Is there life in the universe, and if so has it visited Earth?

[DaveC426913]

I was orginally agianst the theory of UFO's, until I saw this show.

Are you saying the show has made you a believer?

You really really want to think carefully about letting any TV show change your mind about anything.

My point is, is it a good thing to keep our minds open to what is and isn't possible?

This needs to be said: It is important to keep an open mind. But not so open that your brains fall out.

To a rational thinker, it is as important to know what not to open our minds to. People once saw in evil spirits too.

 

[BadFish]

Are you saying the show has made you a believer?

You really really want to think carefully about letting any TV show change your mind about anything.This needs to be said: It is important to keep an open mind. But not so open that your brains fall out.

To a rational thinker, it is as important to know what not to open our minds to. People once saw in evil spirits too.

The show made me more open to what could be out there. Like I said, I don't have a degree in anything scientific or know calculus, and I'm sure you probably do (and therefore respect your opinion), and as a scientist who follows procedures to proof things, there may not be absolute proof, but it opens the mind.

I'm sure, at least, somewhere in the universe we are not alone. The universe is a big place.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm sure, at least, somewhere in the universe we are not alone. The universe is a big place.

While this belief is not unreasonable, it is completely unrelated to the question of whether the reports and incidents of UFOs are reliable and of what they indicate.


It is this greyish area of doubt between (there could be life out there in the 20 billion light year universe) and (we havie a bunch of reportsof unexplained phenomena) that the TV shows and UFO popularists exploit to spin their yarns.



Think about this: all the UFO reports and incidents in history could just as easily be explained by ghosts and spirits doing funny things instead of ETs. Why don't believers follow that line of logic? It's every bit as valid.

 

[Virtuous]

I'd like to add that anecdotal evidence relies heavily on humans perceptions of an event. Given there have been many studies I am sure that attest to the fact that the human mind isn't the most unbiased pure method of retaining every relevant fact. A specific object in the sky can easily be seen as a UFO because by very definition, you could say...oh that's a plane (an option)! Instead your mind is quick to make recognizable image out of what it see. Whatever it is most like resembles a UFO, How are you so sure people are not see what, people are telling them to see? What other evidence do you have to compare it too?
Then there is the fact that people's memory of an event changes over time. Another experiment was done, can't remember what it was called but subjects were asked to walk in a specific area. where they set up a scenerio where they say some conspicuous material and the works. They then asked them to come and recall the event that happen in the future at specific interval, and they found many errors as time went by.

In a court of law is slight a different scenario. It's under the assumption that the observer has an understanding of the situation, and a reason validating a specific level of certainty. If a human being witnessed "Tom Finklestien" robbing his house, he has to know who that person is ( his neighbor, that bastard). If some random person comes to my house and I make claim that it was "Joe Bauer" with no evidence backing that up, that evidences get defeated, it could be or it could not be without any way to tell. Same applies to aliens.

I think I am at the tipping point of open mindedness with that sort of evidence no? Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[kpax]

Overall, I thought "I Know What I Saw" was just ok. I was disappointed at how much time was devoted to the Rendlesham Forest Incident and how little time was given to the Belgian UFO Wave. The Rendlesham Forest Incident in my opinion is nothing more than misidentification of explicable lights coupled dishonest eye witness testimony. The Belgian UFO Wave is a far more intriguing case. The testimony of 100s of witnesses in the Belgium case is corroborated by at least one photograph clearly showing a structured craft and military radar. This evidence convinces me there was a craft of unknown origin in the skies above Belgium in 1990.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="[URL]http://www.youtube.com/v/iDPxJxFNlvE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iDPxJxFNlvE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="[URL]http://www.youtube.com/v/9-_9_IKGkqg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9-_9_IKGkqg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[CEL]

Overall, I thought "I Know What I Saw" was just ok. I was disappoint at how much time was devoted to the Rendlesham Forest Incident and how little time was given to the Belgian UFO Wave. The Rendlesham Forest Incident in my opinion is nothing more than misidentification of explicable lights coupled dishonest eye witness testimony. The Belgian UFO Wave is a far more intriguing case. The testimony of 100s of witnesses in the Belgium case is corroborated by at least one photograph clearly showing a structured craft and military radar. This evidence convinces me there was a craft of unknown origin in the skies above Belgium in 1990.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="[URL]http://www.youtube.com/v/iDPxJxFNlvE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iDPxJxFNlvE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="[URL]http://www.youtube.com/v/9-_9_IKGkqg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9-_9_IKGkqg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

From http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162

It is important here to underline that the F-16 pilot saw no UFOs at all. I spoke with some of his friends who had laughed with him about the UFO hypothesis. Had it not been for the SOBEPS team, these so-called mysterious radar returns would have been labeled as ordinary “angels”. Another important thing is that at one point the “return” remained unchanged on the screen while the plane was maneuvring, which is indicative of an instrument failure. This is also what Lieutenant-Colonel Salmon from the Belgian Air Force Electronic War Center remarked when he was interviewed by journalists of Science & Vie Junior in 1992.

