Although we like to think that our memory operates like recording equipment, that is not actually the case. The molecular mechanisms underlying the induction and maintenance of memory are very dynamic and comprise distinct phases covering a time window from seconds to even a lifetime.[51] In fact research has revealed that our memories are constructed. People can construct their memories when they encode them and/or when they recall them. To illustrate consider a classic study conducted by Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer (1974) [52] in which people were instructed to watch a film of a traffic accident and then asked about what they saw. The researchers found that, those people who were asked, “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” gave higher estimates than those who were asked, “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” Furthermore, when asked a week later whether they have seen broken glass in the film, those who had been asked the question with smashed were twice more likely to report that they have seen broken glass than those who had been asked the question with hit. There was no broken glass depicted in the film. Thus, the wording of the questions distorted viewers’ memories of the event. Importantly, the wording of the question led people to construct different memories of the event – those who were asked the question with smashed recalled a more serious car accident than they had actually seen. The findings of this experiment were replicated around the world and researchers consistently demonstrated that when people were provided with misleading information they tended to misremember, a phenomenon known as the misinformation effect.[53]
Interestingly, research has revealed that asking individuals to repeatedly imagine actions that they have never performed or events that they have never experienced could result in false memories. For instance, Goff and Roediger [54] (1998) asked participants to imagine that they performed an act (e.g., break a toothpick) and then later asked them whether they had done such a thing. Findings revealed that those participants who repeatedly imagined performing such an act were more likely to think that they had actually performed that act during the first session of the experiment. Similarly, Garry and her colleagues (1996) [55] asked college students to report how certain they were that they experienced a number of events as children (e.g., broke a window with their hand) and then two weeks later asked them to imagine four of those events. The researchers found that one-fourth of the students asked to imagine the four events reported that they had actually experienced such events as children. That is, when asked to imagine the events they were more confident that they experienced the events.
The more I learn about the brain, the less I trust it to perceive and remember things correctly. I recently got a ticket for turning right on red illegally. I could have sworn the red light was a circle, not an arrow, and I didn’t see any of the signs saying “no right turn on red” (apparently, there were three). I was distracted by loud music and a talking passenger. Afterwards, I checked it on google street view and sure enough the three signs were there, and I could see that the red light was indeed an arrow. Even knowing about the flaws in memory and perception, I was still very sure the light was a circle.
Except that the UFO wasn’t reported 40 years later.
Sigh. I didn’t say the UFO was reported 40 years later. I was saying that the retelling of this story over the course of 40 years added in many things that are clearly not there in the original report.
The original report, by the way, was typed up over a month after the incident. And in it there is nothing about a cigar shaped object. There is nothing about a green beam. These elements—and others—never happened and were added in later. Yes, they saw something that they may not have recognized. That does not automatically mean aliens.
I live in a world where the possibility of aliens might exist. You live in a world where you seem to think it is impossible any human being can ever make a mistake, ever have faulty memories or are ever fooled by unusual visual manifestations. And you appear to accept, at face value, any statement anyone makes, no matter how incredible. But enough talk about UFOs, I own the Brooklyn Bridge and need to unload it on the cheap. I’ll accept your PayPal if you want to buy it. Trust me, untruths of any kind never happen. Ever. For any reason. So shall we say ten grand for the Brooklyn Bridge? I do own it.
There are a number of reasons to question the idea that UFOs are alien visitors.
1) Interstellar distances are enormous and while I would love to believe that we might someday develop the technology to cross those distances everything we know about physics says that it most likely will never be possible.
2) If an alien species somehow did find a way to cross the immense void between star systems why would they spend 60 years flitting around our skies, abducting and examining us and not doing anything else. If they really are so advanced that they are just studying us with no interest in contacting us why have they been sloppy and stupid enough to be glimpsed hundreds of times. Why do they fly over populated cities at night with bright lights on or in the middle of the day in broad daylight.
3) Why after 60 years is there no solid evidence of the existence of aliens. Every photo ever taken of a UFO is fuzzy and out of focus despite the ubiquitous presence of cameras and good photographers all over the world. We have amazing photos of virtually every other natural and man made phenomena, even those which are extremely rare, but not a single great photo of a UFO that isnt clearly faked. Why is there no physical evidence of any of the landings or contacts. I’m talking about solid undeniable evidence like biological samples which are clearly of extraterrestrial origin not depressions in the soft ground that supposedly have traces of “unidentifiable alloys” in them.
To be fair, 2 and 3 contradict each other. You can’t say aliens left too much evidence and not enough evidence at the same time.
