electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
So you base your personal beliefs (if you have any) on your own self perceived inadequacies and unreliability as a witness?? Objectively speaking, how do you then know that you are not presently dreaming?
The Thing about UFOs...
- Thread starter EndLightEnd
- Start date
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I base my application of scientific methodology,quite independently of my personal beliefs, which should have no bearing on an objective scientific investigation, on the well documented limitations of the human sensory/perception system as an accurate reporter of observations when in the absence of the control of repeatability.
I don't. I do know that my waking state is different from my dreaming state, but I do not rule out the possibility that I am in some alternative dream state. Through application of Ockham's razor I can ignore the possibility for all practical purposes. I just remain ready to change that assessment on the presentation of new evidence.
Comon, don't equate this with ghosts.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
This thread has been fascinating to say the least. I hope it continues to be. Rarely do I find myself in the company of such obstinacy but I must say I have found this strangely invigorating.
It is a wonderful, wonderful thing to be alive. It's even more wonderful to "see" through the prescribed thinking processes that have served to encapsulate a respectable segment of mankind's highly intelligent. That's a bit sad, but indeed it serves to show there is hope to overcome such limits.
It becomes obvious as to why the greatest and most accomplished minds throughout history have worked in unique and eccentric ways. The fact is, that if their minds actually did rely on any such "conformities of the skilled mind", we would certainly have had not with respect to their most important contributions. There is no school to teach the concepts of unique insight or creativity.
When UFOs are well understood, as with many other as of yet scientifically unobtainable facts, it will not be the result of "correct logical thinking" that unravels these mysteries. The greatest discoveries and inventions throughout history all started with a question that tempted reason apart from the comfort and security of it's rational shell. Reason is universal and infinitely capable. Whereas rationale is in a constant state of revision.
The key to advancement surely unlocks the arsenal of acceptance. That being because the quality of acceptance is far larger than the limits we traditionally bridle our minds with. It's what allows us all to overcome.
It is a wonderful, wonderful thing to be alive. It's even more wonderful to "see" through the prescribed thinking processes that have served to encapsulate a respectable segment of mankind's highly intelligent. That's a bit sad, but indeed it serves to show there is hope to overcome such limits.
It becomes obvious as to why the greatest and most accomplished minds throughout history have worked in unique and eccentric ways. The fact is, that if their minds actually did rely on any such "conformities of the skilled mind", we would certainly have had not with respect to their most important contributions. There is no school to teach the concepts of unique insight or creativity.
When UFOs are well understood, as with many other as of yet scientifically unobtainable facts, it will not be the result of "correct logical thinking" that unravels these mysteries. The greatest discoveries and inventions throughout history all started with a question that tempted reason apart from the comfort and security of it's rational shell. Reason is universal and infinitely capable. Whereas rationale is in a constant state of revision.
The key to advancement surely unlocks the arsenal of acceptance. That being because the quality of acceptance is far larger than the limits we traditionally bridle our minds with. It's what allows us all to overcome.
Ghosts are associated with "Presence" phenomena, like abduction experiences. I've heard it said geothermal activity, sensory deprivation, and other close to earth explainations for that kind of thing. UFOs seen in the sky are almost always a physical observation. And truely we ARE limiting this discussion of that 3-5% absolutely unexplained UFOs.
In short, Ghosts is a whole other topic. I would accuse you of obfuscating this discussion, and doubling up the proof necessary to TWO very extraordinary claims, but I respect you too much. I'm sure you feel it is similar, I think most people do not.
This is my first post here. I came on to the science blogs because I am curious to know what any skeptics now say after the recent MUFON report.
It is either you do not know about this report on the Stephenville ufo or you are no better than true believers who trust without verifying. It is truly the largest case of head in the sand mentality that I have ever seen in the msm.
Always, the skeptics which I am one, ask for proof. Naturally that is what should be done. Although arguments are always twisted on both sides, the skeptics on these forums are curiously unwilling to apply occams razor when presented with the same types of evidence that warrants it's useage.
Well now we have the MUFON radar yes RADAR report on the Stephenville incident. It has been out for 2 months, only a few serious reporters are writing about it because this is how it is being kept quiet, this is how it is always kept quiet. ( contact Frank Fields, attorney trying to get the military to open up via FOIA ) very reasonable and serious individual.
We now have evidence. yes EVIDENCE ! of a ufo on radar that corresponds with the eyewitness account of 17 + credible ( not insane ) individuals who saw a huge craft flying at amazing speeds 2000 + and stopping and cruising 50 mph to flying away in an instant. This was not a craft of this earth per the witnesses, this was a craft at times chased by f-16s and was headed towards the crawford ranch of bush 10 miles away when the FAA radar lost it or it concealed itself or disappeared. NOW YOU ARE ALL SILENT.
