Embellishments of memory: the unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony

[kazakhan]

Just ignore them and they'll go away.

Not around here they wont. Skinwalker would claim to be a sceptic which is a lot different to a debunker which is what he is. He has posted more drivel on this subject then most of the so called "crackpots". He has already stated his opinion that all UFOs are of natural or earthly origins, which may be the case however that position is just as unproven as ET visitation.

The ETI-UFO movement has all the hallmarks of religion:

Indeed, but do you spend as much time in the religion forum debunking as you do in pseudoscience?

 

[SkinWalker]

To kazakhan & agitprop, I'm very much agnostic with regard to ETI being responsible for UFOs. I'd actually like to believe and find out that they are driving these lights in the sky that everyone keeps seeing, but I don't think that the evidence is compelling.

With regard to agitprop's comment about being "emotional," I find a bit of irony in that. I've always viewed the believers has having more emotion while defending their faiths than the skeptics. Perhaps I do get emotional at times, but they're rare instances and usually connected to late, weekend nights and multiple glasses of brandy. Otherwise, I'm just another guy with a hobby. Most of the time, I have my browser open in one window and Word with a writing project in another.

But kazakhan is right, I don't consider myself a "debunker," I'm just a guy who happens to be skeptical about pseudoscience (and religion, government, etc.) and who asks what I feel are pertinent questions to those that believe.

Your religious analogy notwithstanding, agitprop, I think I can argue with far greater ease and clarity the religious aspects of the ETI-UFO movement than you can the "skeptical movement," although I'm sure there is some ritual aspect to skepticism as there is any hobby.

In an attempt to stay on topic, do either of you have any data concerning eyewitness testimony and the reliability of it in court or forensic investigation? Do you know of methods that investigators can use to separate empirical data from embellishment?

You can ignore all you want, but as long as there are those that persist in making wild claims of pseudoscience in the Pseudoscience sub-forum of a Science message board, there are skeptics that won't go away.

 

[duendy]

Wellll...i am an encourager of emotions. wehn you look at the dominator systems from theisms to the present industrial fascism backed up by fascistic science, then you know what i mean. they all discourage deep feelings

gettin onto the topic though of SkinWalker's seemingly unrelenting quest to completely expose ALL UFO/ET reports etc as fraud........
put it this way. there is a place to expose gullibility. you know, you can get those cults like that one where they believed a flyin saucer was gonna come and collect them but...FIRst they had to kill themselves. remember that. well that shit coulda dont with some serious debunking. as can many cults. where people are really suked in and manipulated

but what i feel about you Skinwalker is that you HAVEn't seen EVERY report.....have you? regarding film footage of UFOS. you keep ignoring me when i aske you if you've seen the Brazillian footage, which impressed me

but you err on the side of 'it cant be true cause there's no 'substantial objective proof'.....well what the fk IS objectivity for starters. i thought you'd be aware of this conundrum considering modern physicists struggled with this at the beginnings of LASt century......err are you with me. you seem to be in a time warp regarding your criteria for 'proof'?

 

[kazakhan]

In an attempt to stay on topic, do either of you have any data concerning eyewitness testimony and the reliability of it in court or forensic investigation? Do you know of methods that investigators can use to separate empirical data from embellishment?

Ok, how many people have been put on trial on the basis of witness testimony, particulary in sexual assualt cases? How many sightings have there been of the "Loch Ness Monster", there were enough sightings it would seem to warrant an investigation as there have been many. Of course these things are more likely to be proved or disproved then some UFOs being attributed to ETI. My point is a single witness to a non UFO\ETI event has a reasonable chance of said event at least being investigated. UFOs should be investigated properly not particulary every sighting but the phenomenon itself.

You can ignore all you want, but as long as there are those that persist in making wild claims of pseudoscience in the Pseudoscience sub-forum of a Science message board, there are skeptics that won't go away.

And again, what do you add by derailing the discussion of "wild claims"? I'm an atheist but very little of my time here is spent debunking the "wild claims" in the religous forum as it's just not constructive and when I do it's because I'm in troll mode. Nor do I wade into a lame arse thread like "Star Wars Vs Star Trek" to tell them how stupid the question is.

 

[SkinWalker]

Ok, how many people have been put on trial on the basis of witness testimony, particulary in sexual assualt cases?

