On 10/20/2011 9:24 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Is a interesting series that recollects from respected Ufologists and
>> testimonials from people that had first contact, The Pacific Triangle,
>> UFO in other Countries, like England ("England Roswell"), Brazil
>> military documented people killed by UFOs, UFO today scientific analysis
>> of a possible UFO craft with Michio Kaku helping describing some
>> phenomena and other scientist, etc, I suggest you buy it or torrent it.
>
>    I have seen quite some videos and documentaries about ufology, including
> videos that claim to be the most convincing evidence of UFOs. They weren't
> very convincing.
>
>    Eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. People interpret what
> they see in all kind of wrong ways because they don't know what they are
> seeing. Mouth-to-mouth word spreads these stories, and people invent new
> details to them, even without realizing (that's because people do not
> repeat the words they hear; instead they repeat the mental image they
> got when they were told the story). Some people repeat as personal
> experience something that they heard from a good friend (this is very
> well documented in multitude of cases, including the infamous Roswell
> "UFO" case). Some people lie.
>
Eye witness testimony is "so" unreliable that, in one of the shows on TV 
recently, 10 people couldn't pin down, in a staged crime:

1. The number involved (correct number was 4, the average number given 
was 2, with 3 being the next closest. None of them got 4).
2. The person that took the item (they claimed everything from the woman 
arguing, to one of the other people in the crowd with them, had, when it 
was actually taken by one, then handed off to another.)
3. How any of the people involved where dressed (Not even going to go 
into that, see later.)
4. What, and from where, it was stolen (wallet, from the guys back pocket).
5. Couldn't avoid "false" memories, resulting from two plants, whose 
only job was to get 50% of it right, but introduce three wrong details.

The end result was the only verified "suspect" that wasn't even involved 
at all, the woman who was either in a hat, or not, wearing red, white, 
or dark clothes, her and the man she was arguing with, or her and two 
men, one of which stole a camera, out of a camera bag (no bag, and it 
was a wallet, out of his pocket). It only got worse, when they put them 
in a room, asked them questions together, so they fed off each other, 
and the two plants dropped the "camera", and "she had a hat, and a white 
coat on", BS into the mix.

The farther you get from the event, the more useless the information 
gets. The more people have time to talk to each other, the more useless 
the information gets. And, unless you are very careful to pick the guy 
that doesn't embellish, and it *very* precise in their details, without 
adding in feelings, and side thoughts, etc., even the stuff you get out 
of a witness "within minutes" of it happening, is often complete gibberish.

Now, the "witnesses" in UFO cases are rarely clinical, they add details, 
as they go, they tend to talk about what they felt, rather than only 
what they saw, i.e., even from the standpoint of talking to them, 
"within minutes" of the event, their testimony would be thrown out as 
unlikely to be reliable, without additional information, right from the 
start. Yet, we are supposed to presume that, having had years to 
rethink, reexamine, talk to other people, listen to, or read, other 
stories like their own, etc., there testimony of what happened got "more 
reliable" with time?

Yep, as you said Warp, the whole idea that this is sensible, or that you 
can trust any of it, at all, without *clear* evidence, like the missing 
"crashed ship" or other verifiable facts, is pure absurdity.

Post a reply to this message