By the way witnesses stated this craft was 500 + feet across ! Including a reputable pilot in the area.
You skeptics who won't change you arrogant all knowing beliefs when new information is presented that only a idiot would ignore are no better than the cultists or other religious fanatics.
I started researching ufo's after the Vatican spokesmen stated that alien life would be within the teachings of the church.
In my research I found many, many cases of radar ground and air tracked ufo's over the last 60 years with at times ground and air witness. All of course without hard evidence, but anecdotal as some would say is a stretch.
It is mathematically more likely that the Govt via intimidation and ridicule and risk of loss of career to anyone who challenges them can keep radar and photo/video evidence gathered at their disposal (they control the FAA, USAF, Naval etc ) and is equally mathematically impossible for so many thousands upon thousands of people for over 120 years of photo and witness testimony, radar both ground and air, ALL of the disclosure project witnesses, the same people we trusted to protect us but now they ALL must be looney, liars and such and they are all trying to decieve all of the Govt's of the world.
In Stephenville the military lied and then changed their story after MUFON got ahold of the FAA data, it took 7 months to complete the report. If the witnesses had lied and changed their story would you be less likely to believe them. Apply Occams razor here please.
Well here fellow skeptics, we have the military lied, the witnesses did not (at least as far as radar confirms a ufo in the area at the same time ) how can you now trust the military in this event. Think about that when they try to debunk this event. Again.
I just don't get why no outrage, the MSM is not going to cover this because breaking the fear of the ufo reality would/could end the economy as we know it which would effect the pocketbooks of the people in charge so they aren't going to do anything to bring out the truth. This EVIDENCE will slowly fade from your brainwashed memories.
For those who wonder why they don't land on the white house lawn. An analogy.
400 years ago when we came across an indigenous tribe, we would conquer them and convert them. 100 years ago we would try to show them the light by bringing them to our world and maybe converting them a little. 50 years ago we might document them and offer to bring them to our world. Today, we would probably leave them alone or at least try not to disturb them. Imagine if they landed, how many people would be affected mentally based on previous beliefs. They must know this.
Imagine a society that has 1000's of years on us in social evolution.
50 years ago we had movies about the invisible man. That was completly out of this world stuff to most scientist or the mainstream media even 20 years ago, well now we have such fabric to bend light around people and make them invisible.
Imagine a species that has 1000's of years of tech on us.
Bottom line is none of us knows Sh*t about the universe compared to the knowledge still to be gained. So open your eyes, the proof is staring you right in the face.
Thanks for listening,
JA
It is either you do not know about this report on the Stephenville ufo or you are no better than true believers who trust without verifying. It is truly the largest case of head in the sand mentality that I have ever seen in the msm.
Always, the skeptics which I am one, ask for proof. Naturally that is what should be done. Although arguments are always twisted on both sides, the skeptics on these forums are curiously unwilling to apply occams razor when presented with the same types of evidence that warrants it's useage.
Well now we have the MUFON radar yes RADAR report on the Stephenville incident. It has been out for 2 months, only a few serious reporters are writing about it because this is how it is being kept quiet, this is how it is always kept quiet. ( contact Frank Fields, attorney trying to get the military to open up via FOIA ) very reasonable and serious individual.
We now have evidence. yes EVIDENCE ! of a ufo on radar that corresponds with the eyewitness account of 17 + credible ( not insane ) individuals who saw a huge craft flying at amazing speeds 2000 + and stopping and cruising 50 mph to flying away in an instant. This was not a craft of this earth per the witnesses, this was a craft at times chased by f-16s and was headed towards the crawford ranch of bush 10 miles away when the FAA radar lost it or it concealed itself or disappeared. NOW YOU ARE ALL SILENT.
By the way witnesses stated this craft was 500 + feet across ! Including a reputable pilot in the area.
You skeptics who won't change you arrogant all knowing beliefs when new information is presented that only a idiot would ignore are no better than the cultists or other religious fanatics.
I started researching ufo's after the Vatican spokesmen stated that alien life would be within the teachings of the church.
In my research I found many, many cases of radar ground and air tracked ufo's over the last 60 years with at times ground and air witness. All of course without hard evidence, but anecdotal as some would say is a stretch.
It is mathematically more likely that the Govt via intimidation and ridicule and risk of loss of career to anyone who challenges them can keep radar and photo/video evidence gathered at their disposal (they control the FAA, USAF, Naval etc ) and is equally mathematically impossible for so many thousands upon thousands of people for over 120 years of photo and witness testimony, radar both ground and air, ALL of the disclosure project witnesses, the same people we trusted to protect us but now they ALL must be looney, liars and such and they are all trying to decieve all of the Govt's of the world.
