Witness Testimony Is Not Evidence. First-hand Experience

reply to post by LEL01


Yes, it's true that other meteors were observed the same night, which is not uncommon - multiple meteors/fireballs can be observed on almost any night.

In the case of the data/map I presented, the other meteors/fireballs from that night would not have been included. Only the reports where the timing matched (to within a few minutes, since timings are often a little bit off) would have been included. If you follow the link I provided, you can check this yourself on the interactive version of the map I posted.

As I said before, with other big meteors/fireballs that have occurred in the past, the results when plotted always look the same - all over the place. In many of these cases there was only one major fireball that night, which makes it easy to exclude the smaller events, so it's extremely unlikely that multiple events would have been plotted on the same map.

Here are more examples:
www.amsmeteors.org...
www.amsmeteors.org...
www.amsmeteors.org...
www.amsmeteors.org...


So yes, there is good evidence that people in general make bad witnesses. If you'd care to look at the thread I mentioned earlier in this thread, there is much more evidence/examples there: How good are we at estimating the distance and altitude of UFOs?

Unfortunately it seems that most people here would rather believe the opposite, despite there being hard evidence to the contrary. I've only "skimmed the surface" here, and if people are not even bothering to look past their own noses (I'm not referring to you here), I really don't see the point in posting further on this thread. As the old saying goes "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

reply to post by FireballStorm


So, are you saying that since, on the whole - people are not reliable witnesses that witness testimony should never be considered?

Are you saying that because there are a large percentage of people who can't judge things accurately - that means nobody can?

As long as you want to accept nothing that isn't accurate and provable - you must be saying that even if people all over the world are seeing something - we must assume that all of them are in fact seeing nothing?

Or second best - none of them understand what they're seeing?

Is this accurate?

Hey OP, ive seen one.....watched it enter the atmosphere, glow brightly for a brief time as it descended,
then it slowed , dimmed, and stopped in mid air, and flew along a few miles in an undulating wave form of flight...rather like a sine wave pattern,it came within a mile at about 1000-1500 ft and as it flew north easterly, without obvious change of motion it shot off at about 160 degree angle, and dissapeared so fast that it looked like a light bulb going off in a dark room.......It was oval shaped as far as i could tell, it was self luminous as well
When you have seen something like that ,its pretty much hopeless to get anyone to understand or believe...i dont bother trying anymore......
But i KNOW what i saw...................

reply to post by FireballStorm


I see, I thought it was a map of all the reports that night. I didn't know what I was looking at and as it was too far away for me to see what it was I wasn't going to stand there getting cold.
If I hadn't been at home I wouldn't have been able to say which direction it was. The first lights I saw didn't look like they were falling but I do understand that's how it would look if they were coming towards me.

I have seen a UFO up close not like other people describe seeing, I can't prove it but it happened.
I try to be honest about what I see and I don't pretend to know what I don't know so I can only hope people will judge me on my word and not other peoples mistakes.

Here are some basic questions about UFOs.

1 why would an advanced alien race give away their presence with bright lights on their ships.

2 wouldn’t a smart alien race mask their presence by descending into our atmosphere like meteors instead of making erratic movements in the sky?

Originally posted by FireballStorm
So yes, there is good evidence that people in general make bad witnesses. If you'd care to look at the thread I mentioned earlier in this thread, there is much more evidence/examples there: How good are we at estimating the distance and altitude of UFOs?

No one is doubting that in certain cases people make bad witnesses. This is something we already knew.

The problem is that, with the best UFO cases, the 'people make bad witnesses' argument fails. It fails because the reports of multiple witnesses not only corroborate with one another, but they corroborate with radar data.

