Redfern Out, Kimball In - 8 October 2017

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Sorry if this already got covered off in other comments but Amen to Paul Kimball on calling out the 'I know what I saw" documentary title

It's one that has always frustrated me.

A better title would be: I think I saw something, I think I still remember it accurately and it was nothing I can identify from my life experience so far

Another opportunity for me to plug a series by Dr David eagleman on the brain and how it works. A must for anyone who builds their UFO paradigm on the validity of anecdotes and human testimony

 

[Han]

Do I get a crown and a scepter for my role as 'Arbiter of Conversational Value'??

At least I have one

 

[Walter Bosley]

 

[Paul Kimball]

A better title would be: I think I saw something, I think I still remember it accurately and it was nothing I can identify from my life experience so far

That's harder to sell to the intended audience.

However, it pretty much summarizes my approach to the paranormal, including my own experiences.

 

[Randall]

Sorry if this already got covered off in other comments but Amen to Paul Kimball on calling out the 'I know what I saw" documentary title

It's one that has always frustrated me.

A better title would be: I think I saw something, I think I still remember it accurately and it was nothing I can identify from my life experience so far

Another opportunity for me to plug a series by Dr David eagleman on the brain and how it works. A must for anyone who builds their UFO paradigm on the validity of anecdotes and human testimony

I appreciate the point behind what you're saying, but the title doesn't bother me. It seems to bother Kimball because he's had negative confrontations with the director and perhaps that led him to front-load the title with his assumption that the witness has drawn some interpretive conclusion, when that may not be the case at all. It may be the case that the witness is simply describing what they saw e.g. "It was very large and had 3 lights." or "The stars disappeared and reappeared as it moved making it seem like a solid object." In fact, a lot of the descriptions in the film are just like that.

So to me, from a more neutral perspective, the title simply puts value in the eye-witness, which is something I think is very important ( provided that it's not unduly exaggerated ). On the other hand, Kimball's criticism prejudicially diminishes the value of the witness, which I don't think is fair to them. It's not their fault Fox acted out with Kimball. Their value should be considered separate from Fox and Kimball's conflict, and if anyone should know, Paul should know that a witness shouldn't be approached with a front-loaded prejudicial attitude.

Lastly, it should be pointed out that while degenerating into violence solves nothing and may even be illegal, there are few cases where someone becomes that upset over absolutely nothing. There's usually some sort of antagonizing or provocation, and given some of the exchanges I've had here with Kimball, I can see how someone less resilient than me might have difficulty containing themselves. That's no excuse, but I don't think we've heard what Fox's side of the story is either.

 

[Jimi]

A better title would be: I think I saw something, I think I still remember it accurately and it was nothing I can identify from my life experience so far

To me the title ‘I know what I saw’ can be interpreted to mean just what you have stated as better title Mr Meeting Planner. ‘I know I saw something very unusual’ - not precluding possibility that there is a prosaic or human explanation.

That said I think the documentary had some weak areas and less said about Chasing UFO’s the better. Indeed I think Mr Kimball has had the definitive word on it!

Also appalled Fox abused you in that manner Paul. Wouldn’t have thought him to have that in him, just goes to show you never can tell these things sometimes.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

It may be the case that the witness is simply describing what they saw e.g. "It was very large and had 3 lights." or "The stars disappeared and reappeared as it moved making it seem like a solid object."

Then call it "I am describing what I saw". By saying I "know" what I saw you are saying empirically it was very large or had 3 lights. You are leaving no room for misinterpretation from the observer.

Again, watch the series called 'the brain' by Dr David Eagleman. Nothing to do with UFO' s but he shows how our brains:

- Process sensory data and how open it is to misinterpretation

- Use assumptions to quickly fill in blanks in sensory information to help us make quicker decisions (e.g. back When we were animal prey you had to make life or death decisions before you had a full sensory suite of input, so our brains are tuned to try to fill in the blanks that feel completely real)

- how memory is maleable including how false memories feel as real as actual events to the person recalling them

There are more but once you watch this series it will impact your paradigm. After it you see how poor a scientific instrument the human brain really is in advancing scientific study of Aerial phenomena.

