The idea that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable"

reply to post by neoholographic

Again, this is just devoid of any logic. The reason why blind debunkers do this is because they're scared of the truth. They're scared that they might read a case that's very credible and convincing. To avoid this most of them don't read individual cases. This is why I have kept posting the same 3 links and I get radio silence from the debunkers.

The truth is that aliens have probably visited here but it's the constant bombardment of garbage from blind believers that is obscuring "real" information. You probably get radio silence because you are freakishly void of being able to have a rational discussion. As a believer, I don't wish to associate with this type of rhetoric. It's nonsense and more like a projection of yours.

Sorry I was married to a psychologist and went to a lot of parties with psych professors and stuff. Oh what fun! What you probably don't want to hear is that you are exhibiting exactly what you perceive as the most vile aspects from the "debunker" straw man you project. A simple question was specifically asked about a specific set of cases. You answered as if you were in a histrionic panic and avoided what could have been an actual discussion. Are you afraid of rational discussion where your "vile debunker" doesn't actually exist? What are you afraid of?

If you are serious, you should welcome the discussion and embrace it. When ET arrives with all their Jedi mind tricks, you will be eaten because you chose to avoid the discussion. I am sure of that.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Did you read the title of this thread?

It's about the claim that eyewitnesses accounts are unreliable so the specific cases are meaningless because you can't extrapolate these cases when it comes to the reliability/unreliability of eyewitnesses.

So again, my point is a simple one. Have people mistaken a UFO for satellite reentry? Probably, does this have anything to do with the mountains of eyewitness accounts and close encounters when it comes to reliability/unreliability of the witness? Absolutely not.

Also, the radio silence from Debunkers from these 3 simple links is due to the fact they want to dump all eyewitnesses into one box and this way they don't have to deal with pesky things like facts and the credibility of the witnesses.

reply to post by neoholographic

Did you read the title of this thread?

I think so?

It's about the claim that eyewitnesses accounts are unreliable so the specific cases are meaningless because you can't extrapolate these cases when it comes to the reliability/unreliability of eyewitnesses.

Yes, this is true but why would you say that specific cases are meaningless? Witness testimony alone is not enough to prove anything. James McDonald interviewed over 500 witnesses and could only conclude the ETH was only a possibility and not provable.

So the thread is about the value we place on witnesses to UFOs. A body of evidence regarding that very thing is presented that shows very explicitly how people see something and interpret it. In this case they interpret something to be a UFO and "see" things in all various shapes and sizes that turns out to be NOT what they described.

This is extremely valuable information for anyone who is serious about this topic. To pretend that this information has nothing to do with UFO witness testimony is mind boggling.

So again, my point is a simple one. Have people mistaken a UFO for satellite reentry? Probably, does this have anything to do with the mountains of eyewitness accounts and close encounters when it comes to reliability/unreliability of the witness? Absolutely not.

So the mountain of evidence that shows how eyewitnesses in several different cases mistook something for a UFO has nothing to do with understanding how eyewitnesses can be mistaken. So I think your simple point is that how people see things has nothing to do with how people see things.

Also, the radio silence from Debunkers from these 3 simple links is due to the fact they want to dump all eyewitnesses into one box and this way they don't have to deal with pesky things like facts and the credibility of the witnesses.

I still have no idea who these "debunkers" are but you really have no idea why anyone doesn't comment on any link you post. Honestly, Can you see into your computer screen and see "debunkers" clicking on links and just being absolutely stumped by your "incredible links of truth". If these "debunkers" are anything like me, and they probably are, they probably didn't really even notice you "links of truth". I certainly didn't. And now that I am aware of them I still have no desire to click on any of them because it would probably lead to more pointless discussions anyway. You essentially just repeat yourself over and over and over and over. So what would be the point? That's my radio silence anyway but you can imagine anything you want.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian



You said:

So the mountain of evidence that shows how eyewitnesses in several different cases mistook something for a UFO has nothing to do with understanding how eyewitnesses can be mistaken. So I think your simple point is that how people see things has nothing to do with how people see things.

