Phoenix Lights

[Scaramanga]

Yes. But it was based on ignoring a plausible theory and actual evidence, so the premise was false

No....again you miss the point. The issue I referred to is not the evidence but the attitude. Which was one of ' the witnesses cannot have seen XYZ....because XYZ doesn't exist '. The point being that dismissal of some other XYZ is then similarly used in other cases to dismiss what witnesses claim to have seen. It is essentially a straw man approach. Look for the least likely explanation for an event.....dismiss that...and then claim that because that is dismissed the witnesses must all be unreliable, mistaken, etc, etc.

I don't like this 'top down' approach to mysteries. I much prefer...and I think it far more scientific...to do a 'bottom up' approach of asking did the witnesses actually see what they claim, before I even begin to look at explanations. Much as I very much doubt that bigfoot exists, arguing that 'the witness cannot have seen a bigfoot because bigfoot don't exist' is really getting the cart before the horse.

 

[Eburacum]

The best attitude to this sort of case is to assume that the witnesses are all broadly correct in their descriptions. It is their interpretation which is likely to be wrong. In this case, the many witnesses report a wide range of different observations; and this almost certainly rules out a single, large, rigid aircraft of any kind. Explanations which involve a formation of separate elements have much more explanatory power, and we know that there was one such formation in the sky on that night.

 

[JMartJr]

did the witnesses actually see what they claim

That is, was and ever shall be unknowable, in the absence of actual supporting evidence that can be analyzed and measured.

That's why I freakin' HATE "eyewitness based" cases and claims. It's like punching fog, there is ultimately nothing to work with.

 

[Mendel]

No....again you miss the point.

I understand your point. It simply does not address what I wrote, for reasons already detailed.

 

[Mauro]

No....again you miss the point. The issue I referred to is not the evidence but the attitude. Which was one of ' the witnesses cannot have seen XYZ....because XYZ doesn't exist '.

But there's no issue at all: you cannot discount the priors.

1. Would you believe a person telling you he saw a BMW car?
2. Would you believe a person telling you he saw a leprechaun riding a rabbit?

The point being that dismissal of some other XYZ is then similarly used in other cases to dismiss what witnesses claim to have seen. It is essentially a straw man approach.

Every dismissal of some other XYZ adds to the priors against the existence of XYZ: there's nothing strange here, it's just logic. Every black pebble extracted from a bag decreases the probability of extracting a red one for the first time. Nor it has anything to do with a straw man.

 

[John J.]

More common accurate perceptions generate fewer reports. Thus a bias toward belief in a mysterious event.

I've got a sneaking suspicion (which I've made absolutely no effort to research) that misperceptions are far more common than we realise, it's just that most of them are inconsequential or mundane and we don't have any reason to double-check or remember them.
Only high-strangeness or high saliency misperceptions catch our attention, and most times most people realise that they were mistaken.

 

[John J.]

Would you believe a person telling you he saw a BMW car?

Not if he was a leprechaun riding a rabbit.
I'd assume it was a misperception.

 

[deirdre]

Not if he was a leprechaun riding a rabbit.

or me.
i'm notoriously hopeless at IDing cars. Even if i look at the little hood marker, i'll likely call it another car an hour later.

 

[Ann K]

I've got a sneaking suspicion (which I've made absolutely no effort to research) that misperceptions are far more common than we realise, it's just that most of them are inconsequential or mundane and we don't have any reason to double-check or remember them.
Only high-strangeness or high saliency misperceptions catch our attention, and most times most people realise that they were mistaken.

Anecdote: There's a road near me that has a large brown mailbox with a smaller white mailbox beside it, and the strong illusion it gives is that of a Hereford cow about to step out of the shrubbery into the road. I've seen it for years, and know perfectly well what it is (and it's suburbia, not ranchland; there are no cattle in that neighborhood at all), yet the illusion gives me a start every time I drive that way. It's not "strange" to me any more, yet it continues to capture my attention, every single time.

 

[Mendel]

1. Would you believe a person telling you he saw a BMW car?
2. Would you believe a person telling you he saw a leprechaun riding a rabbit?

I wouldn't believe the BMW if it was important. Witnesses in crime cases have been known to even get the color of vehicles wrong, so I'd need more information than that to be certain. I would believe the witness saw a car (or motorcycle).

If I could ascertain that the person who made the second report was sound of mind (not intoxicated or overly fatigued etc.—that is also implied for the other witness) at the times of the observation and the report, then I'd assume they saw something that could be approximately described like that: perhaps a small green-clad jockey riding a horse fitted with oversize costume bunny ears and tail, riding at galop (i.e. in large bounds).

I have no reason to accept either testimony at face value.

 

[Mendel]

then I'd assume they saw something that could be approximately described like that

or that what they saw was not literal, e.g. this 100-year-old postcard.