Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi

 

PART 17:  Qualitative criteria: Multiple witnesses

 

Several of the lists of qualitiative criteria suggested by various UFO researchers (see PART 15: Qualitative criteria: Introduction) prominently include multiple witnesses as being a significant factor adding to the weight to be given to a UFO sighting. Philip Klass has commented that “Many UFO investigators automatically conclude that a report from multiple witnesses is more reliable than one from a single witness” (see Footnote 17.01).

 

On the other hand, ufo skeptic Robert Sheaffer has stated that “a multiple-witness UFO sighting gives no guarantee of greater reliability. In fact, the opposite may be true” (see Footnote 17.04 and Footnote 17.05).

 

What does the data show?

 

One of the few detailed studies of the effects of mulitiple witnesses upon sightings of UFOs was performed by Allan Hendry and reported  in his book “The UFO Handbook” (1979).  It includes a relatively detailed comparison of reports which remain unidentified after his investigation (i.e. UFO cases) and ones which are identified during that investigation (i.e. IFO cases).

 

In a list of recommended things to do when a sighting is made, Hendry includes “Get additional witnesses – even if you have to scream for them. The gulf between the ‘single-witness case’ and a ‘multiple-witness case’ in UFOlogy is great. One additional witness is worth a dozen photographs!” (see Footnote 17.02).   Similarly, he also comments “There is little question that, given a choice, multiple-witness cases are to be desired; logic dictates that a plurality of witnesses stand less chance of having misperceived, fantasized, or hoaxed a given UFO sighting than a single witness, a situation well recognised in a court of law” (see Footnote 17.07).

 

However, those comments by Allan Hendry as to what “logic dictates” appear somewhat inconsistent with his comments on the actual data regarding multiple-witness cases in his study. 

 

For example, later in the same book:

 

1. Hendry indicates that the number of UFO cases (within his sample) with more than one witness was 63%, which may be considered surprisingly higher.  Even more surprising, however, is the fact that Hendry states that the number of IFO cases with more than one witness was 75% (sometimes with as many as ten or more witnesses). 

In the light of this fact, Hendry commented that it was odd that the percentage of IFO cases with multiple witnesses was larger than the percentage of UFO cases with multiple witnesses, and asks “If IFOs are solely the product of misperception, why doesn’t the presence of additional witnesses lessen the number of reported IFOs, relative to the reported UFOs?” (see Footnote 17.06).

 

2. Hendry states that “The presence of multiple witnesses did _not_ serve to dampen misjudgments about IFO sources … it is not surprising that ‘groupthink’ results during the excitement of a sighting” (see Footnote 17.08).

 

3. Hendry accepts that “Some pretty embarrssing IFO sightings were backed up a number of witnesses”.  Hendry also summarises several multiple-witness sightings, including two which he resolved as having been caused by the moon. He commented that “whole groups of adults, even policemen, have stared at stars flashing colours for hours without anyone in the group successfully persuading others that it _was_ only a star” (see Footnote 17.09).

 

The problems noted by Hendry in relation to “group-think” when witnesses are in the same location are supported by a scientific article referred to by ufo skeptic Robert Sheaffer. Robert Sheaffer has referred to an article by Dr Robert Buckhout.  He notes that Buckhout states that “a large body of research results demonstrate that an observer can be persuaded to conform to the majority opinion even when the majority is completely wrong” and that “group descriptions were more complete than the individual reports but gave rise to significantly more errors of commission: an assortment of incorrect and stereotyped details” (see Footnote 17.03, Footnote 17.04 and Footnote 17.05).

As discussed in PART 16 : Qualitative criteria: Credible witnesses, J Allen Hynek has stated that, while examining the cases in Project Blue Book, he and his colleagues kept careful records of the occupations of witnesses. He presented the following table (see Footnote 17.11), which includes some comparison between the percentage of misidentification by multiple witnesses relative to single witnesses in various groups:

 

Occupation % of Misidentification

Military pilot

(single witness) 88%

(multiple witness) 76%

 

Commercial pilot

(single witness) 89%

(multiple witness) 79%

 

Radar technicians

(multiple witness) 78%

 

Technical person

(single witness) 65%

(multiple witness) 50%

 

Other

(multiple witness) 83%

 

From that table, it appears that the analysis the Project Blue Book cases referred to by Hynek indicated (contrary to the results of Hendry’s study) that multiple witnesses _are_ better than single witnesses.

 

This inconsistency between the two studies (among others) is difficult to explain in the absence of more details regarding the methodology adopted in each study and/or the results of further studies for comparison. 

 

Thus, it seems that the available evidence does not support giving a premium to multiple witness UFO cases – particularly where the witnesses are in the same location and the excited misjudgments of one witness may contaminate the perception or identification of others.

 

What about multiple _independent_ witnesses at different locations?  Well, Hendry’s study included “very few events” where the witnesses were not part of “one close group” so his data does not appear to justify any firm view one way or another (see Footnote 17.10).  However, it is difficult to disagree with Hendry’s opinion that reports from witnesses “totally unaware that others have seen it too” has the following benefits:

 

1. “The existence of the target is underscored”.

 

2. “The prospect that the target was the invention of a unified group (deliberate or not) is minimized”

 

3. “Comparison of the observations can be made without concern over ‘internal contamination’ within one group of witnesses”

 

4.“The distance of the UFO can be triangulated and thus, the size estimated”.

 

In the absence of any significant data on multiple _independent_ witnesses, Hendry comment that “it goes without saying that the presence of independent witnesses to a single event if one of the most valuable assets UFOlogists currently possess” is not justified by the results of his own study.

 

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

[17.01] Philip J Klass, “UFOs Explained” (1974) at page 12 (in Chapter 1) of the Random House hardback edition, at page 14 of Random House paperback edition.

 

[17.02] Allan Hendry, “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 22 (in Chapter 1) of the Sphere softback edition.

 