Bingo!

It's meaningless because you have to look at these things in a case by case basis. You can't say because people mistook something in a few cases means this can be extrapolated to all of the other eyewitness accounts and close encounters.

This is just devoid of any logic.

It would be like Police Officers saying well there were 3 mistaken identifications in these 3 cases so therefore we must conclude that all eyewitness accounts are mistaken. It makes no sense.

It's just a way for blind debunkers to avoid individual cases. They can lie to themselves and say all eyewitness accounts must be mistaken because they can point to a few cases.

The only thing it has to do with is how those eyewitnesses were mistaken in that individual account. Again, who were the witnesses, who did the investigation, where are the weather reports from that night. Do they match up with other eyewitness accounts. Exactly which accounts do they match up to?

These things are isolated incidents and they say NOTHING about the reliability/unreliability of eyewitnesses. You can't put every eyewitness into a box. That's just silly.

reply to post by neoholographic

This is just devoid of any logic.

That is very introspective.

It would be like Police Officers saying well there were 3 mistaken identifications in these 3 cases so therefore we must conclude that all eyewitness accounts are mistaken.

No it's not. It's like police officers would have a knowledge base and in this knowledge base you have all cases where there were positive identifications and misidentifications and ones that aren't verified as either. Police officers could run various statistical algorithms and interpret the information in a variety of ways which could help them identify patterns of behavior that may be associated with the group that misidentified someone. What police officers could say based on this information is there is a "likelihood" that a person misidentified someone that wasn't verified as a positive id.

The problem is slightly different with UFOs because there are sightings that are classified as "unidentified" and there is no verifiable evidence that aliens were due to any sighting. However, We do have a knowledge base of UFOs that were identified and we have information on how people reacted and testified about what they witnessed. We also have information on how people react and testified about the objects that are classified as "unidentified".

This is very valuable to help understand and put in perspective the cases that remain unidentified. It doesn't dismiss them or render them meaningless at all. That's your fear and there is nothing to be afraid of because the best you can do with this information is put a likelihood on an any given case being a misperception. It will still remain unknown so it could still be an alien

It makes no sense.

Not the way you are understanding it, I agree.


Here is a report that gives various statistics on witness misidentifications and how that information can be applied. www.innocenceproject.org...

reply to post by neoholographic

It's just a way for blind debunkers to avoid individual cases. They can lie to themselves and say all eyewitness accounts must be mistaken because they can point to a few cases.

I don't think you are understanding. Again, it's valuable information that can help gauge UFO sightings that remain unknown.
There is no doubt that there could be "debunker" types that use this information to dismiss ALL sightings that remain unknown but I don't think that is the intention of Jim Oberg. Obviously he can speak for himself. I mean he is evil and all but he does have a good grip on how this information can be used properly. The best thing to do would be to understand what it means that way when these "debunkers" come in with this information and use it improperly, you can sound informed and knowledgable instead how you sound now. I promise that when you do come across these "debunkers" saying all these things that defy logic and stuff, I will have your back and give them a text based lashing they never seen before.

The only thing it has to do with is how those eyewitnesses were mistaken in that individual account.

I disagree. I think an important question to ask would be like do they matched up to other eyewitness accounts and exactly which accounts they match up to?

Do they match up with other eyewitness accounts. Exactly which accounts do they match up to?

I disagree. The only thing it has to do with is how those eyewitnesses were mistaken in that individual account.
Wait. Are you trying to trick me again?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Sadly for you, I actually read the links people post and the paper you posted actually strengthens eyewitness accounts which suggests out of all these abduction cases and close encounters the eyewitness is telling the truth. This is because EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS ARE NOT MONOLITHIC. Some eyewitness accounts will be strong while some will be weak. This is just basic common sense but blind debunkers don't want to use common sense in these areas. They want to do things like put all eyewitnesses into a monolithic box labeled unreliable which makes no sense.

