the armchair theorist -- has more chance of being closer to reality?

Keep an open mind on this.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil

 

The impression I get from the report in its entirety is that what they saw was ambiguous. Was it metal beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Yes. There are enough reports of it being metallic in appearance to eliminate reasonable doubt on the matter.

Did it move at high rate of speed beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Yes. Everyone who saw it depart reported a sudden acceleration to a very high rate of speed, which eliminates reasonable doubt on the matter.

Are there such things as optical illusions that can account for metallic appearance, color, movement? Yes! Can you rule that out? Nope.

Wild conjecture unsupported by evidence in no way establishes reasonable doubt.

The impression I get from this report was that there was possibly something there that was a safety concern for air traffic. This would include a balloon.

A balloon can not suddenly accelerate to high velocity and punch a sharp-edged hole in the clouds, thus your impression does not fit. The balloon explanation was thoroughly debunked in the NARCAP report that you linked to, by the way. See page 97, starting with the sentence: "One explanation was that of a weather balloon."

Could it have been something else that did what you think? Sure. But without any other supporting evidence of something physical, there is no way to say that it was that. There is no way to determine that it was any type of craft doing anything.

Again, this is a case of unreasonable doubt. Unreasonable doubt can arbitrarily be applied to anything; it is as simple as speaking or typing some words on a keyboard. By the way, the neatly punched hole in the clouds that lingered for quite some time was in fact supporting evidence of a physical nature; it can even be calculated as to what level of energy is needed to do such a thing, as they did in the NARCAP report.

People misidentify things. Multiple people can see the same types of illusions and make the same mistakes without being "drunk". Please tell me how a misidentification can be ruled out. Essentially you are telling people to ignore some basic facts about human perception.

Since you have provided no evidence to support your suggestion that they saw an illusion, nor even evidence pertaining to the nature of, and the mechanism behind, this suggested illusion, it is conjecture, and does not establish reasonable doubt.

I am not even trying to explain this case as it is impossible to know exactly what someone perceived. People saw something. That's it.

Since you know there was far more to the reports than statements of "I saw something. That's it.", this is another case of intellectual dishonesty.

The rest is what you believe they saw.

The rest is what they believe they saw, and there is no reasonable justification for doubting the fundamentals. By the way, one of the witnesses posted about it on this forum, and her testimony (which can be read in the NARCAP report starting on page 118) is probably the most detailed/compelling. She saw it from two different vantage points, and for a total of about 13 or 14 minutes. She also saw it depart:

Sam: Now when it took off did it go straight up or was it at a bit of an angle
(This was disclosed by the witness earlier. I am not leading the witness.)

J.H.: Very slight angle towards me and to my left very slight angle.[6] I think anyone standing close to it
may very well have concluded that it would have (been) seen as (going) almost straight up. Where we
were we could see the side ways motion and tell it was coming towards us a little.[7] It went from a dead
zero to just god only knows what instant velocity …I mean it just went![8] People gasped and some
people totally squealed and it just took off. Because at that point it was kind of coming towards us a little
and I think that is what freaked everybody out a little.

I lean towards something more prosaic, you don't.

That's because the evidence doesn't point to something more prosaic,

There is nothing wrong with either view. People are NOT recording devices. Far from it.

And fortunately, people don't need to be "recording devices" to reliably remember the fundamental details of a significant event.

You are just being ridiculous now...and angry.

Your baseless assertion is dismissed.

JimOberg

You've just proven my point.

Not even remotely.

You don't ask, "what does the record show about pilot-unique forms of perception and misperception,"

That's because it is irrelevant, i.e., it doesn't change anything about what I said about military and airline pilots. To make relevant points, you could perhaps try to establish something along the lines of: "Pilots are prone to misidentifying square shapes as circles", or "Pilots are prone to misidentifying slow movement for rapid movement", you know, something that would fundamentally change the nature of their eyewitness testimony so as to make it less credible than the average Joe for whom there are less "givens" (such as good eyesight, sobriety, intelligence, etc).

you trot out a string of rational-sounding reasons why 'a priori' pilots OUGHT to be 'good observers'.

Not only "rational-sounding", but rational.

But in practice -- and you should pay more attention to practice rather than theorizing -- pilots, for example, are NOT preferred as witnesses to air accidents, according to NTSB aviation investigators I've talked to. It's for the same reason I brought up earlier -- they interpret things based on their own operational needs, and for accidents the've seen, BECAUSE they are so familiar with aviation, they tend to instinctively form explanatory scenarios and theories about the event. This is bad for any investigator, because being human, such witnesses then subconsciously edit their perceptions to be consistent with the way they deduced it must have happened. This is a pattern.

Please keep this possibility in mind, check it out, and see how it cuts the foundation out from under your 'must-be' reasoning about witness reliability. Talk to people who actually USE witness reports, from pilots in particular, to see how their own experience gives them a very different spin on the subject. And ask yourself, which view -- that of the field investigators, or of the armchair theorist -- has more chance of being closer to reality?

Keep an open mind on this.

