Eyewitness accounts and U.F.O.'s

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


I'd have to agree, with what you say about a 'murder' witness, or anything else like that. But if it's an 'unknown' light in the sky, I'd say you've got about a 95% chance of I.D. ing that light eventually. But, when you have an unknown 'light' that presents you with HIGHLY unlikely, anomalous flight characteristics, that is persistent, (lasting about 45 minutes in this case) the fact that there is an unknown light in the sky kind of gets overwhelmed by the fact of what the light is doing that just doesn't add up. Anywhere! for anybody

There are at least 4 things that don't matter to me in the scheme of things. UFO's, UFO's, UFO's and Bigfoot.

Well while the credentialed reputable testimonials are good, I always prefer grass roots people for they're the real starseeds and contactees. What do I mean by that? The non military positives versus the corrupt ones with NWO agendas. There are sides with ETs. In fact, the higher frequency Big Brass that could help us upgrade need a little help from us. We need to rise to the occasion as James Gilliland points out frequently. Because, we're a very low frequency war/starvation near hellzone planet and its an interactive universe. The more you give, the more you receive. Those two things need to end with communities waking up and helping one another like families, there should no one on the streets and no one who is not known and being helped to heal and if possible, reach for dreams, irregardless of health and conditions. Share and Love and create opportunities, free enterprise not monopolies, community by community growing up and surpassing governments in what can be done.

Because that would mean it would all be over, and earth would rise.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by neoholographic
We wouldn't find killers in some cases without eyewitness account.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I'll do it again.

It's not the same thing. An eyewitness to a murder is looking at something we all agree exists. We know murder exists. Somebody shoots or stabs or chokes or hits somebody until they are dead. We are familiar with the mechanisms, and the activity involves human beings, which we also all agree exist. So in a court of law, where we're trying to determine who did what, and not whether or not such a thing as murder exists or whether or not a particular person exists, eyewitness testimony has potential value. Potential. People can still be truthful and wrong.

Now compare this to a person seeing a glowing flying saucer land and then little gray guys in jumpsuits come out of it, look around, get back in, and fly away, leaving no traces. Believe it or not WE DO NOT ALL AGREE that such a thing is possible. And without anything to back it up, what do I have than helps me accept the reality of it? I can still believe the person to be truthful, but not necessarily right about what they saw.

If in a court of law, an upstanding citizen and "trained observer" swore on the Bible that a winged, red-eyed Mothman swooped down and killed somebody, what would happen? Would the court issue a warrant for the Mothman's arrest? See the difference?

This makes no sense.

The point is, there's no need to try and say eyewitness accounts are meaningless when it comes to U.F.O.'s. There's no difference because in BOTH CASES eyewitness accounts are valuable evidence.

You then stoop to the usual skeptic tactics. You think bringing up Mothman or little green men helps your argument because you have no argument to begin with. I saw this with the skeptic Michael Shurmer one time. He was getting his head handed to him in a debate and he started talking about little green men because he had no argument.

Again, nothing you have said diminishes eyewitness testimony. You're making a subjective statement that because we know what murder is eyewitness accounts mean more. Again, this makes zero sense.

So eyewitness accounts lose there value when it's not a murder case lol? This would just kill exploration. We can never investigate anything that we observe in space or in our atmosphere until we first know what it is. See the catch 22 that's created by this type of thinking?

For instance, if an observation is made of something unknown, that observation is meaningless until we know what it is. First, weight has to be given to the eyewitness account in order to build hypothesis as to what the observation means.

The accumulation of eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police Officers and more plus pictures and videos have given weight to the existence of U.F.O.'s and now Unidentified Flying Objects are an accepted truth. Again, U.F.O.'s doesn't mean extraterrestrial. U.F.O.'s mean unidentified flying objects. We know they're flying objects in our skies thanks to these eyewitness accounts. What's unidentified is the origin of these flying objects and what are these flying objects. Are they spacecraft, military craft, probes, ball lightning or some other atmospheric phenomena.

