Eyewitness accounts and U.F.O.'s

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


cont.

July. Location - Charlton near Shaftesbury, Wiltshire. An on duty uniformed police officer, PC ANTHONY PENNY reported seeing an orange coloured UFO flash across the sky in the above location and disappear over a potato field where days later a large spherical crater measuring eight feet was found. The crater appeared from nowhere in the field and within its centre was a hole three feet deep, 5-12 inches in diameter. Radiating from the centre of the hole were four slot marks, four feet long and one foot wide. No cause could be found for the appearance of the crater or the marks found within it. The crater was investigated by a Bomb Disposal Unit but no satisfactory explanation was ever found for it. The mystery was even mentioned in parliament on 29th July by Major Patrick Wall, Conservative MP for Haltemprice.
UFO CLASSIFICATION – NL (NOCTURNAL LIGHT)
On Duty sighting. 1 Officer. Source - UFO Flying Saucers over Britain by Robert Chapman. Mayflower Books. Pages 104-107.

1954 hours. Thursday 16/12/65. Location - Chineham, Basingstoke, Hampshire. An on duty uniformed police officer, PC J HARWOOD was speaking with a member of the public outside the man’s home when they both observed a tadpole shaped UFO with a large green dome on top and a flaming red tail that was two or three times the length of the dome pass by overhead. It was seen only briefly as it sped across the sky from south to north at an incredible speed. The object was estimated to have been four to six feet in length. PC HARWOOD said, “The colour attracted me - green. This may have been caused by low clouds. I have never seen anything like it before”. The member of the public, Basil Gibbons (aged 67), likened the object to a Gemini space capsule.
UFO CLASSIFICATION – NL (NOCTURNAL LIGHT) On Duty sighting. 1 Officer. Source - The Warminster Mystery by Arthur Shuttlewood. Tandem Publishing 1976. Pages 141-142.

0410 hours. March. Location - Wilmslow, Cheshire. An on duty uniformed officer, PC COLIN PERKS was on foot patrol on Alderley Road in the above town when he saw a UFO moving across the sky at an altitude of only 30 feet and that it was only 100 yards from him. He described it as being 30 feet in diameter and as bulky as a double decker bus. He said, “There was an eerie, greenish-grey glow in the sky. Then I picked out an object about thirty feet long and built up in three sections with the top looking like a dustbin lid. It gave off a high pitched whine. I was paralysed. I just couldn’t believe it.” The duration of the sighting was five minutes before it disappeared. His police report was forwarded to the MOD who did visit him to investigate his story. When officers visited the scene a short time after the incident the area where was seen was covered in a fine glass like substance that disippated after a short period.
UFO CLASSIFICATION – CE2 (CLOSE ENCOUNTER 2ND KIND)
On Duty sighting. 1 Officer. Source - UFO Flying Saucers over Britain by Robert Chapman. Mayflower Books 1999. Page 43 and PRUFOS.

prufospolicedatabase.co.uk...

These are accounts from 1901-2008 for on duty and off duty officers. The site says:

When I began the database I had a half dozen police reports involving approximately 10 police officers. Now after 9 years of research I have collected over 400 reports dating back to 1901 involving over 900 police officers.

Of course there's no similarities between accounts. Just cigar shaped, dome with red, orange, silver and green colors and it hovers. Also none of these description look anything like the many photos and videos. Of course it's just INSANE to connect any photos, videos and eyewitness accounts even though this is something human beings do all the time because we have this thing called reason and logic. Like I said earlier, this is exactly how they catch serial killers. They connect the dots between crime scenes.

The reason you have U.F.O. phenomena is because some of these things can't be reproduced. If it was just natural phenomena, why can't we explain them and their origin like a tornado or hurricane after all these years? Why can't we easily produce some of these sightings? The reason is because the sightings and the descriptions show something that's controlled by intelligence. This is exactly why they're U.F.O.'s.

Not weather balloons, swamp gas, Venus or the Moon. Nothing will make you look more stupid than saying eyewitness evidence means nothing. Our entire world history ~ your entire life ~ is based on eyewitness evidence.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

This truly shows the difference between skeptics and pseudoskeptics.

One note samba.