 

[Randall]

Then call it "I am describing what I saw". By saying I "know" what I saw you are saying empirically it was very large or had 3 lights. You are leaving no room for misinterpretation from the observer.
Again, watch the series called 'the brain' by Dr David Eagleman. Nothing to do with UFO' s but he shows how our brains:
- Process sensory data and how open it is to misinterpretation
- Use assumptions to quickly fill in blanks in sensory information to help us make quicker decisions (e.g. back When we were animal prey you had to make life or death decisions before you had a full sensory suite of input, so our brains are tuned to try to fill in the blanks that feel completely real)
- how memory is maleable including how false memories feel as real as actual events to the person recalling them
There are more but once you watch this series it will impact your paradigm. After it you see how poor a scientific instrument the human brain really is in advancing scientific study of Aerial phenomena.

I've seen that video and others and I've compared the arguments for and against eye-witness accounts and we've already been through this a number of times in different threads on this forum, and I still don't have a problem with the title. Like I said, I appreciate the spirit of your point. I imagine you can probably also appreciate the spirit of mine.

I know I saw some kind of luminous object that moved as if intelligently controlled and was able to perform unlike anything I know of that has been made by man, or for that matter could reasonably be assumed to have been made by man then ( or now ). I know that's what I saw. What the object was exactly can only be described as alien, which means, I don't know exactly what it was other than it couldn't be reasonably explained as mundane.

Many skeptics have tried to maintain what I saw could have been almost anything. But me being the one to have seen it knows differently, and who the hell are they to tell me ( or anyone else ) that an eye-witness didn't see what they know they saw, when it's described with reasonable objectivity? Quite frankly, it's presumptuous and rude.

So let's settle this. A witness can know what they saw and still be mistaken about the interpretation. Fine. But that's not what the title suggests because the title isn't, "I know what the object I saw was." It's simply, "I Know What I Saw". and that's perfectly reasonable.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

I know I saw some kind of luminous object that moved as if intelligently controlled

No, you don't. You have a memory of an event. And your recall of that event is being interepretted as an object, that has lumination etc.

You could have a corrupt memory of that event that feels absolutely like the real event to you. Your sensory interpretation of that event at the time could also have been off and you may have experienced something which did not match the real world event.

So, no, you don't know you saw a luminous object.

Again, if your placing your belief on data derived from the machine between your ears, its good to know some more about how that machine works and it's limitations in achieving the goal and where it may produce unreliable results.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

who the hell are they to tell me ( or anyone else ) that an eye-witness didn't see what they know they saw,

They are not calling you a liar if they do this, they are just calling out the inherent unreliability of a brain to accurately interpret and recall events.

Don't take it personally, it's not attack on you. It's a criticism of the data recording and recall device given to us by nature.

Two people can witness the same event and both can say they "know" what they saw and have that knowing feeling from their memory but yet can describe two different recalls.

Let go of that notion that it's my experience and nobody can know it but me premise, because that is not what the argument is about

 

[marduk]

No, you don't. You have a memory of an event. And your recall of that event is being interepretted as an object, that has lumination etc.

You could have a corrupt memory of that event that feels absolutely like the real event to you. Your sensory interpretation of that event at the time could also have been off and you may have experienced something which did not match the real world event.

So, no, you don't know you saw a luminous object.

Again, if your placing your belief on data derived from the machine between your ears, its good to know some more about how that machine works and it's limitations in achieving the goal and where it may produce unreliable results.

Ah, that’s a load.

If you’re going to go down that rabbit hole, it’s best to remind yourself that reality is that which doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.

When I stopped believing in this stuff, it came back.

 

[Randall]

No, you don't. You have a memory of an event. And your recall of that event is being interepretted as an object, that has lumination etc. You could have a corrupt memory of that event that feels absolutely like the real event to you.

So what? You're still not getting it. Whatever the memory is of what someone sees is still what they saw because seeing is a perceptual phenomenon unique to the mind of the experiencer. As I said. The title isn't "I know what the object I saw was." It's simply, "I Know What I Saw". Like Kimball, you're front-loading the title to make it mean, "I know what the object I saw was" and that gives you and Kimball the excuse you need to validate your criticism of the witness.