And how many people have been recently released from prison because of DNA tests that weren't available at the time they were imprisoned based on "eyewitness" testimony? Why have Forensic Labs or present physical evidence in trials if eyewitness testimony is enough? The literature I cited covers this, particularly some of that which I linked. But if you'd like me to quote some specific passages here, I'd be happy if you're interested.

How many sightings have there been of the "Loch Ness Monster", there were enough sightings it would seem to warrant an investigation as there have been many.

An investigation that turned out to be a colossal waste of time & money. The Loch Ness "monster" turned out to be a rather simple hoax, but the case proves my point, since a grainy photo of one man's Labrador Retriever fetching a stick in the loch was enough to spark a flurry of spurious "sightings" and an entire mythos about the Loch.

My point is a single witness to a non UFO\ETI event has a reasonable chance of said event at least being investigated. UFOs should be investigated properly not particulary every sighting but the phenomenon itself.

Who should fund it?

And again, what do you add by derailing the discussion of "wild claims"?

My position is this: pseudoscience is bad science. In a science-based message forum like sciforums, pseudoscience should be exposed and discussed as a problem rather than promoted and encouraged. If you look at the threads I've started in this forum, I raised topics other than UFOs, but it always goes back to the same topic of ETI-UFOs. I post with the full knowledge that I have little chance of convincing the hard-line ETI-UFO believer that believing that UFOs are a product of alien technology is improbable and unlikely with the evidence available. I do, however, realize that there are a lot of "lurkers" who come to these forums curious about UFOs and such... those are the people who haven't necessarily made up their minds and might be influenced.

But as I have always said, I have never ruled out ETI as the cause for aliens (contrary to what duendy said above), I merely state that there is no credible or convincing evidence.

So if two or three anonymous visitors to sciforums develops their critical thinking skills after reading threads like this, then I'm thrilled.

I'm an atheist but very little of my time here is spent debunking the "wild claims" in the religous forum as it's just not constructive and when I do it's because I'm in troll mode.

Most of the discussion in the religious sub-forum is geared to atheists vs. theists and can be a good place for someone to hone their knowledge and ability to express their opinion, but occasionally a topic comes along that is interesting to discuss until it boils down to the A vs. T battle. I post there about once a week or so.

Nor do I wade into a lame arse thread like "Star Wars Vs Star Trek" to tell them how stupid the question is.

Of course not. The Force would beat anything the trekkies could muster, so why bother

 

[kazakhan]

I can't believe I'm wasting my 500th post on this

And how many people have been recently released from prison because of DNA tests that weren't available at the time they were imprisoned based on "eyewitness" testimony?

But the DNA tests are not the point and even so DNA testing is not infallible. The point was that witness testimony can be enough to start a proper investigation.

Why have Forensic Labs or present physical evidence in trials if eyewitness testimony is enough?

Did I imply somewhere that witness testimony is or should be enough for convictions?

I'd be happy if you're interested

No I am not interested, I know enough about psychology.

An investigation that turned out to be a colossal waste of time & money.

Again that's not the point and you know it

Who should fund it?

If ETI was to turn up and annouce that they've been around a while it's the government that's going to look the fool. If an investigation of UFO reports concluded that there are a number of unexplained objects buzzing around our skies on regular basis then it would be a global security issue.

My position is this: pseudoscience is bad science.

Maybe your problem is that you've classified it as science in the first place.

In a science-based message forum like sciforums, pseudoscience should be exposed and discussed as a problem rather than promoted and encouraged.

Do you recall what this site was before it became a forum? It was a news site that often reported pseudoscience, this site was never just "science" based.

those are the people who haven't necessarily made up their minds and might be influenced.

Now we're getting somewhere, you're a preacher.

But as I have always said, I have never ruled out ETI as the cause for aliens

Well I'd be damned suprised if anyone could, obviously you meant UFOs rather than aliens

So if two or three anonymous visitors to sciforums develops their critical thinking skills after reading threads like this, then I'm thrilled.

I'm sure the Jehovahs have the same attitude when door knocking...

To qualify my position I dont take the claims made in pseudoscience to be a fact. In most cases my position is probably the same as yours SkinWalker, however I find quite a few of the topics and other peoples thoughts on said topics interesting. I dropped out of of university while studying for my Bachelor of Science degree with a major in physics. I've seen a number of UFOs, one of which was within 100 metres of me which is how I developed in interest in this topic.

