UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[laca]

It was too far away and moved too fast to be a firefly. I don't think you can see a firefly 3km away ... even at night.

j.r.

How did you know its distance from your standpoint?

 

[Stray Cat]

How did you know its distance from your standpoint?

He guessed based upon his perception of it from his viewpoint sitting in a room on a sofa, looking through a window, and then later (don't know how much later, but at the very earliest, the next day) looked on a map to confirm his guess.

Obviously not realising that unless the object was actually marked on the map, there was still no way of accurately measuring it's distance.

 

[ufology]

Again with the distances. To make these estimates in the time-frame you assert without benefit of optics is supernatural.

Plus, if you didn't investigate by at least going outside, why the hell not?

Actually I did. When it came up in the morning I went outside on the deck and watched it take off, then I drove around to the other side to see if I could easily hike to where it had landed, but the land was all fenced off and was steep with thick brush, and I had to get the car home. Besides it was gone by then anyway.

As for needing optics. My eyes were fine ... human optical perception has known parameters. I could see it come up from out of the forest on the other side of the lake ( east side of the valley ). That distance is easy to check on a map. you don't need optics.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That's good evidence of firefly activity.

 

[ufology]

How did you know its distance from your standpoint?

The valley is only so wide and I could pinpoint on the map where I was on the west side. So when the object landed, I could see it going down behind the trees on the far side of the lake, and the reverse when it ascended. In the morning light there were visible landmarks such as the rise from the lake to the bench where the highway runs, then the rise toward the mountain that was behind it, and then the mountain itself. By looking at these features on the map, and using the scale, I determined the distance to be about 3Km. Much further and it would have been on the mountainside and much closer it would have been nearer the lake.

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

By looking at these features on the map, and using the scale...

And confusing north and south?

 

[Resume]

Actually I did. When it came up in the morning I went outside on the deck and watched it take off, then I drove around to the other side to see if I could easily hike to where it had landed, but the land was all fenced off and was steep with thick brush, and I had to get the car home. Besides it was gone by then anyway.

As for needing optics. My eyes were fine ... human optical perception has known parameters. I could see it come up from out of the forest on the other side of the lake ( east side of the valley ). That distance is easy to check on a map. you don't need optics.

j.r.

Yes, yes, your eyes were perfect, your perception flawless, your memory infallible.

 

[Resume]

In the morning light there were visible landmarks such as the rise from the lake to the bench where the highway runs, then the rise toward the mountain that was behind it, and then the mountain itself. By looking at these features on the map, and using the scale, I determined the distance to be about 3Km. Much further and it would have been on the mountainside and much closer it would have been nearer the lake.

j.r.

All this from a one second observation. Sure.

 

[ufology]

All this from a one second observation. Sure.

Context issue above: The instant accelleration from a standstill to cover over 25Km in about 1 second was the last maneuver of several that the object did over the course of the night. Just before the object came up out of the forest for the last time, I had just stepped out onto the landing in the morning light to have a better look at the terrain where it had last landed. So I was looking right at the area it had gone down. So when it ascended out of the forest I was looking at exactly the right spot and watched it come up. Then it stopped and turned bright white. Then it accellerated out of sight as described. So the total elapsed time of this last phase was several seconds, during which time my sight was focused directly on it.

j.r.

 

[Resume]

Context issue above: The instant accelleration from a standstill to cover over 25Km in about 1 second was the last maneuver of several that the object did over the course of the night. Just before the object came up out of the forest for the last time, I had just stepped out onto the landing in the morning light to have a better look at the terrain where it had last landed. So I was looking right at the area it had gone down. So when it ascended out of the forest I was looking at exactly the right spot and watched it come up. Then it stopped and turned bright white. Then it accellerated out of sight as described. So the total elapsed time of this last phase was several seconds, during which time my sight was focused directly on it.

j.r.

One second, several, seven, who cares. You can't possibly make the assumptions you do from such briefs sightings. If they were in fact sightings.

 

[ufology]

One second, several, seven, who cares. You can't possibly make the assumptions you do from such briefs sightings. If they were in fact sightings.

Why not? Please explain. Every day we make split second decisions based on the observation of dozens of factors per second ( consider driving ). Human visual perception can detect individual stimulus changes within 1/10 of a second on the slow end and 1/25th on the high end. Some people even claim to see 60Hz flourescent light flicker. I had the object in view for about 8 seconds. That's like 80 to 200 frames. Thats plenty enough time to tell you're looking at a bright light ( unless you're blind ). So I observed and I measured ... what's the problem? Again please explain why it isn't possible?

j.r.

 

[Resume]

So I observed and I measured ... what's the problem? Again please explain why it isn't possible?

j.r.

You observed and you guessed. That's the problem. No doubt, you filled in details in the intervening years. And that's giving you the benefit that you weren't dreaming, or hallucinating. It's just as likely you mis-identified a fricken lightning bug. Or a errant bottle rocket. Or any number of things that actually exist.

 

[AdMan]

So I observed and I measured ... what's the problem? Again please explain why it isn't possible?

For starters:

Perhaps the most important thing to note is that, even though there is a popular perception of eyewitness testimony being among the most reliable forms of evidence available, the criminal justice system treats such testimony as being among the most fragile and even unreliable available. Consider the following quote from Levin and Cramer’s Problems and Materials on Trial Advocacy:

“Eyewitness testimony is, at best, evidence of what the witness believes to have occurred. It may or may not tell what actually happened. The familiar problems of perception, of gauging time, speed, height, weight, of accurate identification of persons accused of crime all contribute to making honest testimony something less than completely credible.”