This sounds to me like rivalry/conflict between pilots and investigators, both of them believing they are better qualified to know what happened in depth. The investigators may be generally correct in believing the pilot should leave the job of constructing a theory of events to the investigators, but it is easy enough to filter out the theory from the facts that make up the theory. For example:

Pilot: "... then the 727 went into a dive, losing altitude rapidly, obviously due to ..."

In this case, we can be pretty sure that the plane was a 727 that went into a dive, while the "obviously due to ..." part is potentially the start of a theory. When it comes to the fundamentals of a UFO sighting, there are many logical reasons to prefer a pilot's account to the account of a random person off the street.

reply to post by MaximRecoil

And once again, the term "straw man" has no application here (see above). You can revisit this and provide an actual argument later if you want, but until you do, it will be an unanswered point.

You sound very familiar. Anyway, I believe you have no idea what a "straw man" argument is. I am sure it will be pointless but I will lay it out for you.
Straw man number one:

The fundamental difference is that people "know" what cars look like right down to the make and model.

How do you read this sentence? "People know what cars look like". That is the major point distinguishing from "People do not know what unknown craft look like"
"Right down to the make and model" Emphasizes my original point and is clearly not THE point.

Here is your "Straw Man" and a blatant one at that:

Insert never-before-seen concept cars, and it changes nothing.

You said that people know what cars look like right down to the make and model, and by substituting never-before-seen concept cars, it negates the "right down to the make and model" part of your argument.

"never-before-seen concept cars" is your straw man which you believe "negates" my argument or part of it. It doesn't negate ANY of it. My argument being that people know what cars look like. My position has nothing to do with if people can or can not identify "never-before-seen concept cars". It is such a blatant straw man that we could in fact call it the "never-before-seen concept cars" argument.

Straw man number two:

If you could, for example, establish that they were all drunk on the job, that would be grounds for reasonable doubt.

You are implying that the only way that I could possibly establish any type of misidentification is to "establish that they were all drunk on the job". Not only is that an incredibly ignorant statement, that is a pretty blatant misrepresentation of my position. "That is Straw Man 101".

Either you are the same poster as someone else I argued with recently or you both have the same impairment.

Warning: this post is subject to editing. Get over it.

I don't think that the biggest problem with eyewitness evidence is unreliability. I'm perfectly willing to accept that for the most part people are going to describe what they saw to the best of their ability and not purposely try to lie. Fine.

The problem as I see it is that there's nothing more to be done with it. A person describes a sliver flying saucer that zoomed over their head. Okay, fine. What am I supposed to do with that? I can't study it. I can't replay the event. It is of no help when trying to figure out what the thing was, who built it, or where it came from.

It's like somebody describing one of their dreams to me. Oh, you dreamed about a lion in your kitchen? Great. I believe you. So what?

And we've been over this a thousand times here, but really, there is a big difference between eyewitness testimony in a Court of Law, where people are asked to make a judgment of guilt or innocence based on a majority or preponderance of evidence, and something like witnessing a UFO, where it's a question of something existing or not. Two cars crash in the street, and we pretty much all agree that cars and drivers and streets exist, and occasionally cars crash into each other. But somebody tells you that they saw a glowing purple cube pass over their heads and it psychically beamed a message into their heads encouraging recycling, then that's going to be a little tougher sell. Or assuming the person is accurately describing the encounter... so what?

reply to post by MaximRecoil


You have completely lost me with your irrational rhetoric brighter. You completely ignore that people can misperceive things. I am not even trying to explain this case away and yet you seem to be wanting to throw air balls at the net again. I am saying that the witnesses could possibly be right with what the saw and they could also possibly be wrong. That is NOT wild conjecture which is another misrepresentation of what I am saying. That a weather balloon was "debunked" is fantastic and still has nothing to do with anything. Again, not making any claim as to what they did or did not see. My only claim is what they saw was ambiguous which seems to be pretty well established.

Your position is that there is no way it could be anything other than a metallic craft that moved at an extreme speed. Can you provide some information, links, literature...anything that shows how misidentification can be ruled out? Of course not and I don't expect you to.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil

 

And once again, the term "straw man" has no application here (see above). You can revisit this and provide an actual argument later if you want, but until you do, it will be an unanswered point.

You sound very familiar. Anyway, I believe you have no idea what a "straw man" argument is. I am sure it will be pointless but I will lay it out for you.

I told you exactly what a straw man is, and I gave you an example of one, therefore your belief that I don't know what one is, is irrational. On the other hand, you have established that you don't know what one is, by misapplying the term more than once.

How do you read this sentence? "People know what cars look like". That is the major point distinguishing from "People do not know what unknown craft look like"
"Right down to the make and model" Emphasizes my original point and is clearly not THE point.

I didn't claim that is was "THE point". Any element of an argument is fair game, not just "THE point". However, the "right down to the make and model" part of your argument is specifying a high level of visual familiarity that people have with cars, so if that part is negated, it weakens your argument.

