You want proof of flying saucers? This is it!

reply to post by VoidHawk


The infamous witch trials of Salem and other places consisted primarily of witness testimony.
This is why we require more concrete evidence in real criminal cases that just witness testimony.

Pics or it didn't happen!

Sorry just had to... Great thread, I'll watch the video now, never heard of this story before.

Originally posted by Neeka
I find stories like this fascinating! The fact that so many witnesses are telling the same story so many years later makes it more credible. I wonder what happened to poor Tanya???????

Tanya. Yes I suspect Tanya saw too much, maybe the occupants of the craft? I certainly think somebody should look into what happened to her.

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
While i think most people here appreciate the effort you went to it doesn't make up for the fact you claimed to have 'the' proof but provided none at all.

In a court of law witnesses can be proof, how many do we need before we accept it as proof?

No, a witness provides testimonial evidence which is not proof. Theres a huge difference between that and scientific (or otherwise) proof.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

The infamous witch trials of Salem and other places consisted primarily of witness testimony.
This is why we require more concrete evidence in real criminal cases that just witness testimony.

I agree, but this isn't a witch hunt, its a lot of sensible educated people who say they saw two flying saucers. It's also backed up by adults who had nothing to do with the school.

If people in your town started telling you they saw a flying saucer, how many would it take before you were willing to believe it was true?

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
While i think most people here appreciate the effort you went to it doesn't make up for the fact you claimed to have 'the' proof but provided none at all.

In a court of law witnesses can be proof, how many do we need before we accept it as proof?

No, a witness provides testimonial evidence which is not proof. Theres a huge difference between that and scientific (or otherwise) proof.

Theres an awfull lot of people in prison because of witness statements alone.

I'll repeat - how many do we need before we accept it as proof?

reply to post by VoidHawk

I'll repeat - how many do we need before we accept it as proof?

Witness testimony will never be considered proof, as it doesn't prove anything.

Great story, never heard of it before and you would think with so many witnesses this story would have been featured in some of the bigger documentary special but nothing that I've seen has had it. But after thinking because it had so many witnesses that may be why it has been left out of many of the more popular UFO docs.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

I'll repeat - how many do we need before we accept it as proof?

Witness testimony will never be considered proof, as it doesn't prove anything.

Then neither does science because there could be a mistake, an unseen anomaly etc. You'll probably argue that science can be repeated but so could the mistakes. Science has been wrong in the past and witnesses have been right in the past, thats why I ask how many witnesses before you'd be wiling to believe?

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

I'll repeat - how many do we need before we accept it as proof?

Witness testimony will never be considered proof, as it doesn't prove anything.

And yet to think how many poor souls sit condemned in a prison cell from no other evidence than individual witness testimony.... much less multiple witnesses. Where there is multiple witnesses who say the defendant did it in a court of law that is by and large considered to be an open and shut case.

Originally posted by lordaqua
Great story, never heard of it before and you would think with so many witnesses this story would have been featured in some of the bigger documentary special but nothing that I've seen has had it. But after thinking because it had so many witnesses that may be why it has been left out of many of the more popular UFO docs.

I agree. its ignored in preference for those that just leave people wondering.

reply to post by lordaqua


It usually takes a lot more than just witness testimony alone to convict someone. In a courtroom it is a unique situation where a decision HAS to be reached. In court a 'decision' can be made on witness testimony but that does not make the testimony 'proof' which was the original claim made by the OP.

I might be able to provide 50 people that say that Elvis had lunch at my house yesterday but that doesnt prove he did. You might want to make a decision based on what they say but thats no proof.

Witnesses does not = proof.

So while the OP may have made a decision based on witness testimony there is no actual proof like he was claiming. Which is a shame, id love to see real proof of flying saucers.

About 20 years ago ii wish fishing near Stradbroke island in a boat by myself and about 2 am a lowflying dark object with 3 red lights in a triangle went very slowly and silently overhead

I was no mare than a couple of hundred meters in the air

It was quite and at the time i was spooked

this story in th OP remined me of this

I always thought it was military aircraft

I guess I will never know

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by lordaqua

 

It usually takes a lot more than just witness testimony alone to convict someone. In a courtroom it is a unique situation where a decision HAS to be reached. In court a 'decision' can be made on witness testimony but that does not make the testimony 'proof' which was the original claim made by the OP.