Here's an interesting case (again from Hynek's "The UFO Experience", pp. 109-110). It describes a sighting by a U.S. Navy ship in the Philippines on May 5, 1965:

At 060910, in position 20 degrees 22 minutes north, 135 degrees 50 minutes east, course 265, speed 15, leading signalman reported what he believed to be an aircraft, bearing 000, position angle 21. When viewed through binoculars three objects were sighted in close proximity to each other; one object was first magnitude; the other two, second magnitude. Objects were traveling at extremely high speed, moving toward ship at an undetermined altitude. At 0914, 4 moving targets were detected on the SPS-6C air search radar at ranges up to 22 miles and held up to 6 minutes. When over the ship, the objects spread to circular formation directly overhead and remained there for approximately 3 minutes. This maneuver was observed both visually and by radar. The bright object which hovered off the starboard quarter made a large presentation on the radarscope. The objects made several course changes during the sighting, confirmed visually and by radar, and were tracked at speeds in excess of 3,000 (three thousand) knots. Challenges were made by IFF but were not answered. After the three-minute hovering maneuver, the objects moved in a southeasterly direction at an extremely high rate of speed. Above evolutions observed by CO [Commanding Officer], all bridge personnel, and numerous hands topside.

For all of the eye witnesses' observations to match up with the radar data by sheer coincidence would be nothing short of a miracle. So clearly, what was being observed by the crew was the same object being picked up on radar.

Now, you might say, "Well, how do you know it wasn't four different meteors?" Well, I'd then ask you to explain how it is that four meteors stop dead in their tracks over a naval ship, proceed to arrange themselves into a circle, hover there for three minutes, then change course and move away "at an extremely high rate of speed".

So, the problem with the 'people make bad witnesses' argument is that it doesn't do any work for the strongest UFO cases - in other words, the cases that matter. But there seems to be this notion that, "Hey, if it explains [insert ridiculous case here], then it must work for every UFO case!" Wrong. And this is where the lack of familiarity with the core cases in Ufology sets the pseudo-skeptic apart from the true skeptic. A true skeptic would have at the very least familiarized themselves with the core cases, which could be gleaned from a classic like Hynek's book that I've been quoting from.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by FireballStorm

 

So, are you saying that since, on the whole - people are not reliable witnesses that witness testimony should never be considered?

No, not at all. Witness testimony can be reliable, but should only be taken as such when it is backed up by hard physical evidence.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by FireballStorm

 

Are you saying that because there are a large percentage of people who can't judge things accurately - that means nobody can?

Again, no.

It will depend on the situation/circumstances, what is being observed, and how familiar/experienced an observer is with what he.she is observing.

For example, we are all (I assume) familiar with cars as they are part of most peoples every day lives. If an observer that falls into the aforementioned category observes a car driving down a street in broad daylight, it would be reasonable to assume that he/she could reliably judge/approximate size, distance, speed, etc.

This is partly because the observer has experience, but also because it is in a familiar situation where there are multiple visual cues, which help us (or our brains - it's all done subconsciously without us having to think about it) to judge size, distance, speed, etc. Visual cues are things like, parallax (which is useless beyond a few tens of meters), lighting/shadows and objects passing behind/in front of other familiar objects.

Now, if you take away those visual clues (as is common with objects seen in the sky/at night), and the object is basically "a light source" (as many UFOs are) of unknown intrinsic brightness, size, and distance, the situation becomes much more complicated.

Lets say you see a dim (the brightness of a brighter star for sake of argument) light source in the sky. That light source could be light years away, and extraordinarily bright if you were close to it, but since it is many light years away, and light falls off according to the inverse square law, it looks dim. Now if you take a light source that is intrinsically not very bright, like a torch for example, and view it from a few hundred yards away, it might very very well not look any different to the intrinsically bright light source that is light years away - there is effectively no way for an observer to tell the difference between the two since there are no other visual cues, apart from brightness - but brightness can be misleading. Is the object very bright and far away, or relatively dim and close by? Remember, we are taking about an unidentified object here - it could be any size, brightness, or distance!

There is a problem with using brightness as a visual cue - since our brains interpret something as being bright as being close, and something dim as being far away, which is fine on the ground and in familiar situations, but does not work so well with unfamiliar objects/light sources in the sky. A meteor for example can be surprisingly bright (most people are not aware of just how much so), so when an inexperienced observer sees one, it's not uncommon to report it as being very close, when in fact it is many hundreds of km away.