The ET Hypothesis is a hypothesis that says some of these U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials based on these facts:

Pictures, video, abduction cases, trace evidence, eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police and more, exoplanets, microbial life in diverse places, billions of planets and stars, building blocks of life found in meteorites and comets, liquid water found outside of earth and people like Kaku, Hawking and Edgar Mitchell saying they exist.


The accumulation of eyewitness accounts have lead to the acceptance of U.F.O.'s. as a real phenomena.

100-plus UFO witnesses

Just thought it was interesting.

On February 4, 1968, from approximately 7:20 to 7:25 P.M., about two hundred residents of Redlands, California, either saw or heard what was apparently the same huge, low-flying, disk-shaped object as it passed overhead. The object apparently came down just west of Columbia Street and north of Colton Avenue, then proceeded slowly in a northwestern direction for about a mile or less, at an altitude of about 300 feet. Coming to a stop, it hovered briefly, jerked forward, hovered again, then shot straight up with a burst of speed. (Total time of the sighting must have been less than five minutes).

reply to post by neoholographic

So eyewitness accounts lose there value when it's not a murder case lol? This would just kill exploration. We can never investigate anything that we observe in space or in our atmosphere until we first know what it is. See the catch 22 that's created by this type of thinking?

No. It doesn't work like that. It's the difference between being objective when observing something. Explorers should be trained to be objective. Again, it's the context. When you are exploring the unknown, you should expect the unknown. However, when something appears out of context that you don't expect, it will be unlikely that you will be objective with the observation. Observational data like this should be given some weight but put in its proper place. Every situation is different and should be evaluated individually. At least that's what I think.

Originally posted by CarbonBase
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

I'd have to agree, with what you say about a 'murder' witness, or anything else like that. But if it's an 'unknown' light in the sky, I'd say you've got about a 95% chance of I.D. ing that light eventually. But, when you have an unknown 'light' that presents you with HIGHLY unlikely, anomalous flight characteristics, that is persistent, (lasting about 45 minutes in this case) the fact that there is an unknown light in the sky kind of gets overwhelmed by the fact of what the light is doing that just doesn't add up. Anywhere! for anybody

You are right. I never saw anything like that and I didn't see what you saw. I can only understand things in terms of my own experiences.

Anyway, I was down in Florida a couple of months ago. I was at a bar one night drinking as we're others. I stepped outside to get some air. It was a very clear night and saw this woman pointing her iPhone up in the sky. She had some app that would map out the constellations.

Anyway some other dude joins in on the conversation and looks up at the sky and says "what's that". Well it was the brightest star and i said its probably Jupiter. So this guy insists that it's very weird and that's moving and that it can't be Jupiter. So I look again establish some reference points and confirm its not doing much of anything other than being Jupiter.

Two people looking at the same thing with two different experiences.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by neoholographic

 

So eyewitness accounts lose there value when it's not a murder case lol? This would just kill exploration. We can never investigate anything that we observe in space or in our atmosphere until we first know what it is. See the catch 22 that's created by this type of thinking?

No. It doesn't work like that. It's the difference between being objective when observing something. Explorers should be trained to be objective. Again, it's the context. When you are exploring the unknown, you should expect the unknown. However, when something appears out of context that you don't expect, it will be unlikely that you will be objective with the observation. Observational data like this should be given some weight but put in its proper place. Every situation is different and should be evaluated individually. At least that's what I think.

What???

Is this some sort of code that I'm supposed to decipher?

Could you say it again? I was going to respond but I don't know what you're saying.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


That's the issue at it's root I think. I would NEVER have seen that object except, I was called on a encrypted circuit and ordered to 'go outside and eye ball that 'thing'. I was also ordered not to make any log entries about the 'thing'. To this day, it is still a 'thing' that I have very little other experience to compare it to. But, I know I wasn't the only 'person' to witness this thing. I never heard anyone else say anything about it. And I never asked. But I did as ordered, went outside, 'eyeballed' the thing, and now it's stuck in my head. Forever. I don't really care if it was a 'piloted' craft. They could be from Zeta Reticuli for all I care But what really intrigues me about what I saw was 'How do they do that?' and where can I get one of those? !