Did you actually read the paper that you linked to? It talks about how Police line-ups could be made better which anyone can agree with. It says nothing about how Police officers should look at all eyewitnesses in the same way. Again, you're going to have strong eyewitnesses and weak eyewitnesses and even in your link it doesn't draw the silly conclusion that you can label all eyewitness accounts in one way because of these cases. Here's some highlights from the link you posted.

Eyewitness identification is among the most
prevalent and persuasive evidence used in
courtrooms. Eyewitness testimony that directly
implicates the defendant is compelling evidence
in any trial, but it is not error-proof. Jurors may
not realize that confident, trustworthy witnesses
can be mistaken. A single witness’s identification
can be enough to obtain a conviction.

Eyewitness identification also plays a key role
in shaping investigations. In the immediate after-
math of a crime, an erroneous identification can
derail police investigations by putting focus on
an innocent person while the actual perpetrator
is still on the streets. Once a witness identifies
the suspect to police, whether or not that person
actually committed the crime, investigators may
stop looking for other suspects.

The Executive Summary of the paper you linked to destroys you entire argument. IT SAYS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS COMPELLING EVIDENCE IN ANY TRIAL.

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE.

I started another thread and you and other debunkers tried to say eyewitness accounts are not evidence. Of course it is and the paper you linked to calls it COMPELLING EVIDENCE.

It goes on to say:

Decades of empirical, peer-reviewed social science
research reaffirms what DNA exonerations have
proven to be true: human memory is fallible.2
Memory is not fixed, it can be influenced and
altered. After the crime and throughout the
criminal investigation, the witness attempts to
piece together what happened. His memory is
evidence and must be handled as carefully as
the crime scene itself to avoid forever altering it.

Again, eyewitness testimony is called evidence. Not just by me but the paper you linked to. We all know that some eyewitness accounts can be faulty and wrong. You can't extrapolate that out to all eyewitness accounts. That's just asinine. I don't do anything silly like that and neither does the paper you linked to. It ends with this:

Eyewitnesses provide indispensable evidence
in many police investigations, leading to the
apprehension and conviction of countless actual
perpetrators of crime. But when they make
mistakes, the consequences can be drastic.
Eyewitness misidentification can set in motion
a chain of irrevocable errors from the police
precinct to the courtroom – deterring police
officers from discovering the real perpetrator,
raising criminal charges against an innocent
person, and compelling the jury toward a guilty
verdict. It is the criminal justice system’s respon-
sibility to help eyewitnesses make the most
accurate identification possible. Eyewitnesses,
law enforcement and the public at large, will
benefit from identification procedures that
are designed according to scientific research
and conducted consistently nationwide.

Again, EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS PROVIDE INDISPENSABLE EVIDENCE. This isn't coming from me but the link that you provided. Should we work with things like line ups to make these procedures better? Of course we should especially in the Justice System.

At the end of the day, the paper you linked to actually strengthens the case for Eyewitnesses and says EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE.

Common sense tells us some eyewitness accounts will be strong and some will be weak. The illogical debunker wants to throw all eyewitness accounts into one monolithic box.

Sadly for you, I actually read links that people post because I'm seeking the truth. It's the blind debunker who will ignore links and actual evidence because they have made up their minds that they must be right and they don't want any logic or common sense getting in the way so they ignore evidence that's doesn't match up to their pre-existing belief.

reply to post by neoholographic


What is your explanation for the dozen documented instances, linked above, where witnesses are looking at a fireball swarm from a satellite reentry, all over the world, and they later report seeing a large structured object with lighted windows coasting soundlessly horizontally across the sky. What portion of their testimony do you consider to be accurate?

neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Sadly for you, I actually read the links people post and the paper you posted actually strengthens eyewitness accounts which suggests out of all these abduction cases and close encounters the eyewitness is telling the truth.

the paper actually suggests this about abduction cases? It's not sad for me, that's actually good news!