Let us now look at the famous picture taken at Petit-Rechain. It was internationally distributed by the SOBEPS team and was used for the covers of the two books which this private organization published about the so-called Belgian UFO wave.

The document depicts a black triangular silhouette against a bluish background supposed to be the night sky. One irregular illuminated surface appears in each corner of the triangle. In the centre there is a luminous spot surrounded by a reddish aura.

There are discrepancies between the photo itself and the testimony of the young man who claims to have taken it. The picture was reportedly taken with a reflex-camera equipped with a 55-200mm zoom lens set at a minimum of 150mm. The photographer alleges that he used a long time exposure (between one and two seconds) and pressed the shutter release button for approximately two seconds. But he also said he simply held the camera with his hands against the corner of a wall. Even if he exaggerated, and the shutter button was pressed only for one second, the object photographed could not have had sharp edges; it would have been completely blurred. On the contrary, the triangular object shows at least one sharp edge. The young man said he saw the enormous object in the company of his girl friend. This second eye-witness was so little impressed by the extraordinary apparition that she didn’t even keep her eyes on it! At one instance she said the object left instantaneously and at another time she admitted that she actually never saw it leave. More important: Pierre Magain, an astrophysicist from the Astrophisics Institute of Liège has mathematically demonstrated that the size attributed to the object by the young photographer is completely different from what the camera captured. So, one can conclude that the testimonies of the two witnesses are completely irrelevant to the picture.

 

[kpax]

From http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162

Yes, I am aware of all of this. The radar returns captured by the F-16 could be attributed to instrument failure. That is one of three possible explanations. However, keep in mind the fighters were scrambled because a radar return had been identified by at least two ground based radar installations. Were those suffering instrument failure as well the same evening? Doubtful. A better explanation is some kind of atmospheric phenomenon causing the returns. The third option is an unidentified craft.

One thing that's must not be overlooked is that the radar returns were captured on a separate night entirely than the mass sightings. So even if there is a prosaic explanation for the radar hits that still wouldn't account for what witnesses saw from the ground as the two events happened on different evenings. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the photograph because it is corroborated by 100s of eyewitnesses (not just the photographer and his girlfriend). The physical descriptions given by the witnesses throughout the area very closely resembles what is depicted in the photograph. The sheer numbers of eyewitnesses alone is compelling evidence that there was a structured craft above Belgium. Couple that with the photograph and I'm convinced that there was something there.

 

[DaveC426913]

Were those suffering instrument failure as well the same evening? Doubtful.

This is where I keep coming up short.

You doubt that there could be a coincidental failure in independent instruments, yet you have no trouble believing something astronomically more unlikely.

Radar gives false readings whether spurious or mechanical. This is fact, applicable to both aircraft equipment and ground equpiment. They do happen.

If a radar set gave a false reading, say once in 1,000 times, then two giving false readings simultaneously will occur once in 1,000,000 times. This straightforward. (Granted, it is simplified but the facts cannot be denied.)

Further, this does not need to be explained. It is inherent in the definition of coincidence.


Why are you so quick to jump to an incredibly unlikely conclusion?

 

[kpax]

You doubt that there could be a coincidental failure in independent instruments, yet you have no trouble believing something astronomically more unlikely.

Why are you so quick to jump to an incredibly unlikely conclusion?

I don't believe for a second that the 100s of billions of dollars spent in research and development on black projects since the F117 have been unsuccessful. If I had to guess at the origin of the craft I would say the United States military. I think all unexplained UFO sightings can be attributed military black projects. Personally, I wouldn't bet we're being visited by ETs.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't believe for a second that the 100s of billions of dollars spent in research and development on black projects since the F117 have been unsuccessful.

You lost me. What does that have to do with what I was saying?

 

[kpax]

You lost me. What does that have to do with what I was saying?