In Stephenville the military lied and then changed their story after MUFON got ahold of the FAA data, it took 7 months to complete the report. If the witnesses had lied and changed their story would you be less likely to believe them. Apply Occams razor here please.
Well here fellow skeptics, we have the military lied, the witnesses did not (at least as far as radar confirms a ufo in the area at the same time ) how can you now trust the military in this event. Think about that when they try to debunk this event. Again.
I just don't get why no outrage, the MSM is not going to cover this because breaking the fear of the ufo reality would/could end the economy as we know it which would effect the pocketbooks of the people in charge so they aren't going to do anything to bring out the truth. This EVIDENCE will slowly fade from your brainwashed memories.
For those who wonder why they don't land on the white house lawn. An analogy.
400 years ago when we came across an indigenous tribe, we would conquer them and convert them. 100 years ago we would try to show them the light by bringing them to our world and maybe converting them a little. 50 years ago we might document them and offer to bring them to our world. Today, we would probably leave them alone or at least try not to disturb them. Imagine if they landed, how many people would be affected mentally based on previous beliefs. They must know this.
Imagine a society that has 1000's of years on us in social evolution.
50 years ago we had movies about the invisible man. That was completly out of this world stuff to most scientist or the mainstream media even 20 years ago, well now we have such fabric to bend light around people and make them invisible.
Imagine a species that has 1000's of years of tech on us.
Bottom line is none of us knows Sh*t about the universe compared to the knowledge still to be gained. So open your eyes, the proof is staring you right in the face.
Thanks for listening,
JA
JA should have stopped after his comments of the Stephenville sightings. A great example, of very good evidence gathering, indeed by MUFON. Whom until then I thought was just a branch of government disinformation.
kmguru
Staff member
Welcome to Sciforums JA. Happy posting....
The UFOs may be from parallel universe of similar Earth. A lot of us dream about our doppleganger in other realities. Last night I dreamt about driving a high horse power electric car. I can describe the unusual dashboard. The car had four wheels that are 4 electric motors...Unless I am dreaming about our future of say 25 to 30 years ahead...how would the brain formed such detail....
Who knows....
Fascinating experience.
It's nice to converse with others who have had first hand experiences to such a degree...almost feels like therapy
Oh, and nice first post Jpappl.
Very sound and well rounded.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Now you have disappointed me. It was emotional, hysterical and very low on the logic scale.
Let us be clear, eyewitnesses cannot - with any degree of certainty - estimate the size and distance of unfamiliar objects. Once you understand this, then many aspects of UFO sightings fall into place.
jppapl,
1) I have never heard of this case. Where can I get information on it.
2) What the hell is MUFON?
3) What the hell is MSM
4) If you introduce abbreviations that are somewhat unusual it is common courtesy to define them at the outset.
5) 17 credible individuals. No, eyewitnesses are not in principle credible. Get used to it.
6) A reputable pilot.Pilots are trained to fly planes, not to make self consistent scientific observations.
I'd have given your comments a lot more credence if they had lacked the hysteria. So, poor first post.
big deal
form and motion are far more pertinent attributes
misgauging size and distance hardly detracts from an et hypothesis
crap
Studies have shown that misidentifications rates in laboratory studies are typically 20-40%, and can be raised to 95% with aggressive techniques.
most are then accurate. ja?
here is the crucial difference.... a pilot is on the job thus focused, the bystander is daydreaming about pussy
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
This is merely opinion and NOT fact. The trained eye most certainly can judge with great accuracy the size of ANY unfamiliar object with respect to ground observed flight. Please don't insert that "but we don't know for a fact that it's flying BS either. Specific military training assuredly exists with that specific task as it's sole focus. That's a very weak claim. I'm sorry but truthfully, it is.
The truth with respect to your judgments is that they are made without a sincere and objective examination of the reports and the evidence that these reports contain. You blatantly contend within what you expressed that predeterminations, indeed perceptions, could be made without such objectivity when one understands a key element of your beliefs. This is what you referred to as "falling into place". That's flawed research before you even start.
You cannot discount expert testimony Ophiolite. I'm sorry, but logically you simply cannot. Such expert testimony is critically put the test on a regular basis to establish undetermined reality. This is done so because of it's routine success rate which is VERY high. Astronauts, pilots and aviation experts are not just basic testimony Sir. You must accept that in the case of UFOs if you accept it in others. That or your reasoning is flawed. Please do not attempt to hide within a so called "loophole of reason", like "this is in relation to an undetermined phenomenon" either. Expert testimony is used in countless scenarios where methodology and identification are complete blank stares. It is used to establish reality not just to identify known constructs within that reality.