A similar effect can occur with satellites, which when they catch the sun and glint, can increase their brightness by a few hundred times, before fading and seemingly disappearing. Of course we know that bright things appear to be close, and dim things appear to be far (this is hard-wired in all our brains), so when an inexperienced observer sees a bright "satellite flare" (as they are known) it could easily be perceived as the object "powering up" and then shooting off into the distance (sound familiar?).

For yet another example, try a search for how many reports are made on ATS of "scintillatilating stars". These are objects that are light years away, yet people often describe them as if they were in our atmosphere or just outside it (a few hundred km away tops).

These are all examples of common optical illusions, caused by the way our brains work, and no one is immune to them since all our brains are wired in the same way, although more experienced observers may sometimes be able to see past the "red herrings" and identify the object correctly.

And this is also the reason why in certain situations, witness testimony is very likely to be completely unreliable, and I haven't even mentioned other failings in humans like false memories, and reification.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by FireballStorm

 

As long as you want to accept nothing that isn't accurate and provable - you must be saying that even if people all over the world are seeing something - we must assume that all of them are in fact seeing nothing?

People all over the world are seeing different things, but they are all susceptible to the same failings that all of us are susceptible to. They are not seeing nothing - they are seeing mundane objects, and because of these failings, they misinterpret what they are seeing.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by FireballStorm

 

Or second best - none of them understand what they're seeing?

Is this accurate?

Basically, yes!

The objects that are being reported as UFOs might well be easy to identify due to their characteristics if an observer is reasonably experienced, but throw in a red herring (optical illusion), and all of a sudden what they are seeing makes no sense. When there is a lack of visual cues/information, our brains try to "fill in the gaps" with what has worked in the past, on the ground, and in familiar situations, but it usually does not work when applied to the types of situation where UFOs are observed - the result is that we see optical illusions.

To put it another way, we do not see reality. We do see our brain's (often flawed) interpretation of reality.

In a nut shell, all UFO sightings can be explained by the way our brains work (and the fact that there are probably at least a few undiscovered atmospheric phenomena), although I have only touched on a few aspects - there is so much more to it... however, we can not say with 100% certainty that aliens have not visited us at some time (or may be even still visiting us), but the complete lack of any hard physical evidence (and the difficulties involved with breaking the light speed barrier in order to get here, not to mention how "perfect" the conditions need to be in order for an advanced civilization to evolve) make this a much more unlikely possibility than the previous possibility I suggested.

Yes, some UFO sightings might be government "black projects" (or even "unique/difficult to identify civilian flying contraptions"), but I seriously doubt that military tech is quite as advanced as some on here would have us believe, and let's not forget that it suits the military very well to keep people (especially perceived enemies) guessing, so it would not surprise me that they encourage (in subtle ways) rampant speculation.

Apologies for the long reply, but I would find it very hard to fully explain these concepts in less words than I have used here. Hopefully you have understood, but if there are any points you'd like me to clarify, please don't hesitate to ask.

Originally posted by FireballStorm
Witness testimony can be reliable, but should only be taken as such when it is backed up by hard physical evidence

This.

Hard physical, unquestionable, provable supporting evidence. About sums it up.

reply to post by LEL01


I do believe most people who report UFOs do so in good faith, but there are always a few who are willing to spoil it for the rest, as in any walk of society.

Just as you mentioned regarding the meteor not looking like it was falling, looks can be deceiving, and if you read my previous post above this one, you'll see that there are many other ways in which fairly mundane objects can deceive us our eyes/brains. Yes, you know what you saw, but how can you be sure that what you saw was what was really there/taking place?

As an example, watch the following clip, and don't read what I write below before you have watched the clip.



.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Now, on the final throw, what did you see? Did you see the ball go up in the air? If you did, watch the clip once again - no ball leaves the hand on the final throw!

