UFO study finds no sign of aliens
- Thread starter Avatar
- Start date
The “plant” destroys validity of the observation as it pertains to the accuracy of witness memory – it would seem that some participants were going along with the “fat and bald” description out of a sense of an unwillingness to disagree with the plant, and not because they concurred with his account of matters.
Oli said:
Yes, but you didn't think it was a duck, or perhaps Superman.
Yes, I remember this bit and I am as appalled then as now at the setup: a plant swayed perceptions altered eyewitness testimony. Now, that's a conditioned response and a deliberate attempt to alter that testimony. I disagree strongly that it can be used to infer that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. If it isn't, how can we infer anything about anything then?
Certainly some description of the man could be expected, but they wouldn't have said it was a woman, or a kangaroo.
That's panic though. Is that the same thing?
My predisposition was towards military aircraft, plus I was at an airshow... likewise a UFO "fan's" will be towards flying saucers.
It shows that they were so unsure of what they'd actually seen that they went along with the most-repeated assertion.They were all there and they didn't even know what they'd seen... and knew they didn't know.
Panic, excitement, whatever. Oooh bright lights in the sky etc. Don't a very large number of UFO reports contain words like "dread", "unease" etc? Self-induced because they couldn't immediately identify what they'd seen and convinced themselves that it was supernatural of extra-terrestrial.
But it shows that people will "go with the last opinion they were exposed to". If they were certain of what they'd seen they might have stuck with it, but none of them were and none of them did. That's why eyewitness testimony is just about the least-reliable method of obtaining legal evidence. Check out how many court cases have been dismissed because someone spoke to witnesses before they were interviewed about the case by police.
No, it shows that witnesses are willing to subvert the truth in certain situations – a fact already well known. While I didn’t see the show in question, it would seem that the witnesses were being called on for opinions while in front of a large group of people – that alone would cause most of them to avoid any form of confrontation on such a minor issue.
It reminds me a bit of a psychology experiment I remember seeing years back. They were measuring the effect TV had on children, specifically as to whether kids would be more likely to play aggressively if they witnessed kids on TV playing aggressively. Problem was their test used one of those kiddy punching bag things to measure violent response. Needless to say, the kids knew that these are toys that supposed to be hit and that in doing so they were still within acceptable boundaries. Then the experimenters tried to extrapolate their results to forms of violence that ran counter to societal norms. Why did they use the punching bag instead of showing a video where kids ripped apart the teacher’s office and burned it? Same reason they put in the ‘plant’ on the other show. To obtain the results they wanted.
Already knew that, didn’t we? The experiment shows that even a hint of a threat (ie, a possible public confrontation with an unknown wingbat) goes a very long way to altering group testimony.
So your argument is that the people altered their testimony of what they thought was a KIDNAPPING to avoid disagreeing with someone?
It wasn't an OPINION they were asked for, it was a description of what they'd seen, or are you supporting my contention that all that eye-witnesses can offer is opinion?
Hi Regulus. This has devolved into a critique of the TV show I commented on in my last post just before the bottom of the previous page:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=54681&page=6&pp=20
Basically we're now arguing about the reliability (or not) of eye witness testimony... ho hum. But I think we're going to head off into Illuminati/ Secret Government spook agendas at any point now.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=54681&page=6&pp=20
Basically we're now arguing about the reliability (or not) of eye witness testimony... ho hum. But I think we're going to head off into Illuminati/ Secret Government spook agendas at any point now.
If your stating that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, then you've got a point. If you're saying it's so random as to be useless in virtually all cases, then your point ceases. The western legal system is based upon a doctrine of eyewitness testimony, and on a case by case basis this stuff is evaluated for credibility and reliability. Certain people's claims aren't worth the paper they are written on. Others are. It's situational. For instance, if two witnesses INDEPENDENTLY report that a plane was upside down before crashing, then the odds the plane was actually upside down are higher than if only one reported it, or two who had collaborated before testifying. That sort of thing.
On this show you describe; it was this 'plant' that lead the witnesses to the opposite description of the perpetrator? How long did this process take? If, say, 1 hour - about how much of that time was taken up by the 'plant's' yattering? Were the eyewitnesses interviewed individually without anyone else present (ie, the way its done in the real world), or were they in a big group? That is to say, were the people in the experiment forced to provide their account in front of the 'plant', or did they give it later after he'd left?
