Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson about UFOs and Abductions

Originally posted by xpoq47
He says eye-witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence. But what if there are dozens of witnesses to the same event seeing it from various angles in broad daylight, as in the Westall case, with 200 witnesses (teachers as well as students) who saw two flying discs at close range, one of which touched down and left a physical trace, followed by the appearance of a goon squad that intimidated the witnesses and confiscated the camera and film from a teacher who had taken some pictures of the objects, which has never been returned and the photos never made public even though that particular national government claims to be releasing all its UFO files?

Doesn't the level of evidence go up with the number of witnesses? And what if you add radar confirmation? Some cases have as many as five radar operators to corroborate the stories of eye-witnesses. Doesn't that boost the level of evidence? What about the numerous physical traces?

Don't tell me, "Steal an ashtray next time you're abducted" if you claim that multiwitnesses, multimode sightings and refusal on the part of governments to release gun-camera footage taken by jets scrambled to chase the phenomenon count for nothing.

It's the lowest form of scientific evidence, and yet it's considered one of the higher forms in criminal law. Go figure. But eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and should be scrutinized with great prejudice. That said, I do believe it becomes more credible in the case of multiple witnesses and corroborating evidence.

The guy is spot on. Until abduction cases or UFO sightings come with anything other than stories or witness testimony, they are unexplained and not to be taken seriously as fact. Witness testimony (As stated by the good Dr. Tyson) is simply unreliable and is at the mercy of perception and ignorance and misidentification. That is simply not evidence. It can be used as corroborating evidence when physical/testable proof is present....but alone and in itself is as good as no evidence at all.

Attitude check,

deleted post

Originally posted by xpoq47
He says eye-witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence. But what if there are dozens of witnesses to the same event seeing it from various angles in broad daylight, as in the Westall case, with 200 witnesses (teachers as well as students) who saw two flying discs at close range, one of which touched down and left a physical trace, followed by the appearance of a goon squad that intimidated the witnesses and confiscated the camera and film from a teacher who had taken some pictures of the objects, which has never been returned and the photos never made public even though that particular national government claims to be releasing all its UFO files?

Doesn't the level of evidence go up with the number of witnesses? And what if you add radar confirmation? Some cases have as many as five radar operators to corroborate the stories of eye-witnesses. Doesn't that boost the level of evidence? What about the numerous physical traces?

Don't tell me, "Steal an ashtray next time you're abducted" if you claim that multiwitnesses, multimode sightings and refusal on the part of governments to release gun-camera footage taken by jets scrambled to chase the phenomenon count for nothing.

Good points. But with multiple witnesses and radar you only have evidence that something was there. And with government goon squads and what not, you only have evidence that they don't want you to know something. It doesn't rule out anything but its not proof of anything either. I think that's what he would say. Do you have any links to that Westall case?

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
And with government goon squads and what not, you only have evidence that they don't want you to know something.

Actually IMHO all those government shenanigans concerning UFOs are probably the best hint we have that there is indeed something fishy going on.

Just look at Project Blue Book. What a bloody disgrace that was!
en.wikipedia.org...

Can anybody read this article and say: "Well, that was an honest investigation?" I don't think so.

Originally posted by Xenoglossy

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
And with government goon squads and what not, you only have evidence that they don't want you to know something.

Actually IMHO all those government shenanigans concerning UFOs are probably the best hint we have that there is indeed something fishy going on.

Just look at Project Blue Book. What a bloody disgrace that was!
en.wikipedia.org...

Can anybody read this article and say: "Well, that was an honest investigation?" I don't think so.

Don't think it was ever intended as such. It was a poorly funded, under staffed PR agency charged with meeting the public demand for answers while dispelling fears.

Originally posted by draknoir2
Don't think it was ever intended as such. It was a poorly funded, under staffed PR agency charged with meeting the public demand for answers while dispelling fears.

Fair enough.
But if I was the head of US Air Force and basically responsible for the safety of the skies, I would certainly want to know what those things are.

Project Blue Book shows that either

1. US Air Force doesn't know what UFOs are and doesn't care to know (which would be ridiculously stupid)

or

2. They don't know but want to find out, while at the same time lying to the public with Project Blue Book (which would be a kinda benevolent lie - to prevent panic until they find out, so to speak)

or

3. They do know what UFOs are, while at the same time lying to the public with Project Blue Book (the reasons for this could be both benevolent and malevolent)

Originally posted by Xenoglossy

Originally posted by leostokes
reply to post by Xenoglossy

 

Will you give us a list of the lot of profound things?