This is because EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS ARE NOT MONOLITHIC. Some eyewitness accounts will be strong while some will be weak. This is just basic common sense but blind debunkers don't want to use common sense in these areas. They want to do things like put all eyewitnesses into a monolithic box labeled unreliable which makes no sense.

I am very curious, do you actually visualize debunkers walking around that are blind wearing dark sunglasses putting people into boxes with giant lettering labeled "unreliable" like its a Nazi concentration camp or something?

Did you actually read the paper that you linked to? It talks about how Police line-ups could be made better which anyone can agree with.

I think the real question is did YOU read ANYTHING anyone actually posted or do you only see these "debunker" demons? Yes, police lineups could be made better and how we understand UFO sightings could also be made better. Do you get it yet?

It says nothing about how Police officers should look at all eyewitnesses in the same way.

Absolutely. And neither did I or anyone else....well except for you when describe what these vial demonic mythical debunkers say. Of course you can prove me wrong by posting where someone said that "all eye witnesses should be looked at the same way". It's your pattern where you end up saying exactly the same thing that everyone is actually saying that you disagree with and taking whatever document is posted as agreeing with you. Do you realize you do this?

Again, you're going to have strong eyewitnesses and weak eyewitnesses and even in your link it doesn't draw the silly conclusion that you can label all eyewitness accounts in one way because of these cases. Here's some highlights from the link you posted.

Let me know when you realize that nobody is labeling anyone except for you

I am not really sure how you are twisting this document into something that supports the comments you have made repeatedly. Sure witness testimony is important in court cases who is disagreeing? Misidentification is also the leading cause of wrongful convictions. The idea is to gather information and analyze it so you can reduce this. You do this by using the information you gather from misidentifications exactly like gathering the information in UFO cases where there has been a misidentification. What don't you get?

reply to post by JimOberg


Explanation for what?

All you have shown that in some cases people may have mistaken reentry for a UFO. It says absolutely nothing about the reliability/unreliability of eyewitnesses. In fact, here's a quote from the page you linked to:

These cases represent a small fraction of those likely to be found among UFO reports. I found more than 20 percent of
the 211 re-entries in the latest draft of my compilation, by searching through old government and private UFO case
reports. None had been correlated with a re-entry, though some had been suspected as such. Descriptions of craft with
lights are common across the entire body of sightings. Whatever their cause(s), there does not seem to be any obvious
correlation with geography, race or ethnicity.

Again, you have just shown that some eyewitnesses can be mistaken. Who didn't know that already? Again, it says nothing about the reliability/unreliability of eyewitnesses in general. It just says some eyewitnesses in these cases may have seen reentry instead of a UFO.

It's a meaningless observation because I don't know anyone that will say eyewitnesses can't be mistaken. I really don't understand your point. Are you saying these cases mean all eyewitnesses must be mistaken? If not then what's your point? It's obvious that some eyewitnesses will be mistaken but it says nothing about the reliability/unreliability of eyewitnesses in general.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


You said:

I am not really sure how you are twisting this document into something that supports the comments you have made repeatedly. Sure witness testimony is important in court cases who is disagreeing? Misidentification is also the leading cause of wrongful convictions. The idea is to gather information and analyze it so you can reduce this. You do this by using the information you gather from misidentifications exactly like gathering the information in UFO cases where there has been a misidentification.

Reduce what??

Of course you want to reduce mis-identification when it comes to the justice system because people can go to jail for long periods of time.

What are you going to reduce when it comes to UFO's? By your own admission people can have a mis-perception of what they're seeing. This is a meaningless statement because nobody disagrees with this. Of course people can be mistaken and they will continue to be mistaken because of a faulty perception. Again, this means nothing in the context of the debate. It says nothing about the reliability/unreliability of eyewitnesses.

