How reliable is an Expert Witness?

[ocpaul20]

We often use experts to back up evidence and to lend weight to legal points made in courts. We listen and give weight to the opinions of lawyers, doctors, teachers, scientists and others who we consider to be 'authorities' on a subject.

So, when a number of these authorititive people make statements about something in which we do not believe (such as UFO's or aliens for example) we still dismiss their testimonies as if they were making it all up or as if they are not really experts in their field.

In particular, I refer to the hundreds of governmental employees, scientists and other experts who have put their name to the Disclosure Project organised by Dr Steven Greer. Although nothing much seems to have come out from this project in the last few years, over 450 military personnel, some with very high security clearances have testified that aliens are in fact here and UFO technology has been traded and used by the military. Bear in mind that some of these witnesses were in charge of our nuclear arsenal and held positions of great responsibility and in every other way are/were respected members of their organisations.

It seems that it is not yet acceptable for respectable scientists, such as many of you here on this forum, to subscribe to the belief that aliens are already interacting with our government - even though there is plenty of people who are respectable and accepted as authorities in their professions, who have told us otherwise.

What 'evidence' is enough? What 'scientific proof' will EVER be available, before the belief is widely accepted by the scientific community? How many papers need to be written for you to accept this as 'fact' ? Which scientist would put his/her reputation on the line to write such a paper?

Basically, what I am saying is that there is no evidence that can be presented which will provide proof for this. Even if we saw an alien on the evening news, talking and interacting with humans it could still be generated by some whizz-kid in a video effects lab somewhere. Technology is so good that this is not impossible and could easily be generated if the resources were available and motives were present.

 

[Evo]

Obviously there are no experts in UFOs. You ended your post with the fact that

there is no evidence that can be presented which will provide proof for this

So I am wondering what your point is.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The standards for scientific evidence are much higher than those for legal evidence. And you are right; for anything that cannot be reproduced on demand, it is very difficult to obtain good evidence for that phenomenon, even if it's genuine. Not to say that ET is here, but all such claims [not producible on demand] are almost impossible to verify or even investigate.

For one the best examples of how ridiculous this gets, consider the sliding rock phenomenon. For about a century, we have known that rocks on a dry lake bed move, but nobody is sure why they move, and no one has ever caught them moving. So even if we know precisely where a phenomenon might be observed, not knowning when to look can be sufficient to make verification very difficult.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60676

 

[ocpaul20]

...The standards for scientific evidence are much higher than those for legal evidence...

That is an interesting viewpoint and I am wondering how we would feel if we were due for the electric chair.

The point is that there are all these people who are experts in different fields and we do not believe what they say -just because we do not want to.

The things that cannot be repeated and verified can only be theories/hypotheses but these unfortunately become accepted as fact after a while. There are probably not many people who would not agree that these rocks in the desert do move, but if no-one has ever been able to document it happening it should be in the realms of aliens and UFOs as unreproducable.

I appreciate that scientists are first human and second scientists and their beliefs are as strong as any other human's. However, when discussing things that are not generally accepted, it takes a brave person to come out and go against the grain of current thinking.

There are also motivations which keep information away from a wider audience. These could be that a particular discovery has not yet been published, or that it may be a "hot potato" or it could be some other reason.

 

[stevenb]

Expert witnesses are not all that reliable because they usually have a hidden or even obvious agenda that is independent of the truth. That's not to say that they all lie, and many (perhaps even most) try to give true statements as best they can. Still, experts are human and hence subject to human error; thus, their word is not Gospel. Also, some are willing to lie to serve another goal, and some may convince themselves that their untrue statements are true because they don't want to lie, but also don't want to give up their ulterior benefits (money, fame, attention, personal hope) from sticking to their perception of truths.

