UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 14

Re: Larry King Live: Friday, November 9th, 2007

From: Paul Kimball <TheRobieShark.nul>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:05:50 EST
Archived: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:25:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Larry King Live: Friday, November 9th, 2007

>From: Brian Ally <ufoupdates.nul>
>To:  ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:50:03 -0500
>Subject: Re: Larry King Live: Friday, November 9th, 2007

>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:24:44 -0600
>>Subject: Re: Larry King Live: Friday, November 9th, 2007


>The point I was trying to make is that people are - in general -
>not very good witnesses - look it up. For that reason, I am
>disinclined to take _any_ UFO report - for varying definitions of
>'UFO', Dick Hall ;-) - at face value.

This is simply not true. Most lawyers and police officers - you
know, the folks who deal with witnesses on a regular basis -
will tell you that people are generally good observers, and
poor interpreters. Further, my experience, having been on both
sides of the witness coin (that is to say, having examined
witnesses and having been one myself), is that witnesses will
often get small details wrong, but are usually pretty good at
recalling the big picture - especially when that big picture
made an impact on them, i.e. was an event out of the ordinary
for them.

You also make the mistake of assuming that witnesses can be
viewed as individuals, and therefore easily dismissed. I'll
agree that a single witness isn't terribly strong, and open to
challenge, simply because it is true that some folks are going
to make a mistake, despite what I just said above, so I wouldn't
hang my proverbial hat on one witness alone.

What you conveniently ignore, however, are the multitude of
cases where there are several witnesses who see the same thing
independently of each other. That's the kind of corroboration
that goes a long way in a court of law - especially if you have
a case like Kelly Johnson's 1950 sighting over Santa Barbara
Channel, which was confirmed by top Lockheed pilots and flight
engineers, who also saw the same object move in the same manner
in the same place and at the same time as Johnson and his wife
did, independently of Johnson and his wife.

Of course, your entire premise is flawed, as many of the best
cases have more than just witness testimony going for them - for
example, the 1957 RB47 case (or subsequent cases involving RB47
aircraft), and the 1976 Tehran case.

But you don't seem to want to talk about that... do you?

Paul Kimball

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ 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