It simply says some eyewitnesses will be mistaken. Who didn't already know this?

the fact is eyewitness accounts is evidence that supports extraterrestrial visitation. In fact, the paper you quoted from called eyewitness testimony COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE.

The fact is some eyewitnesses will be strong and some will be weak. Saying some will be mistaken is meaningless in the context of this debate because nobody claimed that there were no eyewitnesses that were mistaken. It says nothing about whether eyewitness accounts are reliable/unreliable. The paper you linked to says something about the reliability of eyewitness accounts. It called them COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE. Are some eyewitnesses mistaken? Of course but nobody said they weren't so what's your point?

reply to post by neoholographic

It's a meaningless observation because I don't know anyone that will say eyewitnesses can't be mistaken. I really don't understand your point. Are you saying these cases mean all eyewitnesses must be mistaken? If not then what's your point? It's obvious that some eyewitnesses will be mistaken but it says nothing about the reliability/unreliability of eyewitnesses in general.

I am going to try one more time. The point is you use this information in the SAME way that you use the information in the document I linked. You know the same document that completely and utterly proves all of the points you made. I know this will be hard to understand but it's the same type of information that is used In that document. WITNESS MISIDENTIFICATION.

As you pointed out, you compare the misidentifications with the ones which remain unknown and see how they relate. What these cases illustrate is the extent to which misidentifications can and do occur in normal healthy witnesses. Obviously you understand the point which is why you are avoiding the discussion.

People see gigantic motherships that are not giant motherships. These are not isolated cases but actually seem to repeat a pattern much like your postings. If it is indeed a pattern, it absolutely has everything to do with how reliable witnesses are. How could it not? Just like in the paper I linked. There is a pattern to misidentifications so the information is very useful.
Do you get it yet? No? Ok. Good night.

Here's a link to some COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind. Now could some of these cases be mis-perception? Of course but according to the paper linked to by Zeta many of these accounts will be COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE. This again shows the importance of Eyewitness Accounts when gathering EVIDENCE.

www.ufoevidence.org...

reply to post by neoholographic


I don't think you are following. What It reduces is garbage that is trying to be passed off as alien visitation. It doesn't eliminate it but it certainly puts it into perspective. But it certainly seems like you don't want to eliminate garbage, you want to add to it. Why do you not want to filter out all the BS? Are you afraid that once the garbage cases are gone, that the real aliens won't be exciting enough? Or are you afraid that when all the crapola cases disappear there won't be anything left? I have no problem eliminating all the cases That can legitimately be eliminated because I know there will remain some very intriguing cases, which ones are they now? I have no idea because blind believers like you want to keep piling it on. Maybe that's the real fear you have. You are not a believer, more like a blind fantasiser that's afraid that when the fantasy BS is gone, the real aliens are going to get you. Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


What pattern are you talking about? Did you actually read the link that said this made up a small fraction of cases? You said:

People see gigantic motherships that are not giant motherships. These are not isolated cases but actually seem to repeat a pattern much like your postings. If it is indeed a pattern, it absolutely has everything to do with how reliable witnesses are. How could it not? Just like in the paper I linked. There is a pattern to misidentifications so the information is very useful.
Do you get it yet? No? Ok. Good night.

Again, it has nothing to do with how unreliable eyewitnesses are in general. It simply states that some eyewitnesses can be mistaken. Who didn't already know this?

Show me this pattern of people that are mistaken in these Close Encounter cases.

www.ufoevidence.org...

Where's the pattern in these abduction cases?

www.ufocasebook.com...

Did you even read the link? They say nothing about any pattern. They show that a small fraction of cases could have been mistaken for reentry. That's it and nothing more. For you to extrapolate some pattern tells me you probably didn't even read the entire page that was linked to or look over what he discovered. I did and it ended with this.