Originally posted by neoholographic

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by neoholographic

 

So eyewitness accounts lose there value when it's not a murder case lol? This would just kill exploration. We can never investigate anything that we observe in space or in our atmosphere until we first know what it is. See the catch 22 that's created by this type of thinking?

No. It doesn't work like that. It's the difference between being objective when observing something. Explorers should be trained to be objective. Again, it's the context. When you are exploring the unknown, you should expect the unknown. However, when something appears out of context that you don't expect, it will be unlikely that you will be objective with the observation. Observational data like this should be given some weight but put in its proper place. Every situation is different and should be evaluated individually. At least that's what I think.

What???

Is this some sort of code that I'm supposed to decipher?

Could you say it again? I was going to respond but I don't know what you're saying.

Sure

No. It doesn't work like that. It's the difference between being objective when observing something. Explorers should be trained to be objective. Again, it's the context. When you are exploring the unknown, you should expect the unknown. However, when something appears out of context that you don't expect, it will be unlikely that you will be objective with the observation. Observational data like this should be given some weight but put in its proper place. Every situation is different and should be evaluated individually. At least that's what I think.

reply to post by CarbonBase


Well that is an interesting story. Who knows? If you do find out where to get one, let me know. What part of the world were you in?

Forget eyewitness accounts. Forget 'governmental' cover ups.

Why the hell have the aliens in UFO's just not revealed themselves to us????

Because they don't exist!

If I could travel to Pantheon galaxy in a spacecraft, I'd land in a city and say "hello". Well actually, I'd chase their aircraft and then speed off so they couldn't catch me and make it all mysterious and create doubt in their minds while I hung around unable to get back to my galaxy. Gee I might even beam up some of their people to experiment on just for fun and then drop them off some where else and laugh at their frantic calls to have people believe them while tuning into their media and chat sites and laugh my head off. Oh, and I'd stick around for thousands of years and still hide myself and not act like an explorer trying to contact other worlds

Anyone see how completely STUPID that would be? Come on people get a grip. There are no aliens in spaceships visiting Earth from other galaxies or this one.

reply to post by pacifier2012


Why don't you reveal yourself to bacteria?

Regarding UFO revelation and disclosure see: www.presidentialufo.com... for a list of over sixty reasons why government would not benefit from disclosure.

reply to post by neoholographic


I think you have a very simple understanding of "observation".

What about science? In science many discoveries start with an observation especially in Astronomy and studies of the atmosphere. Then a hypothesis is built to explain the observed phenomena and eventually the hypothesis is tested.

Astronomy is a good example of this. An astronomer will make an observation. They are trained to be as objective as possible. An observation is made, notes will be taken, assumptions made, etc. This will be repeated and shared. If It's a reproducible phenomenon, then you have something. Astronomers are, in a sense, explorers. They have a good understanding of how to make observations. I am certain that an astronomer that says they saw something unusual but was unable to produce objective, reproducible observations would not go very far.

This is quite different than someone going about their day and confronted with something odd that doesn't conform to anything they know. How do you expect them to be objective? If its one person, it's almost useless. More than one person only means that something may be there. Then it gets much more complex where subjective observations get influenced by others subjective observations. And then there is memories which also morph and change over time. If you take this type of observation at face value without being critical, you end up with something like ETH.

Each case is different and should be considered individually and not as a whole because when you make a group out of unrelated things, you get something like ETH and its not real helpful.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


This makes zero sense.

So everyone becomes idiots who are not objective when they see U.F.O.'s? This is the type of shallow and silly thinking coming from skeptics. When these Pilots, Police Officers and Military folks see U.F.O.'s they all of a sudden turn into blathering idiots who are not objective.