Note: the term UFO in the context of this post is synonymous with “alien spacecraft” unless otherwise noted.
It has been suggested on many occasions in discussions on the internet and elsewhere that the sheer quantity of eyewitness testimony is enough to support a wild claim, such as the notion that extraterrestrial intelligences are responsible for the sightings of UFOs in the world.
Oft mentioned are the so-called Disclosure Project’s 400 witnesses of UFOs. These mentions are usually accompanied by citing the “credentials” of the witness (airline pilot, Army general, law enforcement officer, etc.) and making the assumption that these people are somehow more “credible” than the rest of society. Never mind that they are Homo sapiens, constructed of the same materials and subject to the same psychological faults as the rest of the species.
The UFO believers would have the rest of society believe what they do: that people with a higher station in life do not fall victim to the same fallibilities that the rest of society does and that their memories and observational abilities are somehow more reliable. With regard to observational ability within the scopes of their professions, I’ve no doubt that experts and professionals can be considered more reliable. I would expect a doctor, for instance, to notice something about health care that I might not. I would expect a law enforcement officer to recognize a crime in progress or suspicious behavior of another person much faster than myself. I would expect an airline pilot to be more observant than myself with regard to atmospheric conditions, the condition of his aircraft, and the behavior of other aircraft than I.
That last example is where the UFO believer hopes to grasp a bit of witness credibility with regard to UFOs. But the third hand accounts of UFO believers re-telling the anecdotes of these pilots has a flawed methodology aside from the fact that the accounts are often not even secondary but tertiary -the UFO believer tells an account of another UFO believer who alleges to have taken an account from the original observer and the primary source of the interview (the full transcript) is often not available. The additional flaws in the methodology include confirmation bias, lack of appropriate contexts, inconsistent and leading interview techniques, etc.
Confirmation bias is when the researcher begins with a desired outcome and organizes all of his questions to support this outcome. UFO believers rarely ask skeptical questions and criticize those that do.
The contexts that are ignored include the environment of the event, the circumstances surrounding the event, sometimes the observations of others regarding the event, the physical condition of the observer(s), etc. There are as many separate contexts as there are events and observers of events.
Ruling out other possibilities is important as well. Ask skeptical questions. In a crime, investigators will develop a list of suspects and people of interest. If there is DNA evidence, DNA samples get collected from anyone connected to the case (including investigators). These samples become the controls and are used to rule out the possibilities –even if there is a primary suspect.
But the thing that deserves mention the most is the fallibility of human memory when a person, regardless of their status or station in life, is faced with an event that is unusual to them, even if it isn’t unusual to the universe.
Human memory is fallible. I had a biology professor that said once, “everyone has a photographic memory; it’s just that most people are out of film.” It is this “film” that is the problem, because the film that is our memory isn’t the best quality for the majority of the human population. A recent article in Science News (4/19/2003) discusses how researchers have concluded that people recall more of what they hear if the speaker communicates with relevant hand gestures, suggesting that a single source of information input is insufficient for aiding in recall.
Seeing is believing
… it just isn’t necessarily what happened. Scientists researching the fields of criminalistics and cogitative abilities have determined in recent years (Wells & Olson, 2003; Wells, Olson, & Charman, 2003) that eyewitness accounts are far less reliable than many people may think. They also believe that major changes need to be instituted in how law enforcement and criminal investigators do things such as conduct line-ups and obtain testimony. They’ve discovered that even the most innocuous questions can be leading and influence the witness’s memory of the events.
For example, suppose a woman who observed a fatal traffic accident is rehearsing her testimony with a lawyer. The lawyer says, “How fast was the car going when it went through the red light?” At the time, she didn’t notice the color of the light, but the way the lawyer phrased the question plants the suggestion in mind that the car ran a red light. As a result, the woman may form an image of the traffic light in her mind’s eye—an image she didn’t really see at the actual event.
In investigating UFOs, the UFO “investigator” has a predetermined belief that UFOs are real. In addition, so may the witness. A recent poll conducted by Fox News (2003) shows that 34% of all Americans believe in UFOs. With this large a percentage, it is extremely probable that the UFO witnesses that go on record are already believers in the phenomenon. They may already assume that what they observed was a UFO and not something far more prosaic or mundane. The event was unusual to them; therefore they apply the most unusual explanation they can. It doesn’t help if the UFO investigator begins a question, “so when you saw the UFO, was it cigar-shaped or classic saucer-shaped?”
Belief isn’t restricted to status or station in society either. President Reagan was said to have consulted an astrologer. I know an airline pilot that considers himself a Wiccan and his wife believes she can conduct “spells” in the “craft.” They’re strange, but fun folks. The current U.S. President believes he is doing God’s work and that God wanted him to be President (Bush was quoted to have said as much, though I forget where).