Eyewitness Testimony and Memory.

The process of interpretation occurs at the very formation of memory—thus introducing distortion from the beginning. Furthermore, witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or lawyers. Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion, which in turn affects the underlying memory of the event. This is why a fish story, which grows with each retelling, can eventually lead the teller to believe it.

The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony.

Highlights added.

I think you probably believe you are remembering the event correctly, ufology, giving you the benefit of the doubt. But I also believe that your memory of it is very likely inaccurate, given the way human memory works.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why not? Please explain. Every day we make split second decisions based on the observation of dozens of factors per second ( consider driving ).

Indeed. Consider auto collisions that occur due to misperceptions. In 2004 1.2 million people were killed and another 50 million injured in worldwide traffic fatalities. Traffic_collision^WP With that many misperceptions, it's likely that you misperceived your conclusion of aliens.

Human visual perception can detect individual stimulus changes within 1/10 of a second on the slow end and 1/25th on the high end. Some people even claim to see 60Hz flourescent light flicker. I had the object in view for about 8 seconds. That's like 80 to 200 frames. Thats plenty enough time to tell you're looking at a bright light ( unless you're blind ).

And plenty of time to be mistaken about a lightning bug. Look at how many fatalities there are worldwide along with the millions of additional injuries in traffic collisions.

So I observed and I measured ... what's the problem? Again please explain why it isn't possible?

j.r.

You measured a map and a road. What instrumentation did you use to triangulate the light that you believe was a long distance away so that you could confirm what your fallible perception told you was a long distance away? Keep in mind the misperceptions that resulted in so many traffic fatalities worldwide.

Claiming that you measured the distance to the light when you didn't is pseudoscientific, in addition to being dishonest.

 

[ufology]

I think you probably believe you are remembering the event correctly, ufology, giving you the benefit of the doubt. But I also believe that your memory of it is very likely inaccurate, given the way human memory works.

To address the above. I remember the essential elements just fine. Also the post doesn't address the actual question I'd asked the poster. Why isn't it possible that I could ascertain the position and movement of an object in the distance over the course of several seconds? Apart from being obviously possible, I'll add that anyone who has played catch with a baseball knows that the ball is in flight a short time ( only a few seconds ) with each throw, yet our visual system sees it in transit and computes timing and reflexes to catch it each time. So again I ask the poster why it isn't possble to ascertain the position and movement of an object in the distance over the course of several seconds?

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

To address the above. I remember the essential elements just fine.

How do you know?

Also the post doesn't address the actual question I'd asked the poster. Why isn't it possible that I could ascertain the position and movement of an object in the distance over the course of several seconds? Apart from being obviously possible, I'll add that anyone who has played catch with a baseball knows that the ball is in flight a short time ( only a few seconds ) with each throw, yet our visual system sees it in transit and computes timing and reflexes to catch it each time. So again I ask the poster why it isn't possble to ascertain the position and movement of an object in the distance over the course of several seconds?

j.r.

You know the size of a baseball and it's relative motion and trajectory. Since you don't know the size of the purported light you allegedly saw, you don't know how far away it was. You had no reference. You claim you saw a light of unknown size and at an unknown distance.

 

[Resume]

So again I ask the poster why it isn't possble to ascertain the position and movement of an object in the distance over the course of several seconds?

j.r.

People misjudge the distance between their car and the car in front of them to the tune of hundreds of accidents a day. Stone cold sober, wide awake, in broad daylight. With more than several seconds to react.

I bet they mis-remember their accidents as well.

 

[Akhenaten]

To address the above. I remember the essential elements just fine.

Sure. Nothing subjective about your judgement of the accuracy of your own memory.

Much.

Also the post doesn't address the actual question I'd asked the poster. Why isn't it possible that I could ascertain the position and movement of an object in the distance over the course of several seconds?

Because you have no idea how big it was.

Apart from being obviously possible, I'll add that anyone who has played catch with a baseball knows that the ball is in flight a short time ( only a few seconds ) with each throw, yet our visual system sees it in transit and computes timing and reflexes to catch it each time.

That's a learned behaviour based on knowing a lot of things such as the size of a baseball, likely speed and the distance to be covered - all things which, in the case of your flying saucer, are nothing more than speculation.

So again I ask the poster why it isn't possble to ascertain the position and movement of an object in the distance over the course of several seconds?

j.r.

Same answer. You don't know how big it was. In fact, you don't even know for sure that it was an actual object.

 

[Resume]

To address the above. I remember the essential elements just fine.

j.r.

I think it's clear you don't.

 

[AdMan]

To address the above. I remember the essential elements just fine.

No. You just think you do. Read the articles linked in my post.

Why isn't it possible that I could ascertain the position and movement of an object in the distance over the course of several seconds? Apart from being obviously possible, I'll add that anyone who has played catch with a baseball knows that the ball is in flight a short time ( only a few seconds ) with each throw, yet our visual system sees it in transit and computes timing and reflexes to catch it each time. So again I ask the poster why it isn't possble to ascertain the position and movement of an object in the distance over the course of several seconds?

j.r.

A baseball is an object we are all familiar with, and we can gauge its position, direction and speed almost instantaneously because the ability to gauge such things is related to our daily survival.

But you recounted an observation over a few seconds of an object you were completely unfamiliar with, that was so strange that you concluded it was non-earthly, from a supposed far greater distance (three km) than most people normally think about on a day-to-day experience, and you were able to calculate its size, speed and direction with any degree of accuracy?

Gimme a break.