Here we have 450 people with a story, but no hard evidence at all. Why should we believe that all of these 450 people have personally witnessed proof of their claims, but couldn't capture that proof for our view? That is, why can't one of these 450 people provide such a basic thing as hard evidence like an alien device, a space ship, a living entity or dead body part? Even an expert witness on the stand is required to provide evidence, whether it be examples of published studies, or personally generated experimental results that have been reproduced and accepted by other scientists. If an expert witness can't provide convincing answers under cross examination, the jury will not put much weight in their opinions.

So, a skeptical person is likely to ask which is more reasonable: believing the alien story based on 450 expert witnesses and no hard evidence other than their words, or that, out of 6 billion people on the planet, one can find 450 people that are either lying, mentally ill, confused, misled or just plain wrong. Until I can analyze an alien's version of a transistor, antigravity field, or light saber etc., in my lab, I'll continue to lean toward the latter.

 

[Evo]

The point is that there are all these people who are experts in different fields and we do not believe what they say -just because we do not want to.

They are not experts in UFOs, and if by UFO you actually mean extra-terrestrial, then they *really* aren't experts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, in a sense some military personnel are UFO experts in that they were trained pilots, RADAR operators, or intelligence officials, who were experts within the context of their alleged exposure to UFOs. Their testimony is not only taken from a professional context [and in many cases, properly documented], but they know what to expect in their domain.

In some situations, UFOs are the highest priorety for the USAF. Consider what happens if an unidentified aircraft buzzes the White House. It is their job to identify unidentified and potential threats, which by defintion are UFOs, until identified.

I would also argue that there are experts in the subject of UFOs. Hynek is the easiest example of that to cite. For I think about twenty years, he was the lead scientist for the government's Project Bluebook.

 

[Evo]

Well, in a sense some military personnel are UFO experts in that they were trained pilots, RADAR operators, or intelligence officials, who were experts within the context of their alleged exposure to UFOs. Their testimony is not only taken from a professional context [and properly documented], but they know what to expect in their domain.

I would also argue that there are experts in the subject of UFOs. Hynek is the easiest example of that to cite. For I think about twenty years, he was the lead scientist for the government's Project Bluebook.

But their expertise is saying what it's not, therefore, it's unidentified. I have no problem agreeing that there are many objects that have not been identified. I feel the OP is taking the lack of identification to mean something more.

 

[ocpaul20]

But their expertise is saying what it's not, therefore, it's unidentified. I have no problem agreeing that there are many objects that have not been identified. I feel the OP is taking the lack of identification to mean something more.

It really does not matter what my motivation or the point I am trying to make is. The discussion is still a valid one until it is deemed otherwise.

Many of the experts in the Disclosure Project are saying that they are not unidentified but they have been identified as craft from previously recovered crashes.

It is very important that scientists remain as objective as possible and it could be argued that this kind of thread brings out the cherished beliefs that are difficult to let go.

If 450 experts are not good enough, then exactly how many would be needed to support an un-provable theory - such as the moving desert stones mentioned above?

There are many accepted things which cannot be directly reproducable in a lab, but which are nonetheless, accepted by the scientific community. Of course, these may have other remote measurements or photographic details to support them but still they are unproven as far as some scientists are concerned.

I guess this is a grey area of science then.

 

[stevenb]

If 450 experts are not good enough, then exactly how many would be needed to support an un-provable theory - such as the moving desert stones mentioned above?

I guess this is a grey area of science then.

There is no number that is sufficient (not even all people on the planet) that can give scientific credence to a hypothesis based on their word. Evidence is needed. Real evidence, even if it comes from one person, outweighs unproven statements from a mob, at least in science.

And, you guess correctly, there is a gray area in science. It is a human invention that is not perfect. However, sooner or later the truth emerges when using the tools of science. Governments would not be able to contain or conceal a "truth" of the magnitude you are talking about. This is another reason to doubt the claims. These 450 people give too much credit to governments to be that good at anything.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That is an interesting viewpoint and I am wondering how we would feel if we were due for the electric chair.

I have long joked that if the justice system was run by scientists, no one would ever be convicted of a crime.

The point is that there are all these people who are experts in different fields and we do not believe what they say -just because we do not want to.