Your sensory interpretation of that event at the time could also have been off and you may have experienced something which did not match the real world event.

Again. So what?, Seeing is a perceptual phenomenon unique to the mind of experiencer, and again, the title isn't "I know what the object I saw was." It's simply, "I Know What I Saw".

no, you don't know you saw a luminous object.

Yes in fact I do. You certainly have no way to prove otherwise, and to make the assumption that I don't know what I saw based only on some documentary is very presumptuous.

Again, if your placing your belief on data derived from the machine between your ears ...

It's the machine between your ears that allows us to know anything at all. If you remove that from the equation, nobody knows anything.

They are not calling you a liar if they do this, they are just calling out the inherent unreliability of a brain to accurately interpret and recall events.

That's fine. I'm OK with that. But reliability is also a relative term. Most of the time human perception and intellect is very reliable. I can still get to the home I was born in nearly 60 years ago and haven't lived in for decades without a map. It sounds mundane, but when you think about it, that sort of recall and the ability to navigate and recognize, is astounding, and that's just my lousy memory. Other people's are better I'm sure.

Don't take it personally, it's not attack on you. It's a criticism of the data recording and recall device given to us by nature.

That, "data recording and recall device given to us by nature" is bloody well amazing and there's still no supercomputer capable of doing everything it does.

Two people can witness the same event and both can say they "know" what they saw and have that knowing feeling from their memory but yet can describe two different recalls.

True. But again the title isn't, "I know what the object I saw was." It's simply, "I know what I saw."

Let go of that notion that it's my experience and nobody can know it but me premise, because that is not what the argument is about

It's exactly what it's about.

... its good to know some more about how that machine works and it's limitations in achieving the goal and where it may produce unreliable results.

Yes. As I've already said. I'm aware of those arguments. Perhaps you should try looking at the flip-side rather than the down side and put it into perspective using real-life context while comparing it to the alternatives.

If you're fair-minded about it you'll conclude that devices that are separate from humans are far from perfect. They have flaws, they break, they malfunction, their memory fails, they have artifacts, their power supplies die, and none are yet as intelligent as humans at recognizing those flaws within themselves. In contrast, with normal humans, it takes very specific situations that take advantage of particular weaknesses in human perception, and the examples seen in most of the documentaries like the one you mention are constructed to do just that rather than reflect examples of real-life situations.

So contrary to all the skeptical hype, humans, although imperfect, are amazing in their ability to detect and intelligently analyze situations in real-time. The problem we have with transient phenomena and human perception alone is verifiability. Even if there are no reasons to indicate that a witness didn't see what they claim to have seen doesn't mean they aren't making the whole thing up. So at some point we have to decide how reasonable it is to believe their story.

I don't actually expect anyone to believe mine. But I also find it personally impossible to think everyone else is lying. So I refuse to believe that out of this whole phenomenon, I'm the only one who's telling the truth. Which means there has to be other true stories out there even if I can't tell which ones they are with absolute certainty.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

It's funny how you can tell people about your first kiss, or the car crash you were in, or about the birth of your child - and nobody ever thinks "he just believes it happened that way - it could've happened very differently, or not at all." But when you describe something uncommon like a sighting, it's suddenly all about the unreliability of perception and memory.

I'm convinced that this is 100% pure human conceit. Lots of people, possibly most people, are so arrogant that the very notion that some people have experienced something beyond their own experience, is intolerable to them. Everyone wants to believe that their data set is bigger and better than everyone else's. So a rare/privileged experience just annoys the people who haven't experienced it for themselves.

Notably, the people who have had a very unusual experience, know what it's like to be attacked and belittled by cynics, simply for expressing what happened to them. But it's totally worth the push back from miserable, small-minded people. Because once you see how you're treated for relaying your story clearly and honestly, you can read about other people who have also had anomalous experiences - and you end up finding all kinds of fascinating new information that opens your view of life's vast range of possibilities.

 

[Randall]

It's funny how you can tell people about your first kiss, or the car crash you were in, or about the birth of your child - and nobody ever thinks "he just believes it happened that way - it could've happened very differently, or not at all." But when you describe something uncommon like a sighting, it's suddenly all about the unreliability of perception and memory.