Belief creates bias right off the bat. Another caveat to eyewitness testimony is that witnesses will very often share information, so that in the final testimony, what they actually observed and what
they testify to are different. The perceptions as well as the misperceptions of the other witnesses are used to fill in the gaps of their own observations. When they get information from one another and from investigators, their own memory becomes contaminated.
But just seeing an event that is emotionally arousing can interfere with both memory and attention to detail (Hulse, Memon, & Allan, 2003) due to chemical substances released in the brain during states of arousal and stress. I would suggest that when one sees what one truly believes is an alien spacecraft; one is “aroused and stressed.”
Psychic Study of Eyewitness Reliability
Singer and Benassi (1980) conducted a study with college students that they had divided into two groups: one group was told that they were going to watch a magician pretend to be psychic; the other group was told they were about to see a demonstration of true psychic ability. Singer and Benassi’s stage magician wasn’t psychic and used cold reading techniques and other tricks to make it look like he was. Following the demonstration, both groups were asked their opinions and in spite of the fact that one group was told in advance it was fake, approximately two-thirds of both groups stated they believed the performer to be a genuine psychic.
They did the experiment again this time the experimenter told all students that the performer was a magician and not a real psychic before the performance. And yet, 58% still believed he had true psychic ability.
Sheep and Goats (a.k.a. Believers and Skeptics)
Believers and skeptics have preconceived notions prior to an extraordinary event (psychic reading, UFO sighting, magic show, etc.). Believers expect to see something “unexplainable, magical, alien, psychic, etc., where as skeptics expect to find the flaws in the demonstrations, pose questions that challenge the belief, expect earthly explanations for UFOs, etc.
In 1921, Eric Dingwall hypothesized that these expectations would distort eyewitness testimony: “The frame of mind in which a person goes to see magic and to a medium cannot be compared. In one case he goes either purely for amusement or possibly with the idea of discovering `how it was done,’ whilst in the other he usually goes with the thought that it is possible that he will come into direct contact with the other world.”
Later researchers (Wiseman and Morris, 1995) took Dingwall’s hypothesis and applied a test by showing a group of sheep and goats (believers and skeptics) a film which contained fake psychic abilities and then they were asked a set of questions to rate the “paranormal content” and measure their abilities to recall information.
The sheep, as expected, rated the paranormal content of the film much higher than did the goats. The goats, however, were able to recall more information that was significant to seeing through the tricks being performed.
With regard to the UFO phenomenon, I think what we have is a case of sheep and goats. The believers (sheep) expect to see alien space ships, and therefore see them whenever event occur that goats (skeptics) would typically find better, more earthly explanations for, if they bothered with the sighting at all.
In the end, we have a body of “sightings” that ETI-UFO believers look at as credible evidence for the existence of alien visitation to our planet. But what this really represents, for the most part, is the biased, one-sided accounts of “sheep” that saw exactly what they expected to see. Skeptics see things in the sky too. They just don’t bother with them or recognize them for what they are and, therefore, don’t report them.
Ufology
It’s interesting to note that the idea that the UFO phenomenon cannot be readily discounted due to the volume of eyewitness reports appears to have originated from J. Allen Hynek -the government skeptic turned believer- in the 1970’s. Allen Hendry was an early investigator for Hynek’s CUFOS and apparently a regular contributor to International UFO Reporter. Hendry argues in two articles in IUR (July 1977; June 1978) that it is valuable to identify those reports that can be considered “IFOs” from the UFOs. He points out those witnesses nearly always describe the same type of UFO -a “domed disk”- even when investigation reveals an identified source of the “ufo,” such as an advertising plane or celestial body. Hendry’s evaluation of this tendency to embellish or exaggerate notes that it isn’t one limited to hardcore believers, but one that has cropped up in all demographics.
Hendry also cites in the 1978 article a case in which rash of UFO reports in the Aurora, IL area in April 1978 were directly attributed to an ad agency in Chicago which confirmed that their plane was in the exact time and place of the sightings. In these sightings, witnesses described silent, slow moving craft that “twirled like a carnival ride” and was as “large as a football field.” One witness even claimed that his television went out for two hours and several witnesses “theorized” that the UFO was a “mothership.”
A couple things to keep in mind: the debunking in this case comes from an “ufologist” (Allen Hendry) and the event occurred just after movies like Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind cleaned house at the theaters.
Hendry also pointed out that in 300 UFOs that he was able to attribute to advertising planes, 91% of the witnesses reported that the “UFO made no sound.” Here’s an excerpt from Hendry in IUR.