Belief is not the point. Whether a scientist believes in ET or not, the requirement for evidence remains the same.

The things that cannot be repeated and verified can only be theories/hypotheses but these unfortunately become accepted as fact after a while. There are probably not many people who would not agree that these rocks in the desert do move, but if no-one has ever been able to document it happening it should be in the realms of aliens and UFOs as unreproducable.

I appreciate that scientists are first human and second scientists and their beliefs are as strong as any other human's. However, when discussing things that are not generally accepted, it takes a brave person to come out and go against the grain of current thinking.

There are also motivations which keep information away from a wider audience. These could be that a particular discovery has not yet been published, or that it may be a "hot potato" or it could be some other reason.

Look, I will be the first to say that there is a clear bias against this subject in the academic community. Yes, in my experience, many people have their minds made up without really knowing much about the subject. Yes, there is more than a slight giggle factor here. And I have spent seven years making the point that not all of this is nonsense. At the least, we seem to have quite a mystery on our hands. But scientists are not really the problem. It doesn't matter what they believe personally. The real problem is that the subject of UFOs is not one easily examined by science.

Unfortunately, it is true at times that even the implications for an ET visitation [not a claim] invokes the demand for "extraordinary evidence", when in fact no one ever mentioned ET until the debunker did. As if to say, "were that true, it would have to be ET, so I don't believe it".

I call that a "lack of imagination" peppered with circular logic.

However, even if all "genuine UFOs" could be explained as a fantastically interesting and unrecognized EM phenomenon, it would be no less difficult to study than are ET claims. So, again, the real problem is the transient and random nature of any genuine phenomenon; be it ET, ball lightning, or whatever else we might imagine UFOs to be.

If ET really were visiting, it could be one of the most profound truths in all of human history. So there is every reason for demanding more than testimony and anecdotes, as acceptable "proof". No matter how good the evidence from some reports may be [including photos and RADAR], it is still only evidence for something strange. It is a long leap from that to saying we have good evidence for ET.

 

[Evo]

If 450 experts are not good enough, then exactly how many would be needed to support an un-provable theory - such as the moving desert stones mentioned above?

You might as well stop bringing the stones up, there is nothing that even remotely connects the two. Again these are not experts in extra-terrestrial objects or beings.

 

[ocpaul20]

You might as well stop bringing the stones up, there is nothing that even remotely connects the two. Again these are not experts in extra-terrestrial objects or beings.

I was not the one to bring them up in the first place, but they provided a good example. we were pointing out that these stones are a good example of something which cannot be proven because they had not yet been observed or measured moving. That is the connection. Maybe it is you who does not like to connect the two?

We have already established that these people ARE as good as we will get in the current circumstances to what we can call 'experts'. They may not have degrees in the science, but their day-to-day experience and work over many years makes them experts. I am sorry that you do not consider them as such. What do you do when you need an expert for a subject that does not have a degree or qualification associated with it? You pick the best expert you can.

Anyway, thank you all for you input.

 

[Antiphon]

Ocpaul20, this forum is not tolerant of a full open discussion of the physics behind the facts you bring up. It's because they don't have a way to separate crackpots like Tom Bearden from genuine progress being made in classified black programs.

If I were to try to explain the basics of UFO propulsion in this post, it would be locked on the basis of it being a speculative or personal theory.

At the risk of having my post yanked and getting a forum infraction I will simply state that on the basis of personal experience there are advanced propulsion physics and devices, perfectly consistent with quantum field theory, electromagnetic, and probably based on the standard model, that are presently the subjects of active research in places you will never hear about.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was not the one to bring them up in the first place, but they provided a good example. we were pointing out that these stones are a good example of something which cannot be proven because they had not yet been observed or measured moving. That is the connection. Maybe it is you who does not like to connect the two?

Yes, I brought that up.

We have already established that these people ARE as good as we will get in the current circumstances to what we can call 'experts'. They may not have degrees in the science, but their day-to-day experience and work over many years makes them experts. I am sorry that you do not consider them as such. What do you do when you need an expert for a subject that does not have a degree or qualification associated with it? You pick the best expert you can.