I might be able to provide 50 people that say that Elvis had lunch at my house yesterday but that doesnt prove he did. You might want to make a decision based on what they say but thats no proof.

Witnesses (circumstantial evidence) does not = proof.

So while the OP may have made a decision based on witness testimony there is no actual proof like he was claiming. Which is a shame, id love to see real proof of flying saucers.

edit on 10-7-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

I'm going to agree with you, but only because NOTHING is proof. We have to weigh up the odds that we're right or wrong. For me hundreds of school children, the school staff, and others in the neighbourhood all saying they saw flying saucers IS proof because the odds are that it really happened.

Personaly I believe these people saw something manufactured on earth that defies gravity. Why they were allowed to see it I dont know.

reply to post by VoidHawk


Baiting people lessens your post, but thanks for posting this. The Documentary was well made.

Interestingly that is similar to what I saw in Utah a couple of years later. Not exactly the same but similar in shape and size.

The video makes a great case for experimental aircraft and clearly a UFO was seen. The leap to Alien is far less obvious though and seems to be a suggestion without anything to back it up.

For me that is the problem. Even with myself having seen one up close in the 1960's I have zero reason to think it was anything other than military or experimental. It seems with credible sightings, as I admit this was, the leap is too easily made to Alien.

Still thanks for this one. Generally I ignore the YouTube stuff these days and was glad to see it was a real investigation. Also glad the copyright holders apparently gave that channel permission to post it. Now if the YouTubers would stop with the crap they usually post.

The Westall case is one of the most compelling, but completely unheard of, cases in UFOlogy. Great post to sum up the events, S&F

I want to know what happened to the chemistry teacher Barbara Robbens film/pics?

Thread here about the photo posted a couple of months ago.

Another ATS thread from 2009 by Chadwickus

One about another sighting in 1966.

Michigan UFO same year.

There are others if you search. I remember the Look article and in fact there were many sighting during that time. Lot's of books and magazines around then also.

From the later half of the 1960's in general you will find many reports.

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
While i think most people here appreciate the effort you went to it doesn't make up for the fact you claimed to have 'the' proof but provided none at all.

In a court of law witnesses can be proof, how many do we need before we accept it as proof?

since you brought up a "court of law"....i shall chime in....im not even addressing whether or not actual UFOs were seen....just bringing up the "witness testimony + court" issue....

witness testimony is pretty unreliable and in most cases for a jury to believe witness testimony, there needs to be some evidence to back it up. again, witness testimony is pretty unreliable because humans are fallible......they lie, this misunderstand, misidentify, recall memories incorrectly......people have been wrongly charged and sentenced based on witness testimony.....if you were a defendant would you want your life dependent on some person's testimony w/out any evidence at all? what if someone said they saw you murder another person - and you were innocent - would you want their testimony to be what convicts you? of course not! because one's word requires MUCH to accept as truth. people even lie under oath! to place absolute, unquestionable faith in one's word - well i guess people have differing levels of trust.

here are some great reads on eyewitness testimony....id suggest everyone read them and do further research on the subject.....

Standford Journal of Legal Studies - The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony

Unreliable Witness Testimony

Slate - Perry v New Hampshire

BBC - The Problem with Eyewitnesses

and you can google for study after study on the topic....


IMO, unless there is some evidence to back up what one claims, i take anything said with a grain of salt..

and well.....the title says "proof" and for me, proof does not equal story told by some person....
there is what we call in crimal law - prima facie.....look it up

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Baiting people lessens your post, but thanks for posting this. The Documentary was well made.

Interestingly that is similar to what I saw in Utah a couple of years later. Not exactly the same but similar in shape and size.

The video makes a great case for experimental aircraft and clearly a UFO was seen. The leap to Alien is far less obvious though and seems to be a suggestion without anything to back it up.

For me that is the problem. Even with myself having seen one up close in the 1960's I have zero reason to think it was anything other than military or experimental. It seems with credible sightings, as I admit this was, the leap is too easily made to Alien.

Still thanks for this one. Generally I ignore the YouTube stuff these days and was glad to see it was a real investigation. Also glad the copyright holders apparently gave that channel permission to post it. Now if the YouTubers would stop with the crap they usually post.

My own thoughts are that it was millitary, dont think I suggested it WAS alien? think I gave two possibilities, alien or military and i opted for military.

Please explain Baiting