Mass witness UFO landings - Credible proof or not ?

All ufologists hunt for the holy grail of a piece of evidence they can hold up to sceptics (and the world at large) and say dispute this !!!
I feel that mass witness UFO landings could be the answer and that they are being to a certain extent undervalued.
Take the following three cases (and do your own research if you are not familiar with them).
Remember when trace evidence is involved it goes beyond taking a persons word on face value.

April 6 1966 Westall Australia.

200+ Students and teachers.

September 27 1989 Voronezh Russia.

30-40 Adults 12 Children.


September 14 1994 Ruwa Zimbabwe.

62 Schoolchildren.


If you think these cases lack crediblity remember two things.

1. Are these people all liars ?
2. There are other cases out there.

It's not that they are liars but they are all witnessing an event which may or may not be a ufo. If 1000 people see a bright light that can't be explained does that mean they saw a ufo or they all saw a bright light they can't explain.

Eyewitness testimony is flaky at best as many experiments have been done on inidividuals and groups as to perception. If 1000 people see something it has no more relevance than 1 person.

OP can you post some links for some of our other posters who may not know about these cases? I personally think mass sightings are a very interesting part of this subject. My favorite is the school children who saw the UFO landing and a supposed 'ET' exiting the craft.

It's not about credibility anymore it's about physical, tangible evidence.

Thousands of people say they have seen and spoke to god also, should we all believe them too?

Originally posted by kro32
It's not that they are liars but they are all witnessing an event which may or may not be a ufo. If 1000 people see a bright light that can't be explained does that mean they saw a ufo or they all saw a bright light they can't explain.

Eyewitness testimony is flaky at best as many experiments have been done on inidividuals and groups as to perception. If 1000 people see something it has no more relevance than 1 person.

That's not quite true.

Mulitple witnesses in a court of law, holds much more weight than a single witness. The above mentioned cases for me is enough proof of that "we are not alone"

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
OP can you post some links for some of our other posters who may not know about these cases? I personally think mass sightings are a very interesting part of this subject. My favorite is the school children who saw the UFO landing and a supposed 'ET' exiting the craft.

www.ufoevidence.org...

Even though i suspect there is extra terrestrial life in the universe, i wont fully believe it until i see this
www.youtube.com...
happening in my garden, and im hopefully expecting Charlie Sheen to be there too.

Originally posted by CrashRetrieval
April 6 1966 Westall Australia.
200+ Students and teachers.

Had a look at this first one, and there is an "official" website...
westall

and a yahoo message group, where for a few years now the original witnesses have been discussing this...
yahoo

However the disappointing thing is that all these years later, no further evidence has come to light, and it still remains nothing more than an object that was seen in the sky, descended behind some trees, then took off again.

Ourselves from a future time in a future machine?
Aliens from zeta reticuli?
Visitors from a parallel dimension?
An act of God, just to entain himself on a boring day?
Seems no one will ever know.

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by kro32
It's not that they are liars but they are all witnessing an event which may or may not be a ufo. If 1000 people see a bright light that can't be explained does that mean they saw a ufo or they all saw a bright light they can't explain.

Eyewitness testimony is flaky at best as many experiments have been done on inidividuals and groups as to perception. If 1000 people see something it has no more relevance than 1 person.

That's not quite true.

Mulitple witnesses in a court of law, holds much more weight than a single witness. The above mentioned cases for me is enough proof of that "we are not alone"

Just because more than 1 person sees something does not validate what that object is. As the above poster said, tangible evidence is needed. If I were to put on an alien suit and walk downtown New York and 5,000 people saw me it wouldn't make me anymore of an alien.

If 1 person sees a hoax or 1000 people see a hoax it is still a hoax or unexplained event. Does not make it a real ufo.

Originally posted by CrashRetrieval
I feel that mass witness UFO landings could be the answer and that they are being to a certain extent undervalued.

UFO does not = ET controlled spacecraft though. A mass sighting of a UFO only means that a whole bunch of people saw something and didn't know what it was ("unidentified" flying object). This is exactly what happened in New York City recently, a mass sighting of several UFOs complete with several videos posted to Youtube, lots of witnesses, and even expert commentary. It was later disclosed that they were Chinese lanterns released in honor of children killed in domestic violence cases.

So have there been mass sightings of UFOs? Absolutely. Have there been mass sightings of ET controlled spacecraft? Unknown, but highly doubtful. There's a reason all sightings, photos and videos are of fuzzy shapes and blinking lights, because once it gets closer it's usually recognized to be something conventional.

