D
Deleted member 16321
Guest
Eyewitness variance in mass UFO/UAP sightings
With all the talk recently of the reliability of eyewitnesses and the potential fallibility of highly trained observers (such as this interesting anecdote from astronaut Mark Kelly describing how six of his fellow crew simultaneously saw the same illusion) I had an idea that we could make a crowdsourced Content Analysis, of eyewitness statements.
The primary aim being to create a quick reference guide to "who said what, where, and, when" in the pursuit of highlighting glaring inconsistencies and bunk.
To get the ball rolling I’ve looked at two recent UFO/UAP reports; the 2007 Alderney and 2006 Chicago O’Hare sightings, both of which have a well documented media footprint, lengthy technical reports, and many witness interviews to draw quotes from.
I’ve started a Google Sheet document here:
Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sTW-kCaSXcw7aoI_XRt1n-JcjVvbdSwS08lwV_0hHFA/edit?usp=sharing
If you’d like to be an editor of the document please let me know.
This is not supposed to be an exhaustive list of variances in eyewitness accounts, rather an easily readable dataset of some of the most interesting recent mass - where “mass” means involving more than one eyewitness - UFO/UAP sightings, with the intention of showing what kind of variance in eyewitness accounts occur.
Only original source quotes and quoted remarks as they appear in others work should be used as they relate to an individual observer, whether that observer is identified or not. Second hand “person A said that person B said they saw xyz..” is not acceptable nor is a synthesis type statement such as “They said the craft, estimated by different accounts to be 6 feet to 24 feet in diameter”.
Importantly the task here is not supposed to be a probing of interviewer biases, methodology or recording practices in any case, nor does it assess the truth-value of any piece of data. (I think that is addressed adequately elsewhere). It is simply a list of the data that have been entered into evidence and that are used to support extraordinary claims and/or conclusions.
A secondary aim in creating this data set is to show variances in eyewitness accounts as they are retold across different media settings. For example what observations are recorded in official reports, versus what is said in a television news interview, or chat show segment, or a podcast conversation or on social media.
A tertiary aim could be to broaden this database to include instances of expanding descriptive language:
· from the original eyewitness themselves sometime after the event
· from those commenting second-hand on original eyewitness accounts
· in news headlines
· in social media
This may help precisely measure and track over time any changes to the most commonly accepted understanding of an event/sighting.
Questions
1. Is this the best method to reach the above aims?
2. Do we need a set of control data? For example data on verified events with multiple eyewitnesses whose accounts show variance?
3. Please suggest any improvements that can be made to the presentation, and/or formatting. i.e. is there a better more easily readable way of separating video timecodes and page numbers from the data in each field?
Finally, this content analysis need not be limited to UFO/UAP encounters.
With all the talk recently of the reliability of eyewitnesses and the potential fallibility of highly trained observers (such as this interesting anecdote from astronaut Mark Kelly describing how six of his fellow crew simultaneously saw the same illusion) I had an idea that we could make a crowdsourced Content Analysis, of eyewitness statements.
The primary aim being to create a quick reference guide to "who said what, where, and, when" in the pursuit of highlighting glaring inconsistencies and bunk.
To get the ball rolling I’ve looked at two recent UFO/UAP reports; the 2007 Alderney and 2006 Chicago O’Hare sightings, both of which have a well documented media footprint, lengthy technical reports, and many witness interviews to draw quotes from.
I’ve started a Google Sheet document here:
Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sTW-kCaSXcw7aoI_XRt1n-JcjVvbdSwS08lwV_0hHFA/edit?usp=sharing
If you’d like to be an editor of the document please let me know.
This is not supposed to be an exhaustive list of variances in eyewitness accounts, rather an easily readable dataset of some of the most interesting recent mass - where “mass” means involving more than one eyewitness - UFO/UAP sightings, with the intention of showing what kind of variance in eyewitness accounts occur.
Only original source quotes and quoted remarks as they appear in others work should be used as they relate to an individual observer, whether that observer is identified or not. Second hand “person A said that person B said they saw xyz..” is not acceptable nor is a synthesis type statement such as “They said the craft, estimated by different accounts to be 6 feet to 24 feet in diameter”.
Importantly the task here is not supposed to be a probing of interviewer biases, methodology or recording practices in any case, nor does it assess the truth-value of any piece of data. (I think that is addressed adequately elsewhere). It is simply a list of the data that have been entered into evidence and that are used to support extraordinary claims and/or conclusions.
A secondary aim in creating this data set is to show variances in eyewitness accounts as they are retold across different media settings. For example what observations are recorded in official reports, versus what is said in a television news interview, or chat show segment, or a podcast conversation or on social media.
A tertiary aim could be to broaden this database to include instances of expanding descriptive language:
· from the original eyewitness themselves sometime after the event
· from those commenting second-hand on original eyewitness accounts
· in news headlines
· in social media
This may help precisely measure and track over time any changes to the most commonly accepted understanding of an event/sighting.
Questions
1. Is this the best method to reach the above aims?
2. Do we need a set of control data? For example data on verified events with multiple eyewitnesses whose accounts show variance?
3. Please suggest any improvements that can be made to the presentation, and/or formatting. i.e. is there a better more easily readable way of separating video timecodes and page numbers from the data in each field?
Finally, this content analysis need not be limited to UFO/UAP encounters.