IIRC about an hour, maybe less.
No idea how much of the time was taken up by the plant, it was a 3/4 hour programme, showing the entire thing in sections.
Cannot remember how the interview process took place, I vaguely remember thare was a group discussion bfore they were asked, and possibly they were interviewed separately.
In the Uk at least eye-witness testimony is very low on the list of admissible veidence and is trumped by physical or documentary IIRC. And pre-disposition is important.
And yes, independant witnesses are preferable to groups or collaborators.
No idea how much of the time was taken up by the plant, it was a 3/4 hour programme, showing the entire thing in sections.
Cannot remember how the interview process took place, I vaguely remember thare was a group discussion bfore they were asked, and possibly they were interviewed separately.
First one. Definitely not the second.
In the Uk at least eye-witness testimony is very low on the list of admissible veidence and is trumped by physical or documentary IIRC. And pre-disposition is important.
And yes, independant witnesses are preferable to groups or collaborators.
CommunistHamster:
Yes, goooood, I hope you do hold me to this one.
I'm to give you some advice: Buy gold, silver, copper, etc, because the U.S. Dollar is going to die real soon here. The price of gold, silver and copper have all skyrocketed, however, to me it seams like the only reason for that is because the metals are NOT really gaining much worth, the American dollar is losing its worth, so it merely takes more dollars to buy an ounce of gold than before.... Our world is going to be going through some major changes in the near future.
The warning is out, good luck.
(though I posted this is pseudoscience, the advice is still good)
Yes, goooood, I hope you do hold me to this one.
I'm to give you some advice: Buy gold, silver, copper, etc, because the U.S. Dollar is going to die real soon here. The price of gold, silver and copper have all skyrocketed, however, to me it seams like the only reason for that is because the metals are NOT really gaining much worth, the American dollar is losing its worth, so it merely takes more dollars to buy an ounce of gold than before.... Our world is going to be going through some major changes in the near future.
The warning is out, good luck.
(though I posted this is pseudoscience, the advice is still good)
Yes, disclosure is inevitable, THEY are here, but THOSE coming are the ones to be concerned about, especially for THOSE that are all ready cast down here.
craterchains (Norval said:
Norv, why did you come back here? Did your soap box break, or did they get a court order banning you from your favourite corner?
Does you mental affliction have a name, Norv?
The results seem unusually inaccurate, so I’m wondering if other controls might have been introduced by the producers to artificially retard the witnesses’ final report. The plant is the most obvious, but it’s also possible they filmed the sequence a number of times and went with the most dramatic audience verdict, for example. In any case, I should think that the endless supply of witness accounts in the legal system would give a more fertile ground for gauging when eyewitnesses cease to be credible or reliable.
Hardly. eye witness accounts are allowed in law, but there is little scientific rigour applied to their acceptance or validity of what the claim to have (whether real or not). One lawyer will do his best to to discredit them, the other equally will try to make out that each is a paragon of virtue...
And after the case is closed I doubt that anyone actually follows up on whether they lied (or were mistaken) or not.
Courts are a social and legal process and have very little to do with science (even when calling expert witnesses).
But they are another means for defining objective reality. A man is guilty; he is innocent. Property belongs to this or that woman. Material evidence is always superior to eyewitness testimony; but I assume you're not saying that photographs and videocamera recordings are not material evidence? Some of those are verifiably fake, or misconstrued. Some have not been so declined.
In fact, were we to go farther, we could equally say that the scientific process - not in principle, but as applied, just as eyewitness statements - is based on hearsay as well. Who knows how many deer were lekking in that woodlot, really? How many observers were there? Do they have a reason to fudge their estimates one way or another? Frankly, we can't know anything for not knowing, it would seem.
In fact, were we to go farther, we could equally say that the scientific process - not in principle, but as applied, just as eyewitness statements - is based on hearsay as well. Who knows how many deer were lekking in that woodlot, really? How many observers were there? Do they have a reason to fudge their estimates one way or another? Frankly, we can't know anything for not knowing, it would seem.
Yes Geoffp, I have photographic evidence to support my theory on manmade top secret flying saucers... but you let any bought off "expert" look at my photographs and he will lie out his ass to cover up the truth.