How did I lose you? Clearly I was responding to the two points you made about me jumping to astronomically unlikely conclusions:

yet you have no trouble believing something astronomically more unlikely.

Why are you so quick to jump to an incredibly unlikely conclusion?

Any reasonable person would assume the astronomically unlikely conclusion you're referring to is ET visitation. I responded by saying I don't believe we're being visited and that the sightings can be attributed to military black projects, which is not incredibly unlikely. If you're still lost, I don't know what else I can say to make myself more clear.

With that said, why would ET visitation be astronomically unlikely anyway? Nothing is astronomically unlikely given an astronomically long timeline. The universe is plenty old enough to have spawned an intelligent civilization capable of traveling between the stars. I would bet (all in) that such civilizations exist in the vastness of space. I wouldn't bet they have visited Earth however. The evidence available doesn't convince me to make even a small raise.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Did anyone read this paper? I read the abstract.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ASPC..400...35F

It appears to me from the abstract that UFO's are Astronomical Pseudo-science. This ties into my last post to this topic on the previous page, #194.

 

[DaveC426913]

How did I lose you? Clearly I was responding to the two points you made about me jumping to astronomically unlikely conclusions:

I see. You are attributing the sightings to military projects.

I thought you were saying something like "hundreds of billions of military dollars spent looking for UFOs wasn't entirely unsuccessful." It was a bit ambiguous.

With that said, why would ET visitation be astronomically unlikely anyway? Nothing is astronomically unlikely given an astronomically long timeline. The universe is plenty old enough to have spawned an intelligent civilization capable of traveling between the stars. I would bet (all in) that such civilizations exist in the vastness of space. I wouldn't bet they have visited Earth however. The evidence available doesn't convince me to make even a small raise.

The point is, visititation is inarguably more unlikely than multiple instrument failure, by orders of magnitude. Instrument failure is established fact. It's not a big reach to suppose a coincidence of failure.

 

[the pro]

the point is that ufo exist and the peraustronatuic theory of erich van daniken is great u should read chariots of the goods and another thing i wanted to post here is that as we said the universe is too old and there must be other civilisations that achived the space travel and visited Earth so ppl we now the mayens they had the best astronomic calendar of all time till now so there is a question i have why should the mayens need such a good astronomic calendar i now some one of u will say to predict the seasons and u can predict the seasons with a normal calendar such as the old illyrians used but to the question the y need it as we now to predict the comeing of their goods and what where theyr good they where ufo so sorry for my bad english it is my 4 lengauge and i am learning it now

 

[Kronos5253]

If you can find it... And sorry in advance for the lack of specifics. My explanation does it no justice.

There was an episode of "Investigation X" on Investigation Discovery on October 3rd about "a forensic investigation of the mass UFO sightings in Stephenville, Texas, Kokomo, Indiana, and Southwick, Massachusetts."

It was a very compelling episode. They had eyewitnesses from a police officer that saw an object hovering over/near the courthouse that he clocked with a radar gun going 27mph, and someone who obtained the radar schematics for that night and it saying that there was indeed 3 objects hovering over the courthouse. There were 7 or 8 eyewitness accounts that had photographs, one of which was a professional photographer. She took her camera out and put it on a tripod and did a long exposure, knowing that if the object was moving (unlike a star) it would leave a trail. It was a pretty crazy episode...

If you can do some research on it, or find the episode, I suggest giving it a look, my description does it no justice whatsoever, and I can't find the episode anywhere. IMO it would be a good one to add to this list, because they had a LOT of evidence suggesting that there was some type of unidentified object being chased by f-16's in the area.

 

[a Mind at a Time]

If you can find it... And sorry in advance for the lack of specifics. My explanation does it no justice.

There was an episode of "Investigation X" on Investigation Discovery on October 3rd about "a forensic investigation of the mass UFO sightings in Stephenville, Texas, Kokomo, Indiana, and Southwick, Massachusetts."

It was a very compelling episode. They had eyewitnesses from a police officer that saw an object hovering over/near the courthouse that he clocked with a radar gun going 27mph, and someone who obtained the radar schematics for that night and it saying that there was indeed 3 objects hovering over the courthouse. There were 7 or 8 eyewitness accounts that had photographs, one of which was a professional photographer. She took her camera out and put it on a tripod and did a long exposure, knowing that if the object was moving (unlike a star) it would leave a trail. It was a pretty crazy episode...