Hendry was in no way trying to discredit the value of eyewitness testimony, but rather pointing out that its reliability cannot be taken as an a priori assumption. He has been quoted (though I cannot readily verify it) as saying, “Insulting ad hominem attacks on the witness’ basic reliability are one way to gauge the strength of a case.” I believe he was saying that if a debunker has to resort to attacking the witness as the only means of explaining the case, then it is more likely that the sighting is genuine.
Unfortunately, Hendry’s own data shows that witness reliability itself must be suspect. Also many sightings simply haven’t the data to draw from in order to investigate properly and, in such cases, it wouldn’t be logical to assign more points of probability –the witnesses are just as likely to be wrong as with those cases where there is enough data to investigate and subsequently identify the source of the observation.
References:
B.B. (4/19/2003) Gestures help words become memorable. Science News, Vol. 163 Issue 16, p254
Connell, Mary (2002)The Use of Eyewitness Research in the Courts. Presented at training seminars for Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Project
Dingwall, E. (1921). Magic and mediumship. Psychic Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 206-219.
Hendry, Allan (July 1977). “UFO or IFO? How IUR draws the distinction.” International UFO Reporter (IUR), pp 5-7.
Hendry, Allan (June 1978). “A Case For IFO Study: A Recent Example.” International UFO Reporter (IUR), pp 6-7.
Hulse L, Memon A & Allan K (2003) “Affecting memories: Emotional arousal and eyewitness testimony”. Fifth Biennial Meeting of SARMAC, Aberdeen, Scotland
Singer, B. and V. A. Benassi. (1980). Fooling some of the people all of the time. Skeptical Inquirer, Winter, pp. 17-24.
Wells, Gary L. and Olson, Elizabeth A.. (2003). “Eyewitness Testimony,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 277-295.
Wells, Gary L., Olson, Elizabeth A., and Charman, Steve D. (2003). “Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 42-52.
Wiseman, R. J. and R. L. Morris. (1995) Recalling pseudo-psychic demonstrations. British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 113-125
It has been suggested on many occasions in discussions on the internet and elsewhere that the sheer quantity of eyewitness testimony is enough to support a wild claim, such as the notion that extraterrestrial intelligences are responsible for the sightings of UFOs in the world.
Oft mentioned are the so-called Disclosure Project’s 400 witnesses of UFOs. These mentions are usually accompanied by citing the “credentials” of the witness (airline pilot, Army general, law enforcement officer, etc.) and making the assumption that these people are somehow more “credible” than the rest of society. Never mind that they are Homo sapiens, constructed of the same materials and subject to the same psychological faults as the rest of the species.
The UFO believers would have the rest of society believe what they do: that people with a higher station in life do not fall victim to the same fallibilities that the rest of society does and that their memories and observational abilities are somehow more reliable. With regard to observational ability within the scopes of their professions, I’ve no doubt that experts and professionals can be considered more reliable. I would expect a doctor, for instance, to notice something about health care that I might not. I would expect a law enforcement officer to recognize a crime in progress or suspicious behavior of another person much faster than myself. I would expect an airline pilot to be more observant than myself with regard to atmospheric conditions, the condition of his aircraft, and the behavior of other aircraft than I.
That last example is where the UFO believer hopes to grasp a bit of witness credibility with regard to UFOs. But the third hand accounts of UFO believers re-telling the anecdotes of these pilots has a flawed methodology aside from the fact that the accounts are often not even secondary but tertiary -the UFO believer tells an account of another UFO believer who alleges to have taken an account from the original observer and the primary source of the interview (the full transcript) is often not available. The additional flaws in the methodology include confirmation bias, lack of appropriate contexts, inconsistent and leading interview techniques, etc.
Confirmation bias is when the researcher begins with a desired outcome and organizes all of his questions to support this outcome. UFO believers rarely ask skeptical questions and criticize those that do.
The contexts that are ignored include the environment of the event, the circumstances surrounding the event, sometimes the observations of others regarding the event, the physical condition of the observer(s), etc. There are as many separate contexts as there are events and observers of events.
Ruling out other possibilities is important as well. Ask skeptical questions. In a crime, investigators will develop a list of suspects and people of interest. If there is DNA evidence, DNA samples get collected from anyone connected to the case (including investigators). These samples become the controls and are used to rule out the possibilities –even if there is a primary suspect.
But the thing that deserves mention the most is the fallibility of human memory when a person, regardless of their status or station in life, is faced with an event that is unusual to them, even if it isn’t unusual to the universe.