In the trick, the magician throws a ball into the air twice and catches it. On the third, fake throw, the ball seems to disappear into the air even though it never leaves his hand. Most of the students watching the trick were fooled by the magician looking up on the third throw - 68% perceived the ball as leaving his hand.

Source: newscientist.com

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Here are some basic questions about UFOs.

1 why would an advanced alien race give away their presence with bright lights on their ships.

I agree - why would they want to, unless they have a sense of humor or want to see us squirm, which I very much doubt.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
2 wouldn’t a smart alien race mask their presence by descending into our atmosphere like meteors instead of making erratic movements in the sky?

See your own first point

Why not just remain totally unnoticed in the first place? Why draw any attention to themselves?

If you look on this forum, there are plenty of cases of meteors (or "meteor like objects") being reported where people have said they do not believe that it was a meteor.

...but then most people are not very familiar with meteors, and in my experience have a fixed idea as to how a meteor should look/behave. Having observed thousands of meteors myself over the past 15 years, I know that meteors can vary immensely in how they appear/behave (do you know your "earth grazers" from your "point meteors"?).

Sure it's possible that aliens might be/have visiting/visited us and disguising/disguised themselves as meteors, but I don't think it's likely since there is no hard evidence to support this possibility.

reply to post by Brighter


Even if the 'people make bad witnesses' argument fails in some cases, there may well have been something physical there, but it still does not necessarily mean that it was aliens!

And likewise, just because I or no one else can explain every single case, does not mean it has to be aliens!

Have we discovered every single natural natural phenomena that exists? I very much doubt it. Nature has a funny habit of surprising us just when we think we know it all...

I disagree with your premise that someone can not be a "true skeptic" without knowing about specific cases. Why does this have to be the case? Please explain your reasoning here?

reply to post by FireballStorm


Thanks for giving me the easy test, I got it but any other illusion and I probably wouldn't have got it.
No, I can't say I know what I saw, I do know what I didn't see. I'm not talking about the meteor, I have to accept that's what it was as there was no reports of any crash sites. When something sails through the sky, just across the road and just above the rooftops, that's something else ET or not.
Sending you a message.

Originally posted by FireballStorm
Even if the 'people make bad witnesses' argument fails in some cases, there may well have been something physical there, but it still does not necessarily mean that it was aliens!

And likewise, just because I or no one else can explain every single case, does not mean it has to be aliens!

1) The 'people make bad witnesses' argument doesn't just fail in a few of the strongest cases. It fails in pretty much all of them.

2) Where is this talk of aliens coming from? You're not making a clear conceptual distinction between the UFO phenomenon and questions regarding their origin.

Originally posted by FireballStorm
Have we discovered every single natural natural phenomena that exists? I very much doubt it. Nature has a funny habit of surprising us just when we think we know it all...

This is so absurd as to be almost irrelevant. What kind of natural phenomena is in the shape of a metallic disc with lights (and often a search light that shines down) that performs the kinds of flight maneuvers being described? Of course you're going to pull the old 'people make bad witnesses' argument, which doesn't make any sense regarding the overabundance of historical data, but of course you've already admitted to ignoring that.

Originally posted by FireballStorm
I disagree with your premise that someone can not be a "true skeptic" without knowing about specific cases. Why does this have to be the case? Please explain your reasoning here?

A skeptical researcher, being intellectually responsible, will actually study the relevant historical data of the subject that they claim to be studying. For instance, wouldn't it sound irrational if I were to start proselytizing on my interpretation of the catalysts of the French Revolution, and when someone points out that my interpretation seems totally out of line with the historical data, I point out that I've never looked at the historical data?

You see, this is the same exact behavioral pattern with most self-proclaimed 'skeptics' of the UFO phenomenon. The truth of that matter is that, not only are they far from skeptics, they're actually exhibiting the same kind of belief pathology that the habitual 'believers' exhibit.