Anyway, thank you all for you input.

Your statement is debatable, but it is irrelevant to the point. This is not a matter of personal opinions. This is a science forum and we are explaining how science works. In science, no matter the subject, testimony and anecdotes are the lowest form of evidence. They can never be used to prove anything.

 

[russ_watters]

The point is that there are all these people who are experts in different fields and we do not believe what they say -just because we do not want to.

For emphasis: Scientific theories aren't accepted because we believe the people telling us about them, they are accepted because of evidence. The people on that list have no evidence, so there really isn't anything even worthy of consideration - much less acceptance - in what they say.

 

[alt]

We often use experts to back up evidence and to lend weight to legal points made in courts. We listen and give weight to the opinions of lawyers, doctors, teachers, scientists and others who we consider to be 'authorities' on a subject.

So, when a number of these authorititive people make statements about something in which we do not believe (such as UFO's or aliens for example) we still dismiss their testimonies as if they were making it all up or as if they are not really experts in their field.

In particular, I refer to the hundreds of governmental employees, scientists and other experts who have put their name to the Disclosure Project organised by Dr Steven Greer. Although nothing much seems to have come out from this project in the last few years, over 450 military personnel, some with very high security clearances have testified that aliens are in fact here and UFO technology has been traded and used by the military. Bear in mind that some of these witnesses were in charge of our nuclear arsenal and held positions of great responsibility and in every other way are/were respected members of their organisations.

It seems that it is not yet acceptable for respectable scientists, such as many of you here on this forum, to subscribe to the belief that aliens are already interacting with our government - even though there is plenty of people who are respectable and accepted as authorities in their professions, who have told us otherwise.

What 'evidence' is enough? What 'scientific proof' will EVER be available, before the belief is widely accepted by the scientific community? How many papers need to be written for you to accept this as 'fact' ? Which scientist would put his/her reputation on the line to write such a paper?

Basically, what I am saying is that there is no evidence that can be presented which will provide proof for this. Even if we saw an alien on the evening news, talking and interacting with humans it could still be generated by some whizz-kid in a video effects lab somewhere. Technology is so good that this is not impossible and could easily be generated if the resources were available and motives were present.

... over 450 military personnel, some with very high security clearances have testified that aliens are in fact here and UFO technology has been traded and used by the military.

But really, why would they want to do that ? And wouldn't they be in some serious trouble from their employer as a result ? Really, if you want to speculate cover up, conspiracy, etc, then you can also do so in another, more plausable direction. The above could merely be a diverson from (as posted by Antiphon) ..

At the risk of having my post yanked and getting a forum infraction I will simply state that on the basis of personal experience there are advanced propulsion physics and devices, perfectly consistent with quantum field theory, electromagnetic, and probably based on the standard model, that are presently the subjects of active research in places you will never hear about.

I would tend to believe much more in the human potential, be it in the form of ingenuity, discovery, or even greed, than in UFOs.

Edit spelling

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm just going to answer the TITLE of the thread: An expert witness is a LEGAL term with a statutory definition, or one established in case-law. Their validity is determined by a court of law, and that is again, a legal bar one has to meet to present testimony in regards to certain matters. If you're thinking about the reliability of EYE Witnesses, then the answer is that study after study shows that we all make piss-poor eye witnesses to life in general, never mind stunning or traumatic events.

 

[Angry Citizen]

To be fair, it's not like eyewitness testimony is the only piece of 'evidence' in favor of the extraterrestrial hypothesis (or at least the idea that there is something beyond psychology at work here). For instance, I seem to recall unusual radiation samples and odd tree growth patterns after the Rendlesham Forest incident. It's circumstantial, but I am personally in the 'agnostic' category to all this. I think we need to investigate further, and not rule out the notion of extraterrestrial visitation. It's a mystery to me why it has undergone such ridicule -- it's a perfectly valid hypothesis. It's just insanely difficult to test, rather like string theory.