Human memory is fallible. I had a biology professor that said once, “everyone has a photographic memory; it’s just that most people are out of film.” It is this “film” that is the problem, because the film that is our memory isn’t the best quality for the majority of the human population. A recent article in Science News (4/19/2003) discusses how researchers have concluded that people recall more of what they hear if the speaker communicates with relevant hand gestures, suggesting that a single source of information input is insufficient for aiding in recall.
Seeing is believing
… it just isn’t necessarily what happened. Scientists researching the fields of criminalistics and cogitative abilities have determined in recent years (Wells & Olson, 2003; Wells, Olson, & Charman, 2003) that eyewitness accounts are far less reliable than many people may think. They also believe that major changes need to be instituted in how law enforcement and criminal investigators do things such as conduct line-ups and obtain testimony. They’ve discovered that even the most innocuous questions can be leading and influence the witness’s memory of the events.
For example, suppose a woman who observed a fatal traffic accident is rehearsing her testimony with a lawyer. The lawyer says, “How fast was the car going when it went through the red light?” At the time, she didn’t notice the color of the light, but the way the lawyer phrased the question plants the suggestion in mind that the car ran a red light. As a result, the woman may form an image of the traffic light in her mind’s eye—an image she didn’t really see at the actual event.
In investigating UFOs, the UFO “investigator” has a predetermined belief that UFOs are real. In addition, so may the witness. A recent poll conducted by Fox News (2003) shows that 34% of all Americans believe in UFOs. With this large a percentage, it is extremely probable that the UFO witnesses that go on record are already believers in the phenomenon. They may already assume that what they observed was a UFO and not something far more prosaic or mundane. The event was unusual to them; therefore they apply the most unusual explanation they can. It doesn’t help if the UFO investigator begins a question, “so when you saw the UFO, was it cigar-shaped or classic saucer-shaped?”
Belief isn’t restricted to status or station in society either. President Reagan was said to have consulted an astrologer. I know an airline pilot that considers himself a Wiccan and his wife believes she can conduct “spells” in the “craft.” They’re strange, but fun folks. The current U.S. President believes he is doing God’s work and that God wanted him to be President (Bush was quoted to have said as much, though I forget where).
Belief creates bias right off the bat. Another caveat to eyewitness testimony is that witnesses will very often share information, so that in the final testimony, what they actually observed and what
they testify to are different. The perceptions as well as the misperceptions of the other witnesses are used to fill in the gaps of their own observations. When they get information from one another and from investigators, their own memory becomes contaminated.
But just seeing an event that is emotionally arousing can interfere with both memory and attention to detail (Hulse, Memon, & Allan, 2003) due to chemical substances released in the brain during states of arousal and stress. I would suggest that when one sees what one truly believes is an alien spacecraft; one is “aroused and stressed.”
Psychic Study of Eyewitness Reliability
Singer and Benassi (1980) conducted a study with college students that they had divided into two groups: one group was told that they were going to watch a magician pretend to be psychic; the other group was told they were about to see a demonstration of true psychic ability. Singer and Benassi’s stage magician wasn’t psychic and used cold reading techniques and other tricks to make it look like he was. Following the demonstration, both groups were asked their opinions and in spite of the fact that one group was told in advance it was fake, approximately two-thirds of both groups stated they believed the performer to be a genuine psychic.
They did the experiment again this time the experimenter told all students that the performer was a magician and not a real psychic before the performance. And yet, 58% still believed he had true psychic ability.
Sheep and Goats (a.k.a. Believers and Skeptics)
Believers and skeptics have preconceived notions prior to an extraordinary event (psychic reading, UFO sighting, magic show, etc.). Believers expect to see something “unexplainable, magical, alien, psychic, etc., where as skeptics expect to find the flaws in the demonstrations, pose questions that challenge the belief, expect earthly explanations for UFOs, etc.
In 1921, Eric Dingwall hypothesized that these expectations would distort eyewitness testimony: “The frame of mind in which a person goes to see magic and to a medium cannot be compared. In one case he goes either purely for amusement or possibly with the idea of discovering `how it was done,’ whilst in the other he usually goes with the thought that it is possible that he will come into direct contact with the other world.”
Later researchers (Wiseman and Morris, 1995) took Dingwall’s hypothesis and applied a test by showing a group of sheep and goats (believers and skeptics) a film which contained fake psychic abilities and then they were asked a set of questions to rate the “paranormal content” and measure their abilities to recall information.
The sheep, as expected, rated the paranormal content of the film much higher than did the goats. The goats, however, were able to recall more information that was significant to seeing through the tricks being performed.
With regard to the UFO phenomenon, I think what we have is a case of sheep and goats. The believers (sheep) expect to see alien space ships, and therefore see them whenever event occur that goats (skeptics) would typically find better, more earthly explanations for, if they bothered with the sighting at all.