On the one hand, you have the habitual 'believers' who see every YouTube video of a balloon as a UFO. On the other hand, you have pseudo-skeptics who see every case as an example of natural or mundane phenomena, even when all evidence points to the contrary.

Notice that in both cases, you have this same exact pattern of trying to impose a belief onto the data. But the responsible, skeptical scientific approach is to withhold judgment and let the data speak for itself. In other words, let the data dictate your conclusions, and not your preconceived conclusions dictate the data.

One of the sure signs that a self-proclaimed 'skeptic' is actually a pseudo-skeptic is when they dub themselves a 'hardcore skeptic'. This is a huge red flag because skepticism isn't about extremes. It's about balance in one's understanding. The 'hardcore skeptic' is typically practicing something akin to denialism, where they cherry-pick the weakest cases and ignore the strongest cases. And they do so because they have a very strong (unjustified) belief system that requires that certain data be dismissed in order to keep it alive. In a sense, it's kind of like a disease that feeds off of toxins, and rejects any valid sustenance. That's what I meant above by 'belief pathology'.

reply to post by FireballStorm

First of all - I want to thank you for a genuine reply. Not something that happens so much here anymore - but it's what I love most about this place when it does :-)

No, not at all. Witness testimony can be reliable, but should only be taken as such when it is backed up by hard physical evidence.

What's interesting about this is it comes from a position of authority. :-) In what situation is it even necessary to insist on physical evidence for a phenomenon that we all agree is nothing more than a phenomenon? In other words - let's understand the situation we're talking about first. Bunches of people worldwide are, and have been - claiming to have seen some pretty far out stuff in our skies.

I'll bring the OP into this - though at this point I can see he's not really up for defending his own position. He wants to be able to say that based on one situation (that he can't or won't substantiate) it's been proven (proven mind you) that witnesses are all wrong (all - wrong) :-)

Skeptics seem to claim the high-ground in all this - but why? I can see that it's an easy position to take - and it's extremely easy to defend. It's also immensely satisfying (I imagine) to be right without actually having to try very hard - but if a skeptics best defense is: we all already know they're not real, you don't know what you're looking at - and even if you do you can't prove it - then all they've got is a whole lot of nothing

They're skeptics (yay for them) Seems they want to use science up to a point - and when it suits them. But - it's hardly the position of an actual scientist to be skeptical - is it?

:-)

It's not even a useful position for a lawyer

If someone says they've seen something - all a skeptic has to do is say no you didn't. That would be fine if it were accurate - but, in fact - no one knows for sure either way. Nobody gets to be right for free. More importantly - why is this even about being right?

Do you suppose that even if I'd never seen a tiger - I wouldn't recognize one as being out of place on the city street where I live? Forgive me if that sounds simple - but it's fair. The sky is big and untouchable - and mysterious - sort of. But, we've all seen it. We're all familiar with it - we all know when we're seeing something we haven't seen before. Doesn't matter that we might not know what we're seeing - it's not realistic to assume that if someone sees something out of place that it's automatically something mundane. A skeptic can't know that - he or she can only assume it. And they do :-)

I admire anyone (and there are several people here at ATS) that can take a given situation and deconstruct it in a methodical, obvious and instructive way. God love em' - you just cannot beat that approach. It's useful, intelligent, respectful, and oddly enough - open minded

These are all examples of common optical illusions, caused by the way our brains work, and no one is immune to them since all our brains are wired in the same way, although more experienced observers may sometimes be able to see past the "red herrings" and identify the object correctly.

Ahhh...yes - so, experienced observers. So, we've just agreed between the two of us that it is possible for some people to know what they're seeing is - unusual. What about those accounts where people claim they've seen a moving structure (structure being a very important word here) - not just a bright, shiny, moving - thingy? Obvious fiction? :-)

Or second best - none of them understand what they're seeing? Is this accurate?

Basically, yes!

So excited - do I get a cookie? But, we've just established - not none of them :-)

To put it another way, we do not see reality. We do see our brain's (often flawed) interpretation of reality.