 

[pallidin]

I was part of a "pre-jury" a few months ago and was asked if I would accept the testimony of an "expert witness" I said not necessarily.
I was not chosen, but I stand by my statement to them.

 

[nismaratwork]

To be fair, it's not like eyewitness testimony is the only piece of 'evidence' in favor of the extraterrestrial hypothesis (or at least the idea that there is something beyond psychology at work here). For instance, I seem to recall unusual radiation samples and odd tree growth patterns after the Rendlesham Forest incident. It's circumstantial, but I am personally in the 'agnostic' category to all this. I think we need to investigate further, and not rule out the notion of extraterrestrial visitation. It's a mystery to me why it has undergone such ridicule -- it's a perfectly valid hypothesis. It's just insanely difficult to test, rather like string theory.

With a few key differences such as: String theory is is a theory, not a claim to reality, it has a mathematical basis, and no one is claiming to directly observe strings. The "hidden aliens" hypothesis, i.e. that aliens are here, but for reasons beyond our ken prefer to stay hidden from most people, is a very different animal.

 

[mugaliens]

Given their dismal track record, I'm not a fan of "expert witnesses" in the least.

 

[pallidin]

Given their dismal track record, I'm not a fan of "expert witnesses" in the least.

Yeah, I'm OK with some "expert witnesses" but what ticked me off in court is when the judge asked us if we were willing to, after cross examination, accept the expert witness testimony as "true and valid"
I said "not necessarily" and got kicked off the final jury.
I stand behind my response to the judge.

 

[mgb_phys]

the judge asked us if we were willing to, after cross examination, accept the expert witness testimony as "true and valid"

Possibly the best you could do is agree that the particular witness was giving an honest and impartial opinion - which since the expert witnesses are hired by one side in the trial is almost by definition untrue.

 

[pallidin]

Possibly the best you could do is agree that the particular witness was giving an honest and impartial opinion - which since the expert witnesses are hired by one side in the trial is almost by definition untrue.

Yes, I think your right. I stand by my "not necessarily" comment to the judge for the reasons you stated. Thanks.

 

[stevenb]

... the judge asked us if we were willing to, after cross examination, accept the expert witness testimony as "true and valid".

What is the point of the cross examination if it does not allow the possibility of placing reasonable doubt on the expert's testimony? I can't believe a judge would disqualify you on that basis. The judge should only inist that you follow his stipulations on matters of law. He is not qualified to judge if an expert tesimony is incontestable. Or was this some kind of special case?

I think that what is reasonable is that if the cross examination or other expert witnesses can not place doubt on the expert testimony, or if bias of the individual can not be established concretely, then the testimony should be assumed true and given it's due consideration along with other information. In other words a member of the jury should not try to operate as the expert in that field, since they are not an expert in that field. If they were an expert in the field then they should be disqualified on that basis as there is potential conflict of not knowing just how competent the person is.

Maybe it was the attorney with the expert witness who threw you off the jury during the selection process? They have the right to throw you off for any reason, and it's not surprising that someone who thinks more than the averge person or knows how fallible an "expert" can be, is going to get booted.

I've been told by more than one attorney that engineers and scientists are often thrown out during the selection process. They are hard to convince because their training has already built reasonable doubt into their thought processes, and worse yet, they have a tendency to voice their opinion and drive other members of the jury to their point of view. Many attorneys are trying to put sheep on the jury, and there is nothing worse for their cause than allowing a wolf into the fold.

Possibly the best you could do is agree that the particular witness was giving an honest and impartial opinion - which since the expert witnesses are hired by one side in the trial is almost by definition untrue.

Yes exactly, expert witnesses are automatically biased by the side that hires them. This is why one should not agree that their opinion is automatically honest and impartial. This is precisely what the cross-examination and rebuttle expert witnesses are for. No expert testimony should be taken as absolute truth, immune to reasonable doubt.