If you can do some research on it, or find the episode, I suggest giving it a look, my description does it no justice whatsoever, and I can't find the episode anywhere. IMO it would be a good one to add to this list, because they had a LOT of evidence suggesting that there was some type of unidentified object being chased by f-16's in the area.

 

[Kronos5253]

Guess my Google powers are lacking today... Thanks for the find :)

 

[Modman]

I just find it rather unusual how so many people would call in for the same things. UFOs? If you're going to prank call, which I would have to say some of the UFO reports are, why report a UFO?

Also, there's the whole Roswell incident, which is very fishy, if you ask me.

 

[ideasrule]

You doubt that there could be a coincidental failure in independent instruments, yet you have no trouble believing something astronomically more unlikely[...]

If a radar set gave a false reading, say once in 1,000 times, then two giving false readings simultaneously will occur once in 1,000,000 times. This straightforward. (Granted, it is simplified but the facts cannot be denied.)

There were 4 separate radar detections of the March 30, 1990 craft, two by ground and two by the F-16's. 13 000 thousand people saw it, 3000 of whom provided written statements that agree extremely well with each other. When the F-16's got a radar lock on the craft, they lost it in a few seconds because of the craft's maneuvers. These maneuvers were seen by both radar and ground observers. For all of this to be a coincidence, three different types of sensors, F-16 radar, ground radar, and the human eye, would have to fail simultaneously and in exactly the right fashion to corroborate each other's accounts. If the chances of a radar failure is 1/1000 and the chance of a hallucination is 1/2 (a very generous estimate), the total probability would be (1/1000)^4 * (1/2)^13 000: a ridiculously low number. Not to mention if 13 000 different instruments did fail at the same time, they would likely produce very different results that completely contradict each other: that's not seen in this case.

I find your claim that alien visitation is "astronomically more unlikely" dubious. If you could give even a rough order of magnitude to the terms in the Drake equation, you'd already do better than any other SETI researcher has, and the Drake equation says nothing about the probability of life developing interstellar travel, its likelihood of visiting other solar systems, its likelihood of making contact, its likelihood of not announcing itself as alien, etc. How can you know whether it's unlikely or not without any useful estimate of the actual probability? It might as well be 100%: von Neumann probes can colonize entire galaxies in the blink of an eye in evolutionary and cosmological timescales, and perhaps the civilization that made them has every interest in testing the military power of the planets it's monitoring.

As another person mentioned, you also assumed that the radar and visual observations either had to be spurious or the craft had to be alien. Why could it not have been a military craft, or perhaps not a solid object at all? There's no evidence that the "thing" is alien, but its existence and apparent ability to drastically outperform unclassified fighter jets are both beyond doubt.

 

[TurtleMeister]

When the F-16's got a radar lock on the craft, they lost it in a few seconds because of the craft's maneuvers. These maneuvers were seen by both radar and ground observers. For all of this to be a coincidence, three different types of sensors, F-16 radar, ground radar, and the human eye, would have to fail simultaneously and in exactly the right fashion to corroborate each other's accounts.

One thing that's must not be overlooked is that the radar returns were captured on a separate night entirely than the mass sightings.

I haven't read the whole thread, or investigated the incident being discussed (although I do remember seeing it on Unsolved Mysteries). I just happened to notice this apparent contradiction.

I use to be very interested in UFO sightings when I was younger. It seemed to be a very interesting mystery. I wanted to believe that we were being visited by extraterrestrials more intelligent than us. I even fantasized about being a UFO investigator. But the more I studied it the more I realized that the mystery was more about the human condition than it was about extraterrestrials. I still keep an open mind, but I have no reason to believe that planet Earth has ever been visited by extraterrestrial beings (or craft).

 

[CEL]

One of the F16s maneuvered and the target remained in the same spot on the PPI. Why would an object change position almost instantaneously only to match the maneuver of the aircraft?
It is orders of magnitude more likely that the spot on the PPI was a spurious signal.

 

[Kronos5253]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3-4F...eature=related

Stumbled across this while I was looking for the "Investigation X" video, and thought I would post it here to keep it as a record.

So pretty much a "what is it" type of deal.

