How reliable is an Expert Witness?

[russ_watters]

Ironcially: A pilot reports a strange light, so the report is dismissed as nonsense because a strange light isn't suggestive of ET. So what? That doesn't make the report uninteresting. And the pilot never said it was ET, the skeptics did; or they treat it as an ET report, which is or course, nonsense, so they dismiss it. This is the sort of circular logic that drives me nuts!

What about when the light chases the plane? Ah, that would suggest it was ET, and ET isn't here, so the report is uninteresting.

I saw none of that logic in the incident in question. My recolection of the incident was that the incident was immediately characterized by an official in the Mexican Air Force as conclusive proof of ET*. This is why I see it as disingenuous to continuously harp on the fact that "UFO" and "ETUFO" are two different things. Everyone knows this, but since only "ETUFO" piques most people's interest, those are the cases that make the news. In this case (and in most, in my estimation), the report wasn't dismissed, but rather it was picked-up and reported by the media precisely because of the ET implications.

*Here's a news story with quotes from the pilots that the objects seemed to know they were being followed, that they (the pilots) were afraid and that "we are not alone": http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20040511-1438-mexico-military-ufos.html

Here's a compliation of a couple that say, essentially, the Mexican DOD gave the video to a Mexican UFOologist who then made the claim that this was alien spacecraft : http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20040511-1438-mexico-military-ufos.html

So it is incorrect for you to say the incident was first characterized as ET by skeptics.

 

[stevenb]

The moment something gets labeled "UFO", most serious people stop paying attention. That, imo, is terribly unfortunate.

I think this is a very interesting comment. You know, if we take this out of the context of a UFO discussion, which tends to bias people heavily one way of the other, this is very relevant to scientists. Wouldn't you say that many Nobel Laureates, and even many more "prize-less" innovators, were people that paid attention to something that was unidentified?

 

[russ_watters]

Of course you ignore the other case in point located right above your post.

I don't think your post was there while I was typing mine. In either case, the Iranian UFO sighting is not an example of the same issue. The most compelling part about the Iranian incident is the radar contact, not the visual sighting.

Again, in terms of military encounters, one job of the USAF [and non-US air forces, of course] is to identify UFOs. That makes them experts.

That makes (or made) some of them experts. Analysis of raw data is likely a dying skill in the military these days due to the fact that computers are taking over that role.

The point of the example was an illustration that though pilots are often assumed to be "expert witnesses" at least in a colloquial sense, they are mostly just eyewitnesses and while the factual quality of their reports is often good (they are better than average for eyewitnesses), the quality of the conclusions they draw is highly variable.

The problem with the Mexican UFO incident is the very common lack of ability to judge distance for a point source of light without external reference. Pilots all know about this problem, but pilots are human and our brains play tricks on us. So while we giggle when laypeople mistake Venus for a UFO ( http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/03/15/erie-ufo-sounds-familiar-to-me/ ), we should still not be surprised when pilots make similar mistakes.

 

[CEL]

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

For a good theory, explaining the phenomenon, see:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4021

 

[mugaliens]

3.) Yes, for the reasons that you stated. It is often said, and truly I think, that it isn't a great system, it's just better than most available.

I do agree its a decent system. I'm inclined to lean more towards state-sponsored experts who are not hired by either side in a case, but who are trained to be objective and discerning.

Naturally, this approach wouldn't work for cases where it's the state against an individual!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For a good theory, explaining the phenomenon, see:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4021

Yes, there are a number of theories. In fact I started a thread about this five years ago.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60676

The point is that no one has EVER seen them moving, but we've known about them for a century. Transient and seemingly random phenomena can be all but impossible catch in the act.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, there are a number of theories. In fact I started a thread about this five years ago.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60676

The point is that no one has EVER seen them moving, but we've known about them for a century. Transient and seemingly random phenomena can be all but impossible catch in the act.

So true; ball lightning is another great example of a well accepted phenomenon/na which is difficult to replicate or capture.