Here is your "Straw Man" and a blatant one at that:

Insert never-before-seen concept cars, and it changes nothing.

You said that people know what cars look like right down to the make and model, and by substituting never-before-seen concept cars, it negates the "right down to the make and model" part of your argument.

"never-before-seen concept cars" is your straw man which you believe "negates" my argument or part of it. It doesn't negate ANY of it. My argument being that people know what cars look like. My position has nothing to do with if people can or can not identify "never-before-seen concept cars". It is such a blatant straw man that we could in fact call it the "never-before-seen concept cars" argument.

Not only is this not an example of a straw man; but you are so far off the mark that this is tantamount to "not even wrong" territory. In order for there to be a straw man, I'd have to present an altered version of your argument, either explicitly or implicitly. I didn't do any such thing, nor have you even provided an example that could reasonably be construed as me having presented an altered version of your argument (which is why your straw man claim is so bizarre and out of left field). I said that if you substitute "never-before-seen concept cars" for production cars (making them less familiar to the witnesses, which negates the specified high level of visual familiarity with cars in your argument), it changes nothing. I also pointed out that your entire argument is irrelevant anyway, because people are even more familiar with the basic shape called "circle" than they are with cars.

Straw man number two:

If you could, for example, establish that they were all drunk on the job, that would be grounds for reasonable doubt.

You are implying that the only way that I could possibly establish any type of misidentification is to "establish that they were all drunk on the job". Not only is that an incredibly ignorant statement, that is a pretty blatant misrepresentation of my position. "That is Straw Man 101".

Again, you have an utterly bizarre misconception of what a straw man is. I didn't misrepresent your argument, and that fact automatically refutes your straw man claim. Additionally, you didn't even understand what I typed there, i.e., I implied no such thing. I said, "for example", which means that is one of multiple ways in which grounds for reasonable doubt could be established. Another way could be to establish a history of mental illness among the witnesses, or a history of perpetuating hoaxes, or whatever. The point is that you didn't establish anything that would give grounds for reasonable doubt.

Either you are the same poster as someone else I argued with recently or you both have the same impairment.

This is my only username on the forum, as well as on many other forums over the past dozen years. If I'm not the first person to point out that you are misapplying the term "straw man", it certainly doesn't surprise me though, because you are in fact grossly misusing the term.

Warning: this post is subject to editing. Get over it.

Editing a debate post to fundamentally change its content, after it has already been replied to, is an extreme case of intellectual dishonesty. There is nothing for me to "get over"; you only make yourself look bad with such stunts (a stunt that would get your editing privileges suspended on some forums).

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil

 

You have completely lost me with your irrational rhetoric brighter. You completely ignore that people can misperceive things. I am not even trying to explain this case away and yet you seem to be wanting to throw air balls at the net again. I am saying that the witnesses could possibly be right with what the saw and they could also possibly be wrong. That is NOT wild conjecture which is another misrepresentation of what I am saying. That a weather balloon was "debunked" is fantastic and still has nothing to do with anything. Again, not making any claim as to what they did or did not see. My only claim is what they saw was ambiguous which seems to be pretty well established.

Except, it wasn't ambiguous, especially with regard to the nature of its departure flight, and the physical evidence in the form of the sharp-edged hole that it punched in the clouds as it passed through them. Those are very specific things.

By the way, you don't seem to be recognizing the significance of the hole in the clouds. A neat cylinder of cloud moisture, as tall as the thickness of the cloud cover, and a little bit bigger than the craft in diameter, was ~instantly vaporized at the moment that the craft shot upward at high velocity through the clouds. Think about that.

Your position is that there is no way it could be anything other than a metallic craft that moved at an extreme speed. Can you provide some information, links, literature...anything that shows how misidentification can be ruled out? Of course not and I don't expect you to.

If you have alternate explanations of the event in mind, it is up to you to present and support them, which is the only path to creating reasonable doubt. You can't create reasonable doubt by simply throwing things at the wall hoping something will stick; doing so is tantamount to a defense lawyer randomly proclaiming in court, "Maybe the butler did it!" in an effort to direct attention away from his client, but without anything to support the claim.

reply to post by MaximRecoil


It is a complete and utter straw man. Two of many. No question. Its beyond ridiculous.

If you have alternate explanations of the event in mind, it is up to you to present and support them, which is the only path to creating reasonable doubt. You can't create reasonable doubt by simply throwing things at the wall hoping something will stick; doing so is tantamount to a defense lawyer randomly proclaiming in court, "Maybe the butler did it!" in an effort to direct attention away from his client, but without anything to support the claim.

Oye vey.... what exactly is on trial? That people saw something? OK. What did they see? I DON'T KNOW. There is not enough information to determine what they saw. YOU think so and that is fantastic. So I have to agree with you without question? I don't. Get over it.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil

 

It is a complete and utter straw man. Two of many. No question. Its beyond ridiculous.

Already refuted (see above).

Also, according to your own statement, it seems that I'm not the first person to point out that you don't know what a straw man is. That should tell you something.

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

Therefore, your opinion is automatically vacuous.