Thanks to Ivan for the advice :)

 

[DaveC426913]

There were 4 separate radar detections of the March 30, 1990 craft, two by ground and two by the F-16's. 13 000 thousand people saw it, 3000 of whom provided written statements that agree extremely well with each other. When the F-16's got a radar lock on the craft, they lost it in a few seconds because of the craft's maneuvers. These maneuvers were seen by both radar and ground observers. For all of this to be a coincidence, three different types of sensors, F-16 radar, ground radar, and the human eye, would have to fail simultaneously and in exactly the right fashion to corroborate each other's accounts. If the chances of a radar failure is 1/1000 and the chance of a hallucination is 1/2 (a very generous estimate), the total probability would be (1/1000)^4 * (1/2)^13 000: a ridiculously low number. Not to mention if 13 000 different instruments did fail at the same time, they would likely produce very different results that completely contradict each other: that's not seen in this case.

Granted.

It was not my intent to make a rigorous refutation out of it, merely systematically showing some weaknesses in the argument.

I find your claim that alien visitation is "astronomically more unlikely" dubious. If you could give even a rough order of magnitude to the terms in the Drake equation, you'd already do better than any other SETI researcher has, and the Drake equation says nothing about the probability of life developing interstellar travel, its likelihood of visiting other solar systems, its likelihood of making contact, its likelihood of not announcing itself as alien, etc. How can you know whether it's unlikely or not without any useful estimate of the actual probability?

Our "thinking there might be ET" as an argumnent in your favour is circular reasoning.

Since the discussion is trying to show alien presence, we start with the premise that, until shown otherwise, the presence does not exist.

Your argument is tantamount to : it could be a UFO because there could be UFOs, therefore this could be one.

As another person mentioned, you also assumed that the radar and visual observations either had to be spurious or the craft had to be alien.

I'd thought that was the line of reasoining in this discussion. It could well have been an assumption I added.

Why could it not have been a military craft, or perhaps not a solid object at all? There's no evidence that the "thing" is alien, but

Most certainly. A highly likely explanation.

its existence and apparent ability to drastically outperform unclassified fighter jets are both beyond doubt.

Well, the sightings don't prove a thing exists, until we have a body, as it were. Certainly, the sightings prove that they all saw something abnormal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Did anyone read this paper? I read the abstract.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ASPC..400...35F

It appears to me from the abstract that UFO's are Astronomical Pseudo-science. This ties into my last post to this topic on the previous page, #194.

Pseudoscience refers to a methodology, not a subject. While it seems to make some people feel better if they can erroniously label observer reports, or the review of such reports, a pseudoscience, this is really just a manifestation of laziness and personal bias. There is plenty of pseudoscience associated with the subject, however the subject itself is not a science or a pseudscience. It is a body of reports and claimed observations having varying degrees of credibility.

It is pseudoscience to claim that all UFOs are military aircraft since we don't know that to be true. It is also pseudoscience to claim that some UFOs are flown by ET; that is, unless you have seen ET yourself. Then it becomes a claimed observation.

 

[Proton Soup]

Pseudoscience refers to a methodology, not a subject. While it seems to make some people feel better if they can erroniously label observer reports, or the review of such reports, a pseudoscience, this is really just a manifestation of laziness and personal bias. There is plenty of pseudoscience associated with the subject, however the subject itself is not a science or a pseudscience. It is a body of reports and claimed observations having varying degrees of credibility.

It is pseudoscience to claim that all UFOs are military aircraft since we don't know that to be true. It is also pseudoscience to claim that some UFOs are flown by ET; that is, unless you have seen ET yourself. Then it becomes a claimed observation.

christianity is also a religion based on eyewitness testimony

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is a paper published in JBIS arguing that it makes sense to look for ETs.
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf

That takes the argument to a whole new level. Whereas in this forum, we only consider the evidence, in whatever form, in order to put things into perspective, this paper states that it actually makes sense to look for alien spacecraft s.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

christianity is also a religion based on eyewitness testimony

If you don't know anything about the subject, then please read the UFO Napster before commenting. The last time that I checked, Christians don't have any RADAR data showing Jesus ascending into heaven. Nor am I aware of any military jets chasing angels [or maybe they do!].

There are also the issues of quantity and quality. While we have no scientific evidence for ET, we do have highly compelling evidence that the UFO phenomena is far more than an illusion - far more compelling evidence than we find associated with any religion.

It grows tiresome debating with people who aren't willing to learn a little bit first. Pseudoscience includes the practice of arriving at conclusions while having no real knowledge of the subject.

 

[Proton Soup]

If you don't know anything about the subject, then please read the UFO Napster before commenting. The last time that I checked, Christians don't have any RADAR data showing Jesus ascending into heaven. It also grows tiresome debating with people who aren't willing to learn a little bit first.