 

[Agitprop]

Kazakhan, Care to write a little more about your ufo sightings? I'm really interested.

 

[kazakhan]

However what was strange for a few that I have seen, is that what appears to be a satellite stops almost instantly, sometimes they'll loop a few times, but usually just change direction. I've also seen them fade a couple of times, seemed like they were heading away from the planet?

As for the one I seen up close I will not openly discuss it.

 

[Rick]

Is any one here even remotely aware of types of research methodologies etc...?

 

[SkinWalker]

Perhaps another thread on Kazakhan's sightings would be warranted. It would certainly be outside this topic unless he want's to discuss how it relates to embellishments or eyewitness testimony and the reliability of it.

Beyond that, Kazakhan, I think you'd be hard pressed to show where -even in the justice system- eyewitness testimony is considered solid evidence. But using the justice system as a comparator isn't realistic since by nature the courts rely on the belief of the jury. In science, the answer has to be testable and potentially falsifiable. That can't happen with an anecdote unless that anecdote relates to a reoccurring event or phenomenon that offers some bit of prediction.

Zion, with regard to methodologies, are you speaking about the research into the realiability of eyewitness testimony or about UFO research in general?

 

[kazakhan]

Beyond that, Kazakhan, I think you'd be hard pressed to show where -even in the justice system- eyewitness testimony is considered solid evidence. But using the justice system as a comparator isn't realistic since by nature the courts rely on the belief of the jury.

Are you a politician? I'm sure you understand my post but I'll make my point again anyway which is eyewitness testimony is enough to start an investigation to find "solid" evidence. So why "for fucks sake" do you continue to imply I've claimed otherwise? I did not suggest that eyewitness testimony is in anyway solid evidence. If you're going to ignore any and all points to a post why bother to quote and reply?

 

[duendy]

As is very typical of the reductive science boffin's way, you put all people into a same box--in this case people who you regard beliving in 'pseudoscience'....But we're all unique too

for example, here's two 'skills' i got. though as faar as i know i didn't learn them deliberately

i never forget a face (though ma hopless at names. seriously)

also, i can always tell when people are acting--you know on TV. doesn't matter how contrived it may appear to be to convince it isn't acting i can tell.
That i know its a skill, is that some others have not known it

what i am trying to say is that you cant present some potted theory that disenfranchizes EVERYone as being an unreliable witness of an event. And i also stress before that WHEN an event is particularly strange, traumatic, eventFULL then usually these hallenings are VERY clear in memory
think for yourself. rememeber people praising you, and insulting you. dont you remember those times really clearly, as they made an IMPRESSION on you?
so how much of an imoression would there be seeing a strange craft, ar an alien?

it also is incredibly demeaning, disrespectful, and arrogant and patronizing to say to someone that what they report to have seen must be false due to their lack of ability to see.....!

and.....your assuarance that no credibly eveidence has 'EVER' been given. well dude..you haven't SEEN all the evidence. for the trillionth time....and i am not holding my breath to get a confirmation on this question you avoid every time.......:
Have you seen the footage of the Braziillian UFOs recorded by many cameras at the Eclipse early 1990s?

And as i have said before. what is the probability that EVERY...EVERY report of UFOs and ET contact is false? seriously. are you a math man. what is that probablity. for if even ONE report is real, your whole defense of your position comes crumblin down like a pack of cards, no?

 

[SkinWalker]

Are you a politician? I'm sure you understand my post but I'll make my point again anyway which is eyewitness testimony is enough to start an investigation to find "solid" evidence.

You're right. I overlooked that in your posts. And I think I've agreed to an extent throughout this and other threads with the notion that eyewitness testimony is enough to "warrant an investigation," but I would add only when such and investigation is beneficial. Chasing 'flying saucers' that will ultimately turn out to be weather anomalies or aircraft, etc. wouldn't seem to be a benefit. Catching the perpetrator of a crime before that person can commit another, on the other hand, would.

I think this is why "scientific" investigation of UFO mythology doesn't occur, since the investigative process involves capital resources of manpower and equipment, and the expense cannot be justified.