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
Not weather balloons, swamp gas, Venus or the Moon. Nothing will make you look more stupid than saying eyewitness evidence means nothing. Our entire world history ~ your entire life ~ is based on eyewitness evidence.

Very well said!

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by draknoir2
Seeing may be believing, but belief is not proof. The eye and mind are easily fooled and we often see what we think we see... or want to see.

Fooling ourselves with the corner of our eye and a fleeting glance is one thing. Up close and personal for an extended period of time is another.

Not necessarily.

I do speak from experience... and I don't expect you to believe me on my say so alone.

reply to post by neoholographic

The reason you have U.F.O. phenomena is because some of these things can't be reproduced. If it was just natural phenomena, why can't we explain them and their origin like a tornado or hurricane after all these years? Why can't we easily produce some of these sightings? The reason is because the sightings and the descriptions show something that's controlled by intelligence. This is exactly why they're U.F.O.'s.

Really, I thought the reason we have the UFO phenomena is because of what the acronym UFO stands for, has this changed in recent past?

UFO= unidentified flying object not unreproducible flying objects or intelligent flying objects.

Upper atmosphere lightening was only verified in 1989 after being theorized or predicted back in the 1920s.

Just because its unexplained/unidentified one should not jump to the most outlandish explanation unless they choose to hide the truth or are afraid that the truth isn't as interesting as something Earthly would be.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by draknoir2
Seeing may be believing, but belief is not proof. The eye and mind are easily fooled and we often see what we think we see... or want to see.

Fooling ourselves with the corner of our eye and a fleeting glance is one thing. Up close and personal for an extended period of time is another.

Not necessarily.

I do speak from experience... and I don't expect you to believe me on my say so alone.

Yes necessarily. It only takes a second to catch something out of the corner of your eye. It takes more than a second to be up close and personal.

reply to post by BlueMule

It takes more than a second to be up close and personal.

When you say personal, do you mean physical interaction, did you touch a physical craft?

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

This truly shows the difference between skeptics and pseudoskeptics.

Pseudoskeptics have to act like there's no compelling pictures, videos or eyewitness accounts. With all the accounts that have accumulated over the years, the pseudoskeptic says none is compelling. This is because it's mostly about belief.

So you make up your own definition of pseudoskeptic?

So the pseudoskeptic acts like people just wake up one morning and said I think I will believe in extraterrestrials today and that people have no evidence to base the ET Hypothesis on or their acceptance that extraterrestrials exist. This is just intellectually dishonest.

It's not intellectually dishonest. That's your projection.

Psychological projection was first conceptualized by Sigmund Freud as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world instead. Thus, projection involves projecting positive or negative qualities onto others, and is a common psychological process.[1][2] Theoretically, projection and the related projective identification reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires through displacement.[3]

This is being dishonest:

Here is what I said:

I have not seen one convincing photo. Obviously you have. Can you share?

Convincing and Compelling are different words

As you clearly know:

The skeptic will admit that some pictures, videos and eyewitness accounts are compelling and some make them think but it's not enough for them to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist.

In other words, not convinced. Compelling is your word.

Honestly, honestly, it is impossible to have an actual discussion with you if this is how you are going to continue. I find this topic very compelling. YOUR tactics are dishonest. I honestly disagree with you. I would rather have a discussion with you about the subject at hand rather than defining words and being accused of being dishonest and labeled a pseudoskeptic and all the other nonsense. Nock it off already. Your wasting my time.

Originally posted by ManInAsia

As for the 'throw it all together grabbag of UFOlogy' you've got multiple issues but mainly it's the problem of stuff throw randomly together that is not related. Any type of unidentified aerial object can be thrown into the pot, it can be unidentified because it is truly an unexplained phenomena like sprites above or it is unknown simply because the observer doesn't know what it is.

The most useful definitions of "UFO" presume an actual investigation to determine the likely stimulus that led to the report. Most of the time the stimulus can be deduced by a competent investigator. Other reports defy easy explanation. These latter stimuli are more accurately termed UFOs, in my opinion.

reply to post by neoholographic

Of course it's just INSANE to connect any photos, videos and eyewitness accounts even though this is something human beings do all the time because we have this thing called reason and logic.

I don't think it's insane. I agree, it's what people do. Reason and logic? Also magical thinking, superstition and religion.