There are also the issues of quantity and quality. While we have no scientific evidence for ET, we do have highly compelling evidence that the UFO phenomena is far more than an illusion - far more compelling evidence than we find associated with any religion.

i'm sure you see UFOs in tortillas and grilled cheese sandwiches, too

 

[baywax]

Pseudoscience refers to a methodology, not a subject. While it seems to make some people feel better if they can erroniously label observer reports, or the review of such reports, a pseudoscience, this is really just a manifestation of laziness and personal bias. There is plenty of pseudoscience associated with the subject, however the subject itself is not a science or a pseudscience. It is a body of reports and claimed observations having varying degrees of credibility.

It is pseudoscience to claim that all UFOs are military aircraft since we don't know that to be true. It is also pseudoscience to claim that some UFOs are flown by ET; that is, unless you have seen ET yourself. Then it becomes a claimed observation.

How is it that in a court of law a witness can make or break a case when in the instance of a sighting or report of an unusual event they are pretty well considered unbelievable?

 

[DaveC426913]

How is it that in a court of law a witness can make or break a case when in the instance of a sighting or report of an unusual event they are pretty well considered unbelievable?

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The more extraordinary the claim made, the more extraordinary the evidence need be.

 

[the pro]

If you don't know anything about the subject, then please read the UFO Napster before commenting. The last time that I checked, Christians don't have any RADAR data showing Jesus ascending into heaven. Nor am I aware of any military jets chasing angels [or maybe they do!].

There are also the issues of quantity and quality. While we have no scientific evidence for ET, we do have highly compelling evidence that the UFO phenomena is far more than an illusion - far more compelling evidence than we find associated with any religion.

It grows tiresome debating with people who aren't willing to learn a little bit first. Pseudoscience includes the practice of arriving at conclusions while having no real knowledge of the subject.

no there where many before jesus many others and there are many old civilisations that proves the ancien aliens theory sorry for my english there is 1 the piramide of gizis the egypts have siad that it was build in 23 eyers and if yes u need to put a stone every 9 sek that's imposibel i think aliens exist why not why shoud we only be in the glaxy or univers

 

[DaveC426913]

no there where many before jesus many others and there are many old civilisations that proves the ancien aliens theory sorry for my english there is 1 the piramide of gizis the egypts have siad that it was build in 23 eyers and if yes u need to put a stone every 9 sek that's imposibel i think aliens exist why not why shoud we only be in the glaxy or univers

English aside, Forum Rules require an attempt at clear communication: spelling, punctuation, grammar.

It is extremely difficult to follow what you are saying because your sentences all run into each other.

 

[ideasrule]

How is it that in a court of law a witness can make or break a case when in the instance of a sighting or report of an unusual event they are pretty well considered unbelievable?

That the jury places so much emphasis on eyewitness testimony is a major problem in the legal system. Countless times, witnesses have lied, exaggerated, or had good intentions but unreliable memories. Actually "unreliable memories" is a redundant phrase; the human brain was not designed to gather information just to store it away, and there are studies where participants are shown a mysterious crash site, led to believe it was a UFO crash, and, when interviewed weeks later, claim all sorts of details they never saw.

 

[CEL]

That the jury places so much emphasis on eyewitness testimony is a major problem in the legal system. Countless times, witnesses have lied, exaggerated, or had good intentions but unreliable memories. Actually "unreliable memories" is a redundant phrase; the human brain was not designed to gather information just to store it away, and there are studies where participants are shown a mysterious crash site, led to believe it was a UFO crash, and, when interviewed weeks later, claim all sorts of details they never saw.

Complementing what you say: The testimony of several eyewitnesses can be superceded by a single DNA testing.
Scientific evidence is allways better than anecdotes.

 

[baywax]

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The more extraordinary the claim made, the more extraordinary the evidence need be.

Yes, I guess you're right. Its odd because there are extraordinary claims made by some witnesses like psychics and so on that actually break and close certain cases. Yet their claim is that they had premonition about the finest details of the case. But your right because usually the premonitions are later confirmed by hard evidence. That's why the cases are completed.

On the other hand, if a witness claims to have seen anti-gravity devices with skinny aliens, the jury and others need to have the device and the visitors as evidence this has happened. Just like the psychic detective has a murderer and a victim as evidence of their claim. Thanks.