You didn't answer the question above, however: "who should fund it?" Just stating who'll look foolish should the little green men announce themselves is hardly an answer to a valid question. In any event, should the little green men announce themselves it's the so-called 'ufologists' who would lose out, not the scientists and researchers. The 'ufologist' would quickly be pushed to the back of the crowd in research money and opportunity while the world's leading scientists were called in to examine whatever was available. There would no longer be a need for UFO proponents like Freidman, Greer, etc to command large speaking-fees or "tuitions" for seminars. Etc.

 

[kazakhan]

You didn't answer the question above, however: "who should fund it?"

The western governments or the UN perhaps either way ultimately it means taxpayers. For me an investigation would start with collecting all known reports and looking for patterns in sightings etc. I would guess most sightings could be ruled out just by reading the reports. There should be quite a few that would require a follow up, interviewing witnesses etc. Eventually I would expect an investigation of this kind to report that a small number of sightings are indeed "unexplainable" at the present time. Depending on the number and frequency of the "unexplainable" events a decision could be made about further investigation. And that is what we really dont know at the moment, how often are there "unexplainable" events occuring in our skies? If we had some idea then a discussion on the possible origins has more merit. We did have Project Bluebook some years ago however that was never really serious nor do I believe independent.
As for the "ufologists", I couldn't care less about them. Some of the stuff they say is interesting other stuff is ridiculous.

 

[VRob]

You're right. I overlooked that in your posts. And I think I've agreed to an extent throughout this and other threads with the notion that eyewitness testimony is enough to "warrant an investigation," but I would add only when such and investigation is beneficial. Chasing 'flying saucers' that will ultimately turn out to be weather anomalies or aircraft, etc. wouldn't seem to be a benefit. Catching the perpetrator of a crime before that person can commit another, on the other hand, would.

And there it is. Proof that your mind is already made up.

A true skeptic would never make such a statement. But a debunker would.

 

[SkinWalker]

To both posters above:

First, with regard to VRob's bolded quote from me, the context I thought was clear. I was speaking to the justifications of investigating UFO claims and reports. That the vast majority of UFO reports -indeed, all to date- can have prosaic and mundane explanations is indicitive that they are caused by prosaic and mundane means. This would be a factor that would logically obstruct investigation since a beneficial outcome isn't probable.

Second, when you take that outcome into consideration, there lacks a real motivation for a governmental or even a publically funded non-governmental agency to commit funds.

 

[VRob]

That the vast majority of UFO reports -indeed, all to date- can have prosaic and mundane explanations is indicitive that they are caused by prosaic and mundane means.

Let me get this straight......

You're saying here that EVERY UFO report can be explained by mundane explanations???

 

[SkinWalker]

Have you seen a UFO report in which a more prosaic or mundane explanation than 'alien spacecraft' wasn't possible?

That's what I'm saying.

I think you're assuming too much about me and my intentions. As I've stated many times in the past, I don't rule out ETI as an origin/cause of the UFO phenomenon. I simply haven't seen a UFO case in which this were the only or even the most likely explanation.

 

[shaman_]

Let me get this straight......

You're saying here that EVERY UFO report can be explained by mundane explanations???

Do you concede that it is at least possible?

I think you're assuming too much about me and my intentions.

Hmm erecting a strawman perhaps...

We are talking about possibly the greatest discovery in mankind's history... in a field that is littered with crackpots and hoaxes... and we are expected to rely on testimonial evidence even though it has been shown time and time again to be unreliable?

Most of the reponses seem to just attacks on the sceptics for suggesting such a thing.

 

[shaman_]

Here is a case that is sort of relevant to the thread. It excited me because we do not get many ufo sightings here in Australia.

About a week ago there was a report in our news websites regarding a black triangle ufo that was seen for hovering around for five hours. It was even captured on video although I haven't seen the footage.

Some of the comments from the report were..
"I've never seen anything like it" ,

"It looked like a bird, but much larger, the size of a car, with a flat top and a deeper shape at the bottom."

"The police were here, and they said they had never seen anything like it before."

At first a male family member saw what he described to Ms McGhee as something "that looked like a stationary chopper".

Here are just two but the report made it into several ufo websites.
http://www.rense.com/general63/hovers.htm
http://ufocasebook.com/dubboaustralia.html

What did the ufo turn out to be?

A father and sone flying a kite. They were shining a torch on it while flying it. It was a large kite though.

No this doesn't prove anything but it is an interesting example (to me anyway) of people going straight to the et explanation.