For thousands of years, humans have reported seeing strange objects which are incapable of prosaic explanation. So, NHIR’s view is that firsthand witness evidence is significant, but it has its limitations. There always will be an issue with the perceived reliability of witness/observer sightings evidence. Human witnesses are often under great emotional stress during a UAP encounter and such accounts are often dismissed by debunkers for their unreliability. But this does not mean such evidence should automatically be excluded, dismissed or overlooked.
A single witness sighting of a UAP, without corroborative video or photographic evidence, and without supporting witness evidence, is clearly less reliable as data than evidence corroborated from multiple independent sources, especially sensor systems.
This is why much of the Pentagon’s focus on witness evidence to date has focused on military sightings events such as the 2004 USS Nimitz sightings off the coast of California or the 2014-15 US Navy sightings by multiple US Navy aviators off the eastern US coast. In those cases, military witnesses (who are trained in methodical intelligence reporting and are also experienced aviators with a detailed understanding of visual perception issues at altitude) were corroborated by multiple independent human witnesses and by multiple independent sensor systems such as phased array radar systems and FLIR (forward looking infra red) thermal imaging systems.
NASA’s independent 2023 study report into UAPs also acknowledged that:
…due to the absence of a comprehensive system for gathering civilian UAP reports, there are inconsistencies in how data is collected, processed and curated. The application of NASA’s rigor to UAP data protocols will ultimately be essential for a detailed understanding of these phenomena.[1]
It is notable that NASA did not conclude that UAP witness evidence was in and of itself unhelpful for scientific research.
NHIR’s view therefore is that witness sighting evidence should not be discounted but viewed in the context of that witness’ perceived reliability and whether that sighting is corroborated or not by independent witnesses and sensor systems.
Every sighting case will be different and witness credibility will have to be assessed on its merits. Some commentators have suggested that UAP witness evidence ought to be entirely discounted based on its perceived unreliability, but such a view is itself unscientific and irrational.
Witness evidence has long been accepted as a fundamental part of the justice system; witnesses swear evidence under oath and a witness’ credibility is tested under cross-examination. In much the same way, the credibility of UAP witness evidence can also be tested and assessed on its merits.
For thousands of years, humans have reported seeing strange objects which are incapable of prosaic explanation. So, NHIR’s view is that firsthand witness evidence is significant, but it has its limitations. There always will be an issue with the perceived reliability of witness/observer sightings evidence. Human witnesses are often under great emotional stress during a UAP encounter and such accounts are often dismissed by debunkers for their unreliability. But this does not mean such evidence should automatically be excluded, dismissed or overlooked.
A single witness sighting of a UAP, without corroborative video or photographic evidence, and without supporting witness evidence, is clearly less reliable as data than evidence corroborated from multiple independent sources, especially sensor systems.
This is why much of the Pentagon’s focus on witness evidence to date has focused on military sightings events such as the 2004 USS Nimitz sightings off the coast of California or the 2014-15 US Navy sightings by multiple US Navy aviators off the eastern US coast. In those cases, military witnesses (who are trained in methodical intelligence reporting and are also experienced aviators with a detailed understanding of visual perception issues at altitude) were corroborated by multiple independent human witnesses and by multiple independent sensor systems such as phased array radar systems and FLIR (forward looking infra red) thermal imaging systems.
NASA’s independent 2023 study report into UAPs also acknowledged that:
…due to the absence of a comprehensive system for gathering civilian UAP reports, there are inconsistencies in how data is collected, processed and curated. The application of NASA’s rigor to UAP data protocols will ultimately be essential for a detailed understanding of these phenomena.[1]
It is notable that NASA did not conclude that UAP witness evidence was in and of itself unhelpful for scientific research.
NHIR’s view therefore is that witness sighting evidence should not be discounted but viewed in the context of that witness’ perceived reliability and whether that sighting is corroborated or not by independent witnesses and sensor systems.
Every sighting case will be different and witness credibility will have to be assessed on its merits. Some commentators have suggested that UAP witness evidence ought to be entirely discounted based on its perceived unreliability, but such a view is itself unscientific and irrational.
Witness evidence has long been accepted as a fundamental part of the justice system; witnesses swear evidence under oath and a witness’ credibility is tested under cross-examination. In much the same way, the credibility of UAP witness evidence can also be tested and assessed on its merits.