On a slightly different subject ... We are entitled to a jury of our peers, right? I wonder if a scientist on trial can argue that his peers are only other scientists, and therefore "no sheep are allowed on the jury". Personally, I wouldn't want a crystal toting, magnetic bracelet wearing, psychic network member deciding my fate. I have them in my family, and I'll even allow them among my friends, but that doesn't mean I trust their judgement when it comes to logic.

EDIT: Oh wait, I was assuming that I'm innocent. However, if I'm guilty, I want to reject all scientists from the jury. I want to see a crystal hanging from every neck and two magnetic bracelets on every arm.

 

[loseyourname]

This was pointed out above (sort of), but these people are not the analog of expert witnesses. They're the analog of eyewitnesses. They're claiming to having witnessed the interaction of government personnel and programs with extraterrestrial technology. They're not testifying as to the reliability of evidence, which is what an expert testifies to.

In a court of law, eyewitness and expert testimony alike are considered evidence and only evidence. Whether or not they constitute convincing evidence depends on many things, most notably their collective agreement. If motive and opportunity are present and all eyewitnesses and experts testify that a guy did it, he's probably getting convicted.

If we brought these people into a court of law, most likely what would happen is that the defense would call experts giving all sorts of alternative possible (and more plausible in light of what we've verified about everyday reality) explanations, eyewitnesses claiming they were part of these same programs and they had nothing to do with extraterrestrial technology, and no physical evidence would be produced either way. That would not result in a conviction.

As for what would constitute convincing evidence, the most obvious example would be a body, dead or alive. Not a videotape of an autopsy, but an actual body, especially one that was alive and could still communicate with us. That would pretty much settle the question. But again, consider that the bonobo, the second-most intelligent creature on the planet other than us, wasn't discovered until 1929 and that was after hundreds of years of European expeditions on the African continent. Even today, when civil wars displace them, they can up and leave and we can't track them, sometimes taking years to find them again, and these are just normal movement patterns, not attempts to hide.

 

[pallidin]

What is the point of the cross examination if it does not allow the possibility of placing reasonable doubt on the expert's testimony? I can't believe a judge would disqualify you on that basis. The judge should only inist that you follow his stipulations on matters of law. He is not qualified to judge if an expert tesimony is incontestable. Or was this some kind of special case?

Hi steve. I do not know enough about the law to tell if it were a special case, but thinking about what you said I suppose it was.
It involved a young mother accused of felony physical child abuse on her own child. I think the child is almost 3.
As there were no witnesses and the mother denied the charges, we were asked if we could accept as true and valid expert witness testimony from the ER docs that the injuries were consistent with child abuse.
When it came around to me I said something like "Not necessarily. If the child accidentally feel down a flight of stairs and broke her arm, for example, it doesn't mean the parent broke her arm"

Note that at this point actual testimony was not being given, as this was the jury selection phase of the trial. I do not know the nature or extent of the child's injuries, nor do I now, as I can find nothing in the papers or local net describing the outcome of the trial(happened a couple months ago) Very young mother, from what I could tell. Possibly sealed. Don't know.

Anyway, I was just fine until they asked me that question worded in the way it was. Felt like I was being pressured to accept as Gospel the word of an "expert witness"

 

[nismaratwork]

Hi steve. I do not know enough about the law to tell if it were a special case, but thinking about what you said I suppose it was.
It involved a young mother accused of felony physical child abuse on her own child. I think the child is almost 3.
As there were no witnesses and the mother denied the charges, we were asked if we could accept as true and valid expert witness testimony from the ER docs that the injuries were consistent with child abuse.
When it came around to me I said something like "Not necessarily. If the child accidentally feel down a flight of stairs and broke her arm, for example, it doesn't mean the parent broke her arm"

Note that at this point actual testimony was not being given, as this was the jury selection phase of the trial. I do not know the nature or extent of the child's injuries, nor do I now, as I can find nothing in the papers or local net describing the outcome of the trial(happened a couple months ago) Very young mother, from what I could tell. Possibly sealed. Don't know.