At the end of the day, these U.F.O.'s are unidentified because they can't be reproduced. The credibility of the high profile eyewitnesses over the years has helped U.F.O.'s become a real phenomena.

I think skeptics make themselves look really silly when they try and devalue eyewitness accounts and then try to turn these high profile eyewitnesses into idiots because they see U.F.O.'s.

The ET Hypothesis is just hypothesis that seeks to explain some of these U.F.O.'s.

Sadly, many pseudo skeptics have a blind spot of belief. So Pilots, Police and Military who see these things lose all objectivity when they see the unknown even though these people are trained to adapt to unknown situations.

When I was in the Army, this is what we learned. This is why there's so much repetition in the Service. So when Soldiers and Pilots encounter a situation that's unknown to them, they automatically go to their training. This is the same with Police Officers.

This is why when you hear eyewitness accounts from them, it sounds like they're giving a report. So when skeptics try to ridicule and belittle eyewitness accounts from high profile witnesses as meaningless, it's just silly.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

This makes zero sense.

Thanks for the warning.


After reading your post I am in complete agreement.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

This makes zero sense.

sure it does.

So everyone becomes idiots who are not objective when they see U.F.O.'s?

I'm not sure where you got that from. People seeing UFOs are people seeing UFOs. It's the ones that take this at face value that you might consider "idiots". Not my words though.

This is the type of shallow and silly thinking coming from skeptics. When these Pilots, Police Officers and Military folks see U.F.O.'s they all of a sudden turn into blathering idiots who are not objective.

it's actually not silly and shallow thinking. It's just being a critical thinker. What might be considered shallow and silly is lumping all accounts into one bucket and coming up with a worthless hypothesis. If you think that expressing that each case should be considered individually is silly and shallow, then I don't think you will get very far in an actual discussion.

At the end of the day, these U.F.O.'s are unidentified because they can't be reproduced. The credibility of the high profile eyewitnesses over the years has helped U.F.O.'s become a real phenomena.

high profile or not, they should not be taken at face value.

I think skeptics make themselves look really silly when they try and devalue eyewitness accounts and then try to turn these high profile eyewitnesses into idiots because they see U.F.O.'s.

I think that people look silly when they avoid all attempts at a rational discussion. Putting words into my mouth like "idiots" and beginning a reply with "What?" And "that makes no sense" and just all out refusal to have real discussion, makes someone appear close minded and a little ridiculous.

The ET Hypothesis is just hypothesis that seeks to explain some of these U.F.O.'s.

And my opinion is that it's not a very good one.

Sadly, many pseudo skeptics have a blind spot of belief. So Pilots, Police and Military who see these things lose all objectivity when they see the unknown even though these people are trained to adapt to unknown situations.

yes, I would say that all those people are humans and have the same human limitations. Again, each case should examined individually. What do you do with cases where it's proved that pilots, military and whoever misidentified something? Do you just ignore that?

When I was in the Army, this is what we learned. This is why there's so much repetition in the Service. So when Soldiers and Pilots encounter a situation that's unknown to them, they automatically go to their training. This is the same with Police Officers.

That's awesome. Unfortunately they are still human.

This is why when you hear eyewitness accounts from them, it sounds like they're giving a report. So when skeptics try to ridicule and belittle eyewitness accounts from high profile witnesses as meaningless, it's just silly.

Well, do you have examples? I just had an exchange with someone in this thread who said they saw a UFO while they were in the military. That was my chance to ridicule a belittle him and I guess I blew it.

The problem is, the person is "eye witnessing" something that is not known to exist.

Thats when the problem starts, you have no knowledge on something that does not exist, or is well documented, So how sure can you be if someone tells you, "hey i saw a UFO"

Ok before anyone reply, i mean UFO as in Aliens and not earth made UFOs. Earth made UFO, yeah of course it could be anything.