Back in the old days, the wind would blow and it was the wind spirit or whatever. Today, the door shuts on its own, it's ghosts because nothing about air pressure is known. Dreams predict the future and all sorts of random disconnected data is put together so we can make sense of things.

Magical thinking occurs at the card table if you play poker. A guy played some god awful hand and beat me because eights were doing good that day. It didn't hold up.

My guess is that you didnt have much exposure to Basic psychology.

To bring up the Westall case again, we have more than 200 witnesses, mostly students but including several teachers and some neighbors, who claim to have seen a disc-shaped object at close range move through the air and briefly touch down and leave a physical trace, and that a goon squad showed up and intimidated the witnesses, as well as confiscating the camera and film from one of the teachers (said to be the only person who took pictures of the object).

If their word is the lowest form of evidence, how does the word of debunkers who weren't even there rank in comparison?

And in general, how does the word of governments that withhold evidence, such as gun-camera footage and the Project Twinkle film, stack up agaInst eye-witnesses or multimode "hearsay"?

How does the word of scoffers compare with that of Belgian fighter pilots who chased a UFO tracked on five NATO radar screens, some recorded data from which was played back at a press briefing?

en.wikipedia.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.ufoevidence.org...

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by draknoir2
Seeing may be believing, but belief is not proof. The eye and mind are easily fooled and we often see what we think we see... or want to see.

Fooling ourselves with the corner of our eye and a fleeting glance is one thing. Up close and personal for an extended period of time is another.

Not necessarily.
I do speak from experience... and I don't expect you to believe me on my say so alone.

Yes necessarily. It only takes a second to catch something out of the corner of your eye. It takes more than a second to be up close and personal.

I meant up close and personal is not necessarily believing. If you can mistake something for a brief period of time you can continue to mistake it for an extended period. Additionally, if your perception is in any way compromised you may think you are seeing or feeling something that you are not... or you may actually be seeing and feeling something when there is nothing there. And in any of those cases your testimony is of limited value as proof to others.

Originally posted by xpoq47
To bring up the Westall case again, we have more than 200 witnesses, mostly students but including several teachers and some neighbors, who claim to have seen a disc-shaped object at close range move through the air and briefly touch down and leave a physical trace, and that a goon squad showed up and intimidated the witnesses, as well as confiscating the camera and film from one of the teachers (said to be the only person who took pictures of the object).

If their word is the lowest form of evidence, how does the word of debunkers who weren't even there rank in comparison?

And in general, how does the word of governments that withhold evidence, such as gun-camera footage and the Project Twinkle film, stack up agaInst eye-witnesses or multimode "hearsay"?

How does the word of scoffers compare with that of Belgian fighter pilots who chased a UFO tracked on five NATO radar screens, some recorded data from which was played back at a press briefing?

en.wikipedia.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.ufoevidence.org...

edit on 11-4-2013 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)

These are interesting points. So the first question I ask is "did it really happen like that?" So the sorting and sifting begins. The problem for me is that when I start drilling down into each of these accounts, I have more questions then answers. There just seems like too many possibilities. Too many variables to be just one answer. On a whole, yeah, wow, it sounds good. But so far, for me, individually, they just don't hold up.

Now, I haven't looked at every fantastic case so, I guess I should withhold judgement? But that's no fun cause I like being called names.

So did all 200 people see the same thing? How was the investigation conducted an by whom? There is so much to sort through to take everything at face value. The "field" is so mucked up with some slant from supposed investigators, that you really can't trust anything. if one of these cases is the real deal, what a shame because its buried under 10 layers of BS.

So unless people really start asking questions and start considering and understanding everything that's involved with these cases, we will never get to the bottom of any of it. How many people really understand perception, psychology and the complexities of human interaction? I don't. But I do know that it's a huge factor that's overlooked.

Anyway, I look forward to an update on your project.

reply to post by neoholographic

The reason you have U.F.O. phenomena is because some of these things can't be reproduced. If it was just natural phenomena, why can't we explain them and their origin like a tornado or hurricane after all these years? Why can't we easily produce some of these sightings?

Do you really think we know everything by now? Really?

The reason is because the sightings and the descriptions show something that's controlled by intelligence. This is exactly why they're U.F.O.'s.