Anyway, I was just fine until they asked me that question worded in the way it was. Felt like I was being pressured to accept as Gospel the word of an "expert witness"

I think you're correct here, and personally I wouldn't trust anyone completely... ultimately my own judgment comes into play. If you find that the expert is used to explain a plausible scenario in which the mother harms the child, and explains why the same injury cannot be caused by a fall I would listen. That is definitely a factor of how the opposition cross examines the witness, but it doesn't obviate your position that an expert witness is necessarily a genuine expert.

That said, it's entirely possible that the judge didn't grasp the granularity of your views, and simply took an easy route to a resolution. Let's face it, you could have been questioned further and probably been found suitable, but "the court" didn't want to take the time.

I should add that I was on a jury with an expert witness who testified to the mental state of the defense. The testimony was based on sound principles, but was essentially baseless, and the prosecution made that case well. In the end, that expert had no impact on the outcome. Now, if you send in a troop of lab techs to explain the nature of a DNA match, barring some disclosure of bias or wrongdoing, I would listen. That is often the role of the expert witness: to be a qualified individual to present evidence, not concoct scenarios.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This was pointed out above (sort of), but these people are not the analog of expert witnesses. They're the analog of eyewitnesses. They're claiming to having witnessed the interaction of government personnel and programs with extraterrestrial technology. They're not testifying as to the reliability of evidence, which is what an expert testifies to.

Your point is completely out of context, hence false.

I said:

Well, in a sense some military personnel are UFO experts in that they were trained pilots, RADAR operators, or intelligence officials, who were experts within the context of their alleged exposure to UFOs. Their testimony is not only taken from a professional context [and in many cases, properly documented], but they know what to expect in their domain.

In some situations, UFOs are the highest priorety for the USAF. Consider what happens if an unidentified aircraft buzzes the White House. It is their job to identify unidentified and potential threats, which by defintion are UFOs, until identified.

I would also argue that there are experts in the subject of UFOs. Hynek is the easiest example of that to cite. For I think about twenty years, he was the lead scientist for the government's Project Bluebook.

Also, there are plenty of people like Hynek and other experts who never claimed to have seen a UFO. Consider for example that many if not most so-called UFO debunkers are themselves crackpots. They know very little about the subject and go after only the obvious.

 

[nismaratwork]

Your point is completely out of context, hence false.

I said:


Also, there are plenty of people like Hynek and other experts who never claimed to have seen a UFO. Consider for example that many if not most so-called UFO debunkers are themselves crackpots. They know very little about the subject and go after only the obvious.

Well said, and why you don't have UFO expert witnesses in court... well, and other reasons . YOU could make one by combining experts with a particular RADAR system, aero-space engineer, psychologist, intelligence officials... and so forth. In court, your expertise is necessarily limited to a particular field or even a single system with that field. The veracity of their claims, pro or con, would then be challenged, and a jury would consider the validity of the evidence and the interpretations offered. It is a pity that crackpots on both sides of such issues so rarely bother with that kind of standard.

 

[pallidin]

Thanks, nis.
Not sure I want to be called for another jury selection after my experience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well said, and why you don't have UFO expert witnesses in court... well, and other reasons . YOU could make one by combining experts with a particular RADAR system, aero-space engineer, psychologist, intelligence officials... and so forth. In court, your expertise is necessarily limited to a particular field or even a single system with that field. The veracity of their claims, pro or con, would then be challenged, and a jury would consider the validity of the evidence and the interpretations offered. It is a pity that crackpots on both sides of such issues so rarely bother with that kind of standard.

... the difference between a UFO expert, and an ET expert. One may have nothing to do with the other, assuming that the latter even exists.

I am all but positive that the designation "UFO" has its origins as a military term. I will try to dig up a reference. I know Ruppelt [USAF, Project Bluebook] states this in his book. He started using the expression "flying saucer" to distinguish between generic UFOs, and the reports of saucer-like objects.

 

[mugaliens]

Yes, I think your right. I stand by my "not necessarily" comment to the judge for the reasons you stated. Thanks.