I'm convinced that this is 100% pure human conceit. Lots of people, possibly most people, are so arrogant that the very notion that some people have experienced something beyond their own experience, is intolerable to them. Everyone wants to believe that their data set is bigger and better than everyone else's. So a rare/privileged experience just annoys the people who haven't experienced it for themselves.

Notably, the people who have had a very unusual experience, know what it's like to be attacked and belittled by cynics, simply for expressing what happened to them. But it's totally worth the push back from miserable, small-minded people. Because once you see how you're treated for relaying your story clearly and honestly, you can read about other people who have also had anomalous experiences - and you end up finding all kinds of fascinating new information that opens your view of life's vast range of possibilities.

Well put. But to be fair, I did say that I absolutely appreciate the point @Greers Meeting Planner makes too. There just needed to be a fair-minded balance, and as all too often happens, it was missing. Besides that. What can I say? I'm an advocate for those who have had genuine UFO experiences. Genuine experiencers are like an extended family to me in a sort of abstract way, and I don't like skeptical tactics that diminish their worth. I know that's hard to explain and sometimes I wonder if any other firsthand witnesses have similar feelings.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Actually, the first kiss analogy proves the point... just not the one you were trying to make. Sure, you know you kissed her, just as you know you saw something. But people often romanticize that first kiss, and remember it as something more special than it was. Perception and memory are malleable, subjective things. Going even further, while you might think you know what the other person was thinking when you kissed her, you don't. You can say, "I know what she felt" until you're blue in the face, but that's your perception, not hers. We have a great propensity to see or feel what we want to see or feel.

Or take your car accident example. I was in a serious one years ago. There were two of us in the car (we hit a tree). Both of us remembered different things about it, in different ways, even at the time of the accident. That's natural. When I worked with the RCMP I dealt with lots of witnesses who did the same thing, often creating conflicting narratives of the same incident. We're not computers.

I'm not saying you didn't see space aliens. I'm just saying that there's no way you can say for sure that you did. There's a difference between those two positions.

 

[Jimi]

Pertinent to this discussion, I found this talk very interesting:

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

...

Never have I said that I “saw space aliens” [and it’s not lost on anyone that the term “space aliens” is the modern equivalent of “little green men” – both are ugly and empty, purely rhetorical character attacks]. I just described what I saw and concluded that the hypothesis which best fits the available data is, in my carefully considered estimation, the ETH. But if someone shows me something like official 16mm footage from 1975 of a classified Air Force research experiment showing a device which can perform the astonishing maneuvers that I saw that day, then I’ll be convinced that I saw a military craft with what certainly appears to be a supremely sophisticated field propulsion system at work.

But it’s been forty years, and we still haven’t seen anything move even remotely like that. So that explanation strains credulity as much, if not more than, the ETH.

 

[Walter Bosley]

"I'm convinced that this is 100% pure human conceit. Lots of people, possibly most people, are so arrogant that the very notion that some people have experienced something beyond their own experience, is intolerable to them. Everyone wants to believe that their data set is bigger and better than everyone else's. So a rare/privileged experience just annoys the people who haven't experienced it for themselves."

That's the truth. A long time best friend of mine is this way, as is one of my sisters.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Pertinent to this discussion, I found this talk very interesting:

Great video, and the relevant point being that our brain does not see or sense anything itself, but sits inside a bony shell and makes a best guess on what is happening outside from the electrical signals it receives.

Once you understand this, the position of "I know what I saw" becomes untenable

 

[Azz7092]

Memory really does distort over time i can relate in some ways with some dramatic "firefights" in Afghanistan, i remember one Contact where we were ambushed by Taliban with RPGS we had a Spectre Gunship above us providing over watch and cover we took Five casualties in the opening minutes and Spectre provided our cover (Danger Close) and we exfiled after a lengthy fire fight.

and my couple of my Oppos remember it differently and that goes for most of the experiences gained in that theatre.
even in my younger years seen objects in the sky up in Inverness Scotland my friends remember the objects differently.

"Perception" is definitely the key in some cases.