I'll be happy to.
I'm sure all of the following will be quite trivial for your superior intellect, but keep in mind how many posts here on the forum are completely DESTROYED by the points on this list.

- remember what the U stands for, in UFO
- don't go from "I don't know what this is" to "It must be an alien spaceship"!
- eyewitness testimony is the LOWEST form of evidence that exists
- the human brain is easily tricked, especially our perception abilities ( --> see Optical Illusions )
- photographs are useless as evidence because of Photoshop
- something that you could test in the lab, to see whether it is human in origin or not, would be REAL evidence ( --> there is NONE of that so far)
- the fact that someone wears a badge of some sort (or is a pilot, or whatever, ...) doesn't make his eyewitness testimony somehow "better"


We now have a history of about 65 years since Kenneth Arnold first reported Flying Saucers. Countless reports of UFOs, countless reported abductions. You would expect that we would have at least one artifact by now - something not of this world.

edit on 9-4-2013 by Xenoglossy because: (no reason given)

You make the same mistake that all critics do. You purposely avoid acknowledging that Science as a whole, NASA in particular, has failed to publically solve the issue with solid, applied science. It has not been allowed to its job. the reasons for that are obvious.

That is the gigantic flaw in your thinking and that of others that fall back on the non-relative logic arguments that we've hear since the Grudge Report in the late 1940s. Your only proof that they don't exist is the government saying, "They don't exist." And you use that groundless argument to deny entirely any and all data about UFOs ever reported.

From the first days, the UFO issue was an intelligence issue, it has remained as much with a decided shift. The early efforts by the Army Air Corp found that they could not disprove that the objects were not from outer space and they stopped cold their intelligence assessments once that was realized.

At that point, as the old records and decent books show, no amount of effort could stop the UFO from appearing because we had no means. The only logical tactic was to deny the phenomena. And that is still the case. Due diligence has NEVER been done by Science to explain UFOs. It simply could not be done for the obvious reason, best immortalized in another context. "You can't handle the truth." The discrepancy of the truth in your face and disinformation in your ears is one of the budding factors of why so many Americans do not accept what their government tells them about anything anymore.

The bad thing is that so much of the old data is only found in books from many decades ago. TPTB are glad that is the case, I'm sure, because in recent books we are seeing a versions of the old, correct history spun to better protect the whole chain of science and government from those early days down to this very day.

As an UFO abductee and as witness to a low, slow and silent triangle a few years ago, I'm not just preaching through my hat. UFOs are real and we now have their capabilities in our triangles. Let's get them out into open use for humanity rather than reserved as a super-duper weapon's platform.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian. Do you have any links to that Westall case?

There are several ATS threads on it. I think this one is the most recently active. Witnesses had a reunion 40 years later, and the YouTube documentary was made in conjunction with that, I think. The sighting itself was in 1966.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Aliensun

Originally posted by Xenoglossy

Originally posted by leostokes
reply to post by Xenoglossy

 

Will you give us a list of the lot of profound things?

I'll be happy to.
I'm sure all of the following will be quite trivial for your superior intellect, but keep in mind how many posts here on the forum are completely DESTROYED by the points on this list.

- remember what the U stands for, in UFO
- don't go from "I don't know what this is" to "It must be an alien spaceship"!
- eyewitness testimony is the LOWEST form of evidence that exists
- the human brain is easily tricked, especially our perception abilities ( --> see Optical Illusions )
- photographs are useless as evidence because of Photoshop
- something that you could test in the lab, to see whether it is human in origin or not, would be REAL evidence ( --> there is NONE of that so far)
- the fact that someone wears a badge of some sort (or is a pilot, or whatever, ...) doesn't make his eyewitness testimony somehow "better"


We now have a history of about 65 years since Kenneth Arnold first reported Flying Saucers. Countless reports of UFOs, countless reported abductions. You would expect that we would have at least one artifact by now - something not of this world.

edit on 9-4-2013 by Xenoglossy because: (no reason given)

You make the same mistake that all critics do. You purposely avoid acknowledging that Science as a whole, NASA in particular, has failed to publically solve the issue with solid, applied science. It has not been allowed to its job. the reasons for that are obvious.

