DeBonkers

Came across an article by 'the UFO Iconoclast(s)', a collective consisting of debunkers. While they do make a point at times and from my perspective also serve a purpose in balancing UFO material, there's no mistake which direction they are taking. On their blog (http://ufocon.blogspot.com/) they put up a new article titled 'UFO Witnesses' and as you might have guessed eyewitnesses who have sightings are basicly downplayed. Here's what the writer of the article says:

"Witnesses are notorious for getting it wrong because witness testimony is fallible in a plethora of ways."

While I don't deny eyewitness testimony can be inconsistent or sometimes even downright false (the person lies), it's far too easy to dismiss all the eyewitness accounts in the modern UFO era. If several people report a UFO sighting there might be (minor) discrepancies, that's human perception, but the essence of the moment is captured by all people. Let me put that in another (visual) context. If 10 people see a UFO in the sky you might get variations in size, light, colour, speed, direction and so forth. What you don't get is that out of those 10 people, 5 people report seeing a pink elefant flapping their ears and flying through the air. If people witness a car accident people report the essence of the moment, a car crash. It's the same with seeing a UFO.
The writer also takes a stance that is rather one-dimensional. If I present him with another scenario, would he still hold on to the same methodology? Lets present a scenario. The person who wrote that article has his car parked on his driveway, he's in the shower. A man walks up to his car on the driveway and steals it, while the thief drives off a neighbour sees the man's face and clothes. A police report is filed and the neighbour gives the perpetrators description. The thief is caught by the police with the help of the neighbours eyewitness testimony. The thief is brought into the court to stand before the judge. Now, would the person who wrote that article step in that court and say; "Judge, you have to dismiss this case because witnesses are notorious for getting it wrong because witness testimony is fallible in a plethora of ways."?
Of course not! That person would sit there happy they caught the thief. He wouldn't object, it would suit his needs.

Eyewitness testimony is a valuable asset in Ufology. It may not be perfect but it provides a wealth of information which considerably helps the study of UFOs. When sightings occur the essence is still there and it wouldn't be prudent to arbitrarily dismiss all eyewitness testimony as fallible and unworthy. That is something you can expect from debunkers, who in my experience often set the standard where it suits them. Thief caught stealing your stuff - convicted with the help of eyewitness testimony? They take it, it suits their needs. UFO sighted by people? Denied! Why? It's simple, . . . it suits their needs.