But it's all we have - and so we're back where we started. Our interpretation of reality may not always be reliable - but it is most of the time. We depend on it. Simply saying that people don't know what they're seeing doesn't explain away anything - and certainly not everything

In a nut shell, all UFO sightings can be explained by the way our brains work (and the fact that there are probably at least a few undiscovered atmospheric phenomena), although I have only touched on a few aspects - there is so much more to it...

And there it is :-) In a nutshell

however, we can not say with 100% certainty that aliens have not visited us at some time (or may be even still visiting us)...

Why on earth would you include this? This amazes (and amuses) me! :-) Not even going to touch on military projects - there's no need. You just undid your whole argument. You've established a possibility - why would you discredit all claimed sightings of something you've already decided is possible?

Apologies for the long reply, but I would find it very hard to fully explain these concepts in less words than I have used here. Hopefully you have understood, but if there are any points you'd like me to clarify, please don't hesitate to ask.

Don't apologize - I appreciate that you went to so much trouble. No - clarifying won't be necessary. You let me know if I can clarify anything for you :-)

P.S. I saw something once. You can always explain it away - to other people who already agree with you. There is (apparently - and I have been waiting for quite some time now) nothing that can explain it away for me

I wish

:-)

reply to post by Brighter


I just wrote out this whole big thing - when I could have just waited and agreed with you

:-)

yeah - what he said

well said

Originally posted by Brighter
1) The 'people make bad witnesses' argument doesn't just fail in a few of the strongest cases. It fails in pretty much all of them.

To be clear, I was referring to some cases from all the cases, not "some cases, from the strongest cases".

The point I have been trying to make, which I know you are obviously well aware of, but many on here are not, is that in the vast majority of cases as a whole, the 'people make bad witnesses' argument does apply.

Originally posted by Brighter
2) Where is this talk of aliens coming from? You're not making a clear conceptual distinction between the UFO phenomenon and questions regarding their origin.

Read my reply above - Although my reply was addressed to you, ATS has a wide audience, and my replies here are aimed just as much as them as they are at you. This thread is about the reliability of witness testimony, so I see no harm in simplifying my answers a little in order to get my point across to that audience without being distracted by issues not immediately relevant to this thread's topic.

Originally posted by Brighter
This is so absurd as to be almost irrelevant. What kind of natural phenomena is in the shape of a metallic disc with lights (and often a search light that shines down) that performs the kinds of flight maneuvers being described?

A phenomena that has not been documented by science perhaps... As I said, I don't have all the answers, and freely admit that there are multiple possibilities, however likely or unlikely they are.

It's not absurd at all. Can you predict what strange "new" phenomena we will discover in the future?

No offense, but what is absurd is that you are so closed minded regarding the potential of phenomena new to science playing a part in some of these cases.

Originally posted by Brighter
Of course you're going to pull the old 'people make bad witnesses' argument, which doesn't make any sense regarding the overabundance of historical data

O but it does make sense - Just because it does not explain a case in it's entirety, does not mean it can not explain one or some particular aspects of a case.

As I have demonstrated in this thread, there is an "overabundance of historical data" which shows that people do in fact make very bad witnesses in certain situations.

However, there is no "overabundance of historical data" that conclusively demonstrates that anything "other-worldly" (for want of a better phrase - since you don't seem to like the term "alien") going on.

You yourself agree that we have all these strange cases, yet no definitive explanation.

And that is where I'm going to end this discussion, since I have already made the points I wanted to make, and I can see that discussing this further serves no purpose except to waste my time, which is in short supply at the moment anyway. Not that I haven't enjoyed this discussion, and wish I could continue it, but I have other priorities right now, plus my main interest in the field of UFOs is the "crossover" between it and the other subjects that interest me.

Likewise to Spiramirabilis - thank you for the reply and apologies once again, but this time for not addressing your reply even minimally, although I have read it and do very much appreciate you taking the time to write it.

