French National Assembly to host UAP seminar with true believers

[Todd Feinman]

Unfortunately, you still can't do a lot even with reliable witness testimony and corroboration, or triangulation with those cases. Especially if the contact was fleeting.
I got a good look at what I saw and intentionally tried to focus on it so I could remember it well. If you can paint a portrait, you bet you are a good observer.

Paid off, because when I later discovered corroborating sightings, their description of the objects was almost verbatim, especially with regards to the quality of the light from the objects. And parallax be damned; I watched a capsule-shaped object fly off into space in front of me. We don't have anything like it, I'm sure.

But what are you going to do with that information? You can't prove that it was "aliens" just anomalous. That is the situation with just using hard science to understand cases. What if it is far more intelligent than you are? Then you're screwed.

I do know of a former scientist who claims to have been burned by one at close range and was later interviewed by a group from the military or government who paid her a visit. Might be dead now, had cancer. Anyway, she had visible damage and skin growths later. That's something you could analyze.

 

[JMartJr]

We have good photos, the fact that you are stating that we have none makes me think you already categorized that none exists, and as I'm not here to convince you, I'll not enter a debate on cases with photographic proof, and I'll let you to your opinion that none is good.

What might be useful would be for you to select what you consider the single best example of such a picture and start a thread for it. You would not need to enter discussion/debate there unless you wanted to, but it would be useful for us to know what you are referring to. It might also be useful to you and to us to see what folks here make of it.

For my part, I know of no such good photographic evidence. I know of a number of "too far away or blurry to tell what it is" photos and videos, and a number of what I am satisfied are hoaxes. If you know of such photos and/or videos, I'd be thrilled to know about them. I'd be very pleased and excited to know that we are not alone in the Universe, and are being visited by somebody else. I just see no evidence to support that. It would be the most wonderful event in my lifetime if such evidence could be supplied. So I sincerely hope you or somebody, someday, will provide such evidence.

 

[Andreas]

This is correct, but if I look at the sky and see a plane, and recognize it as such, by its shape, movement, color, noise, light pattern, whatever.
What are the chances that what I'm seeing is actually a blimp?

When you say you see a plane and "recognize it as such," that's already an interpretation of what you're seeing. Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're wrong. Without independent corroborating evidence, it's impossible to know. We know for a fact that people sometimes report seeing giant, mysterious drones hovering directly overhead. They describe the sound, shape, and movements in great detail. They're honest, completely convinced, and willing to give interviews on the evening news. But when we later see video footage of the object, it often turns out to be nothing more than a distant airliner on approach, with its landing lights on, miles away.

I've studied countless UFO cases in which witnesses described intricate details of alien craft, extraordinary maneuvers, and even beings looking out through windows. Yet many of these cases have ultimately been explained by entirely mundane objects such as commercial blimps, airplanes, or even Venus. In other words, we know that honest witnesses make mistakes, and we know that even detailed, sincere testimony can be completely wrong. That's why I don't regard the testimony of a single witness, no matter how sincere or detailed, as evidence that an extraordinary event actually occurred.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

When you say you see a plane and "recognize it as such," that's already an interpretation of what you're seeing. Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're wrong. Without independent corroborating evidence, it's impossible to know. We know for a fact that people sometimes report seeing giant, mysterious drones hovering directly overhead. They describe the sound, shape, and movements in great detail. They're honest, completely convinced, and willing to give interviews on the evening news. But when we later see video footage of the object, it often turns out to be nothing more than a distant airliner on approach, with its landing lights on, miles away.

I've studied countless UFO cases in which witnesses described intricate details of alien craft, extraordinary maneuvers, and even beings looking out through windows. Yet many of these cases have ultimately been explained by entirely mundane objects such as commercial blimps, airplanes, or even Venus. In other words, we know that honest witnesses make mistakes, and we know that even detailed, sincere testimony can be completely wrong. That's why I don't regard the testimony of a single witness, no matter how sincere or detailed, as evidence that an extraordinary event actually occurred.

That's why multiple witness UFO sightings can be actually misidentification, expectation, hysteria, hoaxes, but still have (in my opinion) to be considered at least different from the average Joe seeing a bright object in the sky and screaming "aliens".
There are different kinds of witnesses and witness reports.
I think AARO is not wrong when its directors talk about anomalous or hard cases, but then you have security secrecy and there's no data to actually work on.
We've been through 3 releases of the Pentagon and while we cannot identify every single object in those videos, they are grainy and fuzzy dots.
I really dislike the presidential narrative of "letting people make up their own mind personally" on the subject, and "transparency".
That's really bad, here a fuzzy dot, think it's a bird or an alien? Yeah, we know how things like this turns out, everybody sees whatever they want in those files and the people who actually do the analysis on the available data do not see any reason to conclude that there is anything really extraordinary there.

@Baptiste Fr, I think many people here as well as anywhere else are tired of great claims always without any hard data to work on.
Can you really blame the skeptics that much?