These cases represent a small fraction of those likely to be found among UFO reports. I found more than 20 percent of
the 211 re-entries in the latest draft of my compilation, by searching through old government and private UFO case
reports. None had been correlated with a re-entry, though some had been suspected as such. Descriptions of craft with
lights are common across the entire body of sightings. Whatever their cause(s), there does not seem to be any obvious
correlation with geography, race or ethnicity.

Again, I actually read links people post because I want to debate both sides knowing all of the information. You're the one who said you will not read the links I posted. Of course you wont because you rather stay blind in your belief.

It's obvious you didn't read the paper you posted to that called eyewitness testimony COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE.

You probably read a few lines, felt it supported your position and you posted a link you thought nobody would actually read. Sadly for you, I look over every link posted when I'm in a debate because I don't want to live in a blind belief. I want to know all sides. The same can't be said for you and other debunkers who want to debate these things in the vacuum of their blind belief.

So if you're debating me and you post a link, I suggest you actually read it first and if you really want to open your mind read links and gather information that doesn't agree with your position because it's better to be well informed than it is to be in blind belief.

neoholographic
Here's a link to some COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind. Now could some of these cases be mis-perception?

Maybe in your own way, you are getting it. Now do you think it would be helpful to identify these mis-perceptions? Of course you do but you certainly seem like you would rather keep the garbage mixed in. So there is an opportunity to help with this process and you reject it. Why?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Again, this has nothing to do with whether eyewitness accounts are reliable/unreliable. The only thing it says is that a small fraction of cases could be satellite reentries mistaken as UFO's.

You're not making much sense here because nobody is debating whether some cases are mistaken. Of course they are. But this says nothing about the reliability/unreliability of eyewitnesses. In fact the paper you linked to called eyewitnesses COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE. I agree!

MaximRecoil

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

If "no witness is reliable", we couldn't even function as a society, much less have any technology. We could never learn anything from others, because our "unreliability" as a witness would prevent us from being able to properly repeat anything anyone else ever did. We couldn't even learn the alphabet, much less a language. The very ability to learn depends upon being a reliable witness with regard to all of our senses. If we couldn't reliably repeat what we see, we couldn't learn to e.g., write; if we couldn't reliably repeat what we hear we couldn't learn to speak, and so on.

Again, the idea that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" has merit, but mainly as pertains to lesser details and/or the passage of time. We are very reliable at reporting the fundamentals of an event, especially soon after the event.

edit on 3/22/2014 by MaximRecoil because: Clarification

I agree entirely. Scientific experiments show that witness testimony is not 100% and this is used, in a very academic way, to undermine the witness. But, by and large, witness testimony is reliable to a high degree. It is certainly sufficient to get the essence of an experience. It does not matter if a ufo has 6 or 8 lights and witnesses disagree. There was a ufo and it had lights. That is more than sufficient evidence for researcher's purposes. Purely academic arguments about how the witness could have been wrong about small details are a lot of fluster about nothing.

ZetaRediculian

neoholographic
Here's a link to some COMPELLING AND INDISPENSABLE Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind. Now could some of these cases be mis-perception?

Maybe in your own way, you are getting it. Now do you think it would be helpful to identify these mis-perceptions? Of course you do but you certainly seem like you would rather keep the garbage mixed in. So there is an opportunity to help with this process and you reject it. Why?

When there is such a preponderance of evidence the garbage becomes so diluted it does not have any bearing on the final analysis. One true sighting or ufo photo negates all the garbage because one true sighting is all it takes to prove the case. One truth can negate a million contrary lies of mis-understandings.

reply to post by neoholographic


I honestly don't think you are making any effort to understand. I don't think you read how misidentifications are the leading cause of wrongful convictions. We both agree that witness testimony is important. But I don't think you actually understand that it requires supporting evidence. The degree to which people misidentify is impressive but you avoid that discussion for some reason. The degree to which misidentifications cause wrongful convictions is very high compared to other reasons.That is the whole point of the paper.