One last final note - I do realize that the approach I take may not be a conventional one, but I do firmly believe that looking at the UFO phenomenon from a slightly different angle to most yields clues that might not otherwise be so obvious, so I'd encourage anyone reading this to spend time observing (and researching) natural/known atmospheric phenomena, and not take them for granted as so many do - you'll be amazed at what you can see with a little patience and perseverance. In my short time (15 years) of observing the sky I have personally witnessed many phenomena that most would describe as "rare", but these things are only rare if you do not spend time looking up

Lastly, but not least, thank you once again to the OP for starting this thread

Originally posted by FireballStorm
It's not absurd at all. Can you predict what strange "new" phenomena we will discover in the future?

No offense, but what is absurd is that you are so closed minded regarding the potential of phenomena new to science playing a part in some of these cases.

The thing is, is that I'm not at all close minded regarding the future discoveries of science. I have an appreciation for the history and methodologies of science, and I'd agree with you that science could play a key role in some of these cases. But as I've been suggesting all along, in the core cases - the cases that matter - all the evidence suggests that these objects being natural (i.e., non-intelligently controlled, non-manufactured) is the least plausible explanation.

Originally posted by FireballStorm
As I have demonstrated in this thread, there is an "overabundance of historical data" which shows that people do in fact make very bad witnesses in certain situations.

However, there is no "overabundance of historical data" that conclusively demonstrates that anything "other-worldly" (for want of a better phrase - since you don't seem to like the term "alien") going on.

There is however an overabundance of historical data indicating that there is in all likelihood no natural or mundane explanation for many of these cases. Just look at the cases involved in the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book. According to Captain Edward Ruppelt, 26.94% of those cases were deemed "Unknowns" after rigorous investigation and analysis. That is, 26.94% of those cases were deemed to have no natural or mundane explanation (hoax, misperception ('poor witnesses'), hallucination, atmospheric, astronomical, meteorological etc.), even ruling out explanations such as top-secret aerial programs, the data for which Ruppelt and his Air Force team were given access to.

Now combine this with the actual descriptions of the objects in these cases - often disc-shaped, metallic and symmetrical, performing 'intelligent' and evasive flight maneuvers, search lights shining beams onto the ground, no noise, almost instantaneous acceleration and deceleration, the ability to hover in mid-air and then shoot up into space. All of this clearly indicates that this is some form of advanced technology.

So I would argue that one is easily justified in the belief that a significant percentage of well-studied UFO cases represent some form of advanced technology. This doesn't "conclusively demonstrate" anything, but then again we're not engaged in some kind of abstract Euclidean proof - we're talking about assessing data from myriad sources in the real, 'fuzzy', world, where we're talking about various levels of belief justification. To assume that one is only justified in a belief when there is "conclusive" proof is simply being unreasonable.

Originally posted by FireballStorm
You yourself agree that we have all these strange cases, yet no definitive explanation.

I agree that we have no definitive explanation, but, like the scientists and researchers who were directly involved in these government studies on UFOs, I think that we can safely rule the most common explanations out, not the least of which is the 'poor witness' argument.

reply to post by Unidentified_Objective

You can hate or dislike my story (Which indeed happened ...

"Witness Testimony Is Not Evidence"

Logic isn't a chinese menu where you get to pick and choose where you apply it.

So which is it?

Which is by the way, the point of this thread ... and is hardly the first time people misidentify lights in the sky

That's your standard of evidence? Because something occurred in the past means we should take for granted that all future claims are true? If that's the case why would you expect people to not be skeptical; and instead think that because people have lied in the past to make a point, that isn't the case with your own little parable? You haven't even provided the most basic of evidence. Corroboration. Yet you expect people to believe the story as though it is implicitly free of errors (e.g. that people were saying 'unknown lights in the sky were aliens from another planet').

Do you see how tenuous your argument is that "witness testimony" isn't evidence? You *were* a witness. Ergo, this thread isn't evidence or an argument of anything. It's a story, and probably a faulty one at that because you have an agenda.