2 and 3 are not contradictory. #2 refers to the evidence that UFO believers claim to rest their conclusions on. I was being sarcastic. Its not evidence at all.
This is your evidence? Its nothing but a long list of claims from an unknown and therefor unreliable source with no corroboration, documentation, or verification.
For the umpteenth time… extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and this “evidence” is not even close. Everything about these claims is extraordinary. That is not an opinion its a simple definition that you refuse to acknowledge.
Here is the definition of extraordinary since it seems to be eluding you:
EXTRAORDINARY:
1. very unusual, remarkable, or surprising
If you can’t agree that alien visitations would fit that definition then you are one of those people who in a debate won’t admit the sky is blue if it would undermine their position. Its difficult to have ay sort of meaningful discussion when someone takes such an intransigent position.
The discovery of life from another planet would be such an important news development, garnering all sorts of awards if there were to be proof of the existence of alien life. To say ‘it was sent to Washington’ without proof, makes it a preposterous and more than extraordinary claim, just like my claim of sending 200 solid gold bars to Washington for safekeeping last year….
Or perhaps they aren’t coming and going all the way back to their home planet each time. Perhaps they have a base somewhere very close, in this solar system even? The fact is, we don’t know.
So now you’re shoehorning presupposition upon presupposition. You have yet to prove your ‘aliens’ exist. That ol’ ‘extraordinary claims’ thing keeps getting into your way…
Gordon Cooper is either lying or an idiot, and the entire government (especially the Department of Defence) is well known for idiocy and dishonesty. I don’t want to be nasty, but you are showing a lack of critical thinking about this stuff; are you trollling us?
Interesting. I’ve been a pilot for about 30 years. I’ve seen amazing things but not a single alien craft. And none of my pilot buddies have seen a single alien craft. Of course neither did the Iranian pilots.
Once again you present nothing but eye witness testimony but no verifiable physical evidence. In addition when we look at the report itself there are several features that raise suspicion.
1) This is made to look like an official military report with all the dramatic “classified” stamps and scratched out writings but it reads like a bad fake. There are a number of places in the report where the writer makes conclusions which real military reports don’t do. Military reports like this are usually very careful to give just the facts in precise detached detail. This report makes comments like “all systems returned to normal as if the strange craft no longer regarded the aircraft as a threat”
2) There are inconsistencies. They claim that the radar on the ground is unable to pick up the presumed object yet the radar in the F-4 sees it. That makes no sense. Is it invisible to radar or isn’t it?
3) Somehow the weapons systems go offline but none of the other electrical systems in the F-4 do. This kind of stuff makes a fun Star Trek episode but it makes no sense if you understand the science. The weapons systems use the same type of electrical components and principals as the rest of the jets systems. Even if you could interfere with the weapons from a distance you couldnt do it without interfering with al the systems. Its another very extraordinary claim with no extraordinary proof. Someone here has watched one too many scifi shows
Someone here does not know the meaning of “evidence.” Anecdotes from youtube videos and conspiracy theory websites do not qualify as evidence. What you have done, Voyager, is make up your mind then search for evidence to support your conclusion. If you were truly open-minded you would see that the stories you accept as evidence are nothing more than yarns.
This is made to look like an official military report with all the dramatic “classified” stamps and scratched out writings but it reads like a bad fake.
In this respect I especially like the first paragraph. Why did the report not begin with ‘Once upon a time, a pilot…’?
1) This is made to look like an official military report with all the dramatic “classified” stamps and scratched out writings but it reads like a bad fake. There are a number of places in the report where the writer makes conclusions which real military reports don’t do. Military reports like this are usually very careful to give just the facts in precise detached detail. This report makes comments like “all systems returned to normal as if the strange craft no longer regarded the aircraft as a threat”
Are you a military expert? I don’t think you are anywhere near qualified to make this determination. The DIA Form was released by FOIA request and there is absolutely no evidence it is a fake.
2) There are inconsistencies. They claim that the radar on the ground is unable to pick up the presumed object yet the radar in the F-4 sees it. That makes no sense. Is it invisible to radar or isn’t it?
The radar on the ground was out of order due to maintenance. Try reading about a case before throwing your uneducated opinion into the debate.
Even if you could interfere with the weapons from a distance you couldnt do it without interfering with al the systems.
Sorry, I forgot that you know everything in the universe.
You are using YOUR logic to determine that aliens would just land on the white house lawn.
You are using YOUR physics to say that it is nearly impossible for aliens to come here.
You are using YOUR completely ignorant reasoning to claim that they couldn’t only knock out the weapons systems.
Have you ever considered that aliens are a completely different race, and could have completely different physics, logic, science, etc…?