Yes, they are "described" as having intelligence. That doesn't make it so. What parent doesn't have the smartest kid on earth? Intelligence has been ascribed to natural occurances since there were people. That's what humans do.

reply to post by neoholographic

Here's photos from 1870 to 2013. These are just some photos. Are you saying there's not one compelling photo in the bunch? Are you saying not 1 photo fit's any description from an eyewitness account?

Ah, yeah. To me a lot look like obvious fakes. A lot look too ambiguous and could be anything. The ones that might be anything, might be buried in their somewhere but I'm too put off by the garbage that's in there to give it any effort. Why don't YOU pick the most convincing one? I'm no photo expert so you should have a field day with me.

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
Not weather balloons, swamp gas, Venus or the Moon. Nothing will make you look more stupid than saying eyewitness evidence means nothing. Our entire world history ~ your entire life ~ is based on eyewitness evidence.

including every mythology and every religious belief. "Our entire world history" also includes Nazis who based their beliefs on eyewitness evidence. This would include everything that we were wrong about too which probably represents, ballpark, just about everything. Or did you mean just the stuff we are correct about?

How much of the body of scientific knowledge is based solely on eyewitness evidence? My guess is zero.

My entire life is based on eyewitness evidence? Yes, including my understanding of eyewitness evidence.

I am excited to deliver this wholly new version of the scientific method to the scientific community. They were really getting irritated with the old one. The new one is good news:

The New Scientific Method

Step - - - Procedure

1. Proof - - - Non-scientists bring irrefutable dead body proof and drop it off at a university, publication completed, peer review completed.

Notes: - - - No other work should be executed until this happens.

End of Method

Wow!!! I am so excited by this new scientific method. I can cut budgets, lay off technicians, stop doing field observations and data aggregation and analysis, drop this Ockham's razor BS which I did not like to begin with, cease hypothesis development and predictive and falsification testing!!!

Plus the amateur credulists are gonna pay for the journal review and the critical review all themselves!!

Yay.... Marinda, call the lead tech in Phoenix!!!. Publish this new industry practice!!! The pilots and law enforcement officials and guys in their parents' basements are going to do all our science FOR us now!!

I so love budget cuts, this is great news.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


You can't have anything to do with science but I actually hope you do. This will just show the blindness of some in the scientific community when it comes to these things.

Explain to me why the ET Hypothesis isn't a valid hypothesis.

The ET Hypothesis says some of the observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s may be piloted and controlled by extraterrestrials based on these underlying 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.

Again, I'm not saying the Hypothesis is a fact but you can build a hypothesis based on the underlying facts to explain an observed phenomena.

This occurs all the time in science. Why do people lose all reason and logic when extraterrestrials are mentioned?

Like I said, nobody has been able to answer the simple question. Why isn't the ET Hypothesis a valid hypothesis to explain the observed phenomena of U.F.O.'s.?

Originally posted by neoholographic
You can't have anything to do with science but I actually hope you do. This will just show the blindness of some in the scientific community when it comes to these things.

Explain to me why the ET Hypothesis isn't a valid hypothesis.

Well said neoholo....I was being facetious, and maybe it was a bit too encrypted. We never have permission to dismiss the scientific method, just because the observations or topic are of a nature we do not like. The greatest mistakes in my company labs come from presuming that something cannot be, and therefore refusing to allow the techs to pursue investigating it. I recently completed a court settlement over this very issue, which cost us 2 years of advancement on a technology, because someone was so brilliant, they did not have to do any science in order to dismiss the idea. Skepticism did not protect him from legal damages.

Skipping right to step 18, Proof; is not how the scientific method works. I do not believe in ET's - however I also do not believe in cheating and circumventing the scientific method in order to keep a topic squelched. Rather, find it best to promote science once a threshold of plurality in observation has been met. MIT has released a set of principles for the New World of scientific thinking, and principle #8 reads:

8. It’s the crowd instead of experts.

The blocking of access to the scientific method, the tools and the minds and the means of science, though personal brilliance and misapplied 'skepticism' is pseudoscience. Because in the latter enforcement under plurality, if they did exist, .......we would never know.

I am not the only one who thinks this way.