That is the gigantic flaw in your thinking and that of others that fall back on the non-relative logic arguments that we've hear since the Grudge Report in the late 1940s. Your only proof that they don't exist is the government saying, "They don't exist." And you use that groundless argument to deny entirely any and all data about UFOs ever reported.

From the first days, the UFO issue was an intelligence issue, it has remained as much with a decided shift. The early efforts by the Army Air Corp found that they could not disprove that the objects were not from outer space and they stopped cold their intelligence assessments once that was realized.

At that point, as the old records and decent books show, no amount of effort could stop the UFO from appearing because we had no means. The only logical tactic was to deny the phenomena. And that is still the case. Due diligence has NEVER been done by Science to explain UFOs. It simply could not be done for the obvious reason, best immortalized in another context. "You can't handle the truth." The discrepancy of the truth in your face and disinformation in your ears is one of the budding factors of why so many Americans do not accept what their government tells them about anything anymore.

The bad thing is that so much of the old data is only found in books from many decades ago. TPTB are glad that is the case, I'm sure, because in recent books we are seeing a versions of the old, correct history spun to better protect the whole chain of science and government from those early days down to this very day.

As an UFO abductee and as witness to a low, slow and silent triangle a few years ago, I'm not just preaching through my hat. UFOs are real and we now have their capabilities in our triangles. Let's get them out into open use for humanity rather than reserved as a super-duper weapon's platform.

edit on 9-4-2013 by Aliensun because: Clarification

And you make the same mistake that many [notice I did not say ALL] hard core believers make. You place the responsibility of disproving your beliefs and speculations as to the nature of UFO s on the unconvinced, the scientific community, and even NASA [as if it were their job to investigate reported sightings]. This logical handicap seems to be widespread within the UFO community - if a negative can't be proven [it never can be] then that's proof positive. You make the further mistake of force-fitting the entirety of reported UFO's into your very tiny ETH box, which makes no sense at all as many [most] UFO's are misidentified natural phenomena or man made objects, with the remainder being... unidentified. There is currently no proof of extraterrestrial life of any complexity, so how does the assumption that UFO's are controlled or piloted by alien life forms of the highest complexity and sophistication logically follow? And no offense, but "I'm an abductee, so I know" adds nothing but one more wild claim to the "needs proving" pile... and guess what - it's not anyone's job to disprove it.

Originally posted by WilliamOckham
The guy is spot on. Until abduction cases or UFO sightings come with anything other than stories or witness testimony, they are unexplained and not to be taken seriously as fact. Witness testimony (As stated by the good Dr. Tyson) is simply unreliable and is at the mercy of perception and ignorance and misidentification. That is simply not evidence. It can be used as corroborating evidence when physical/testable proof is present....but alone and in itself is as good as no evidence at all.

edit on 9-4-2013 by WilliamOckham because: (no reason given)

You certainly make a good point. I would not point to any particular witness testimony as adequate evidence. However, once we put it all the different types of evidence together, it does make for a compelling argument that aliens exist and they are here now.

The Disclosure Project was a milestone for me. How could all these decorated professionals put their reputations at risk over something the general public ridicules? What did they have to gain from it? Nothing. They did not welcome the attention. They were not asking for money. They put their professional reputations on the line because, like most whistleblowers, they deeply felt the truth needed to come out. That is compelling.

Is it scientific evidence that would pass a peer-review? No. However, when you put it all together, it is so compelling that to ignore it would be irresponsible. My personal view is that the Allies of Humanity provide the best account of what's happening right now. I could never prove this in any scientific sense, but deep down I know this information to be true. I respect those that disagree, but I don't think a serious observer can simply discount the reality of UFO contact based on a lack of evidence.

Originally posted by xpoq47
Doesn't the level of evidence go up with the number of witnesses? And what if you add radar confirmation? Some cases have as many as five radar operators to corroborate the stories of eye-witnesses. Doesn't that boost the level of evidence? What about the numerous physical traces?

... a-a-a-and there's where the trail always ends. There has never, ever been verification by multiple independent labs that any of the traces or objects were indeed "alien." So all that really great evidence has led us to exactly nowhere.

He has a point in questioning witness testimony but what is his answer to cases when eye witness testimony matches secondary observations like radar readings like in the 1976 Tehran UFO dogfight?

en.wikipedia.org...

Humor is always good but unfortunately for him all this UFO talk isn't coming solely from "eye witness testimony" and he ends up being just an ass for pushing humor to ridicule all this area by ignoring other clues to this mystery in multiple well documented cases.