Pallidin, I'm with you, and my opinion on this matter has to do with personal experience, wherein, for $5,000 I hired one such "expert witness" to examine the facts of a case. Although he came both "highly recommended" by my attorney, and as it turns out "highly respected" by the courts in which he'd been giving his testimony for decades, the conclusions he came up with were about 20% on target, about 40% on the dartboard, and about 40% totally out to lunch.

And by "totally out to lunch" I don't mean off the dartboard - I mean totally whacko, having absolutely nothing to do with reality, much less the case at hand. My first thought was that he mixed up notes from cases, but I couldn't get anywhere with him or my attorney, so, like a stupe, I hired a second opinion for "just $2,000."

As it turns out, for "just $2,000," the second merely reviewed the notes of the first and concurred with the first.

So, $7,000 poorer, I finally realized something: It's a "profession." They're not in the game to find out what's really going on and report it squarely. They're in it for the money. Their focus, their duty, is to report their findings in a matter believable to the judge, so that in future matters the judge will continue to find them reputable as an expert witness.

Their reputation before the courts is the source of their continued livlihood, not their ability to ascertain precisely what happened and did not happen.

Sheesh! (insert forehead slap, here).

Still, somewhat unbelieving, I ran it through two lawyer friends of mine, one a prosecutor who'd served in many different capacities throughout the US legal system and both confirmed it. One even said, "and how do you think that (the expert witness position) differs from what I do?"

Ok, now I've got it. Few of the people in the justice system are really out for justice, until/if/when their financial futures are secure (such as the Supreme Court) and then, only if they sever all emotional ties with their own previously-held notions or conceptions of what's right and wrong, and resolve themselves to the sole administration of justice commensurate with the laws of our land.

It is for this very reason all US Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, will continue to be paid after they retire, and must be approved by committee - to ensure their personal beliefs will NOT affect their judgements.

It's not that those who work in the justice system are bad - most are actually trying hard to do the right thing. It's just that the way things are set up in our system of justice, the natural tendency is to relax one's integrity in favor of winning cases, which means favor with the judge, and that means sacrificing a few aspects of one's client's better interests because when the client walks, the lawyer (or the expert witness) must still go before the judge who makes the decisions next week, and very few judges are willing to give credence to someone whom, for whatever reason (even if its their own prejudices) they don't trust. And despite the cute little blind woman carrying the scales, judges carry a lot of prejudice into their jobs. Perhaps not as much as the rest of us, but they're as apt to throw something out "because I think you're a liar" as much as because of any evidence, even when evidence to the contrary should compel them to consider the evidence! But they refuse, because they've made their judgement, and "That's that - if you don't agree, take it to the next level."

Now that you have a little more insight into what's really going on in our justice system behind the scenes, folks, let's carry on with this ensightful conversation. Please keep in mind that while most do try to do the right thing, we're all subject to various preconceptions which keep us from attaining perfection.

Still, though many fish swim here, these remain shark-infested waters.

 

[mugaliens]

So - to rally this around to the topic at hand:

1. Do Expert Witnesses really and truly try to represent the facts as they see them, without compromise?

I would submit to you that this is how they sell themselves to their clients who hire them (the courts don't hire them - one side or the other does).

2. Do Expert Witnesses fudge the facts in order to remain within the good graces of the court, or at least report only those conclusions with which the judge is more likely to agree?

I would submit to you that in my experience, that's precisely what they do, as their ongoing reputation in the courts directly affects their future to continue to perform successfully in the courts (no one hires expert witnesses whose testimony is repeatedly discounted by a judge or judges).

3. Is the system corrupted?

I would submit to you that while the people within the system are themselves (mostly) not corrupt, the system itself is indeed falling short of the measure of justice. However, I would also remind you that the system established itself, like all human endeavors, upon a need, i.e. "you need my services and here's why, now here's what I can do for you, here's what I've done for you, and here's you bill - please pay."

More comments, please.