In the end, we have a body of “sightings” that ETI-UFO believers look at as credible evidence for the existence of alien visitation to our planet. But what this really represents, for the most part, is the biased, one-sided accounts of “sheep” that saw exactly what they expected to see. Skeptics see things in the sky too. They just don’t bother with them or recognize them for what they are and, therefore, don’t report them.
Ufology
It’s interesting to note that the idea that the UFO phenomenon cannot be readily discounted due to the volume of eyewitness reports appears to have originated from J. Allen Hynek -the government skeptic turned believer- in the 1970’s. Allen Hendry was an early investigator for Hynek’s CUFOS and apparently a regular contributor to International UFO Reporter. Hendry argues in two articles in IUR (July 1977; June 1978) that it is valuable to identify those reports that can be considered “IFOs” from the UFOs. He points out those witnesses nearly always describe the same type of UFO -a “domed disk”- even when investigation reveals an identified source of the “ufo,” such as an advertising plane or celestial body. Hendry’s evaluation of this tendency to embellish or exaggerate notes that it isn’t one limited to hardcore believers, but one that has cropped up in all demographics.
Hendry also cites in the 1978 article a case in which rash of UFO reports in the Aurora, IL area in April 1978 were directly attributed to an ad agency in Chicago which confirmed that their plane was in the exact time and place of the sightings. In these sightings, witnesses described silent, slow moving craft that “twirled like a carnival ride” and was as “large as a football field.” One witness even claimed that his television went out for two hours and several witnesses “theorized” that the UFO was a “mothership.”
A couple things to keep in mind: the debunking in this case comes from an “ufologist” (Allen Hendry) and the event occurred just after movies like Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind cleaned house at the theaters.
Hendry also pointed out that in 300 UFOs that he was able to attribute to advertising planes, 91% of the witnesses reported that the “UFO made no sound.” Here’s an excerpt from Hendry in IUR.
Hendry was in no way trying to discredit the value of eyewitness testimony, but rather pointing out that its reliability cannot be taken as an a priori assumption. He has been quoted (though I cannot readily verify it) as saying, “Insulting ad hominem attacks on the witness’ basic reliability are one way to gauge the strength of a case.” I believe he was saying that if a debunker has to resort to attacking the witness as the only means of explaining the case, then it is more likely that the sighting is genuine.
Unfortunately, Hendry’s own data shows that witness reliability itself must be suspect. Also many sightings simply haven’t the data to draw from in order to investigate properly and, in such cases, it wouldn’t be logical to assign more points of probability –the witnesses are just as likely to be wrong as with those cases where there is enough data to investigate and subsequently identify the source of the observation.
References:
B.B. (4/19/2003) Gestures help words become memorable. Science News, Vol. 163 Issue 16, p254
Connell, Mary (2002)The Use of Eyewitness Research in the Courts. Presented at training seminars for Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Project
Dingwall, E. (1921). Magic and mediumship. Psychic Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 206-219.
Hendry, Allan (July 1977). “UFO or IFO? How IUR draws the distinction.” International UFO Reporter (IUR), pp 5-7.
Hendry, Allan (June 1978). “A Case For IFO Study: A Recent Example.” International UFO Reporter (IUR), pp 6-7.
Hulse L, Memon A & Allan K (2003) “Affecting memories: Emotional arousal and eyewitness testimony”. Fifth Biennial Meeting of SARMAC, Aberdeen, Scotland
Singer, B. and V. A. Benassi. (1980). Fooling some of the people all of the time. Skeptical Inquirer, Winter, pp. 17-24.
Wells, Gary L. and Olson, Elizabeth A.. (2003). “Eyewitness Testimony,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 277-295.
Wells, Gary L., Olson, Elizabeth A., and Charman, Steve D. (2003). “Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 42-52.
Wiseman, R. J. and R. L. Morris. (1995) Recalling pseudo-psychic demonstrations. British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 113-125
Last edited:
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
No point whatsoever. Furthermore, not very intelligent. UFOs do not mandate any belief at all. It's obvious they are real. Only a completely delusional individual would waste their time arguing that they don't exist. Even more exaggerated would be the ridiculous claim that the phenomenon is founded on unreliable testimony. I don't think anyone serious about the subject is claiming to understand what they are exactly. They just exist. That is obvious.
Wow. A quick, general dismissal from a UFO woo about an in-depth analysis of a UFO woo claim without in-depth rebuttal.
No shocking or unexpected response there, eh?
No shocking or unexpected response there, eh?
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Yep, common sense is a real shocker at times. Darn right efficient too.
Goddammit. Ok what is the effing official term for UFOs assumed to not have "Alien occupants". This is really getting ridiculous trying to jump through everyone's little hoops to get a point across!