DeBonkers II

Another item in the skeptical school of thought is the validity of witnesses recalling events that happend decades ago. I saw a program a while back on the Discovery Channel concentrating on the same thing - that memory can be flawed, tainted or basicly enhanced (embellished) by someones mind. I'm not totally opposed to this idea but at the same time I recognise that it's a mighty convenient way of downplaying, disregarding or dismissing eyewitness testimony, such as in the Roswell case where people recalled events from decades ago. One skeptic wrote this in the comment section of a recent article;

Older witnesses who are trying to recall events from 60 years ago could very well be recasting those events within a mental frame of mind that is marred by the natural deterioration of their brains and mental faculties.

I don't deny that a person's mind can deteriorate when reaching old age, however, we must be very careful not to generalise. Some elderly folks still have vivid memories, and recall names and faces from decades ago with great clarity. If you are going to look at someones mental faculties, in this case the elderly, I think it's only fair to do that on an individual basis.
Some skeptics take it even further;

But a few psychological and/or neurological tests could easily confirm if they are functioning compos mentis.

I think this is stretching it to the max. We are talking about UFO witnesses here, not brain surgeons or astronauts. It's quite a steep criteria for accepting testimony from the elderly. That also amazes me somewhat, since I can think of another group of elderly people who have far more responsible positions and testing them on a regular basis sounds far more appropriate. I'm talking about politicians. Shoot. I saw senator McCain blundering last year where he didn't recall if he owned 6 or 7 houses and in another interview he mistoke Iranians for Iraqies and senator Lieberman had to step in and correct him. To take it a step further, often politicians seem to have a flawed memory when their asses are on the line. Maybe a hard-line approach to this particular demograph takes precedent over elderly UFO witnesses. But I digress somewhat.

When a UFO researcher interviews a (elderly) witness to a UFO sighting, it's just like hiring a person for your company. You assess how valuable the person is to you and ultimately there are no garantees. In the past UFO researchers have been fooled by witnesses which in turn reflects on them. Psychological or neurological tests can be a help but (in my opinion) such a thing has to be done on a voluntary basis. Maybe it's also fair to ask, where does it stop? When you demand a psych-evaluation what other criteria can you come up with that basicly dismiss the witness? Smoked pot in your teens? Drank a lot of alcohol? Used hard-drugs? Had a bad childhood? Had an accident? Depression or mental illnesses in the family? Ever lied? Came in contact with the police? There's a grey area which you can use to your advantage (if you really seek it).
Maybe the good old 'hand on the bible and I swear to tell the truth' is still the way to go here. Otherwise we are at risk losing complete faith in humanity.