UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jan > Jan 27

Re: Barksdale Fliers Are Source Of UFO Story -

From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:31:01 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:50:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Barksdale Fliers Are Source Of UFO Story -


>From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:03:33 EST
>Subject: Re: Barksdale Fliers Are Source Of UFO Story

Hello Greg,

<snip>

>The value of "expert witnesses"? Well if an "expert witness" has
>no value then no witnesses have any value.

I never said that expert witnesses have no value, or that any
witness has no value. My point was that why should so-called
expert witnesses be credited with greater weight than amateur
witnesses, when they don't actually know what it was that they
saw?

If an expert witness recognises a 747 and their expertise is in
aircraft recognition, that makes sense. If the same expert
witness doesn't recognise the aircraft, it doesn't mean that it
was an alien spaceship, angel, or demon.

In this case it would appear (subject to someone following the
report up) that the witness did not recognise a specific type of
flare in specific circumstances. Ideally, someone local should
request copies of the flight logs etc. to confirm the position
and timing of the flare activity, and compare this to details
from a personal in-situ interview with the witness. If the flare
explanation is viable, this should then be put to the witness.
Of course, for some people, that is too difficult, it is much
easier to shout "cover up!" and "the aliens are coming!".

>That just invalidates any witness testimony whatsoever. So we
>should toss out any witness testimony regardless of the crime or
>event?

Of course not, but witness testimony on it's own can not be
taken as fact. It is a starting-point for investigation and
validation.

>Let's just go back to stringin' guys up based on hearsay. Or
>invading countries on speculation.

>The retired colonel reported his interpretation of what he saw.
>He provided pictures to back it up. I recall some guy on the
>radio saying he could see an alien pilot in the pics. That's
>when I tossed the story out the window with the bathwater.

Why would you reject one witness's evidence solely on the basis
of another witness's imaginative description?

>Is the problem the eyewitness or the eyewitness to the
>eyewitness?

The problem (historically) is that all too often, the
"expertise" of a given witness has dazzled the investigator(s)
into not carrying out a thorough investigation.

>What's the greater problem to me isn't this story but the
>barrage of UFO stories hitting the wires since the O'Hare
>incident. Just about everybody and their third cousin is
>reporting UFOs. Meteors, Russian rockets breaking up, swamp gas,
>you name it, it's popping up in the news.

It's often the case that media coverage provokes an almost self-
sustaining cycle of reports. I don't understand why this should
surprise or bother you.

>Why? Easy. Because an inexplicable event with "expert witnesses"
>occurred and the typical bs debunking and stonewalling and
>diversions go into play. It's so typical it's pitiful to watch.

Greg, have you actually investigated this case to the point
where you know that the supposed flares were not responsible?

>BTW, I didn't type this message. This List doesn't exist. Why?
>Because all the "expert witnesses" don't exist because I have no
>confidence in "expert witnesses" anymore.

I almost didn't answer it either.


Regards,

Joe



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com