And just to be clear, I would LOVE to know there are ETs out there and that they visit us. But I also believe that Occam's Razor needs to be remembered when considering the "evidence".

reply to post by SavedOne


The pheonix lights are a good example of this also but your correct in saying that just because numerous people saw it doesn't mean it's alien in nature.

Rather it's just something that's unexplained.

See something unknown flying, landing and taking off again is in the more credible area. The only things left are to try and identify an object and/or exclude all other possiblities, or just call a mass of people liers. There is no in between if a mundane explanation is not found. Either they saw a UFO, or they are all lying. There are things mechanical that will fly, hover take off or land and turn on a button, that are not as known aircraft behave, and are not helicopters, and are not unknown, just not common. They could all be eliminated by inquiry. Once that is done, and there is no known explanation then, as I say, they have seen a UFO, or they are all lying, it's that simple.

Here's one example a fairly modern video,

www.youtube.com...

Now, here's the same thing on film. Note that back then it was assumed that this machine came to nothing, yet it's still being demonstrated up front,

www.youtube.com...

Obviously height is not such a problem either.

reply to post by kro32


Well something is going on!

www.mufon.com...

www.nuforc.org...


Proof? perhaps not, but you have to admit the sheer amount of sightings of anomalies raises questions.

reply to post by CrashRetrieval


Sometimes it's not the case that lacks credibility, but the statements about the case.

In the Voronezh case, the "30-40 Adults 12 Children" are reduced to a 3 names list of witnesses, all children, so how should we count the witnesses? Should we count all numbers we see reported, or only those that can be confirmed?

In the Ruwa case, when I saw the videos (and I think I listened to a recording) it looked like the children were giving the answers they thought the adults wanted them to give, with the adult's questions suggesting the answer that should be given.

Originally posted by AnteBellum
It's not about credibility anymore it's about physical, tangible evidence.

Thousands of people say they have seen and spoke to god also, should we all believe them too?

True but not all on the same day and hour and the same event.

Its just a case of lets brush these under the mat because it is embarrassing and not politicaly correct to investigate these events thoroughly, and definitely not for the media.

Originally posted by kro32
It's not that they are liars but they are all witnessing an event which may or may not be a ufo. If 1000 people see a bright light that can't be explained does that mean they saw a ufo or they all saw a bright light they can't explain.

Umm...Yes! A flying bright light they can't explain IS a UFO. An ET craft, maybe not, but UFO, yes.

Originally posted by Bob Down Under

Originally posted by AnteBellum
It's not about credibility anymore it's about physical, tangible evidence.

Thousands of people say they have seen and spoke to god also, should we all believe them too?

True but not all on the same day and hour and the same event.

Its just a case of lets brush these under the mat because it is embarrassing and not politicaly correct to investigate these events thoroughly, and definitely not for the media.

All I have to say to you is see this link:

Weeping Statues Archive
Seems like thousands of witnesses to me!
Yet, believing these stories are all true is a bit hard for me to grasp also. . .

and don't get me wrong I believe in alien life and Earth visitations!

reply to post by ziggyproductions05


The replies of the children in this video made me very suspicious, particularly the darting eyes almost as if looking towards a teacher or supervising adult to make sure their responses are as rehearsed. I must admit, my eyes started to roll when the girl started to talk about needing to "stop mistreating the planet" as up until that point I could not think of what the motive might have been for a teacher to get children to lie.

Also, there seemed to be some "steering" from the interviewer, to help the children reply in a way that might keep the story interesting. He certainly wasn't making any effort to make sure the children were telling the truth.

In response to the OP, isn't asking whether these are "proof" perhaps the wrong approach?

I think it's pretty clear they are not proof, but they are clearly "evidence", the question is are they examples of good evidence, or bad, and should they be taken seriously when compiling a case of evidence that should be used to point towards the conclusion of alien visitation being more likely than not?

I think the aim of believers should be to make the case that it's more reasonable to believe that aliens are visiting us, than any other explanation, rather than to look for a knockout smoking gun that, if it really does turn up, no argument will even need to be made to convince unbelievers!

Simple testimony of eyewitnesses like this can indeed be used in support of alien visitation, but the average skeptic is going to need a lot more as there are more mundane explanations for some of these examples that seem pretty reasonable.

The Voronezh UFO landing deserves more credibility in UFO history than it is currently given in my opinion,
If a researcher of the calibre of Jenny Randles takes it seriously it should give you an idea that this case cannot be ignored.
The book "The Soviet UFO Files by Paul Stonehill" gives a good outline of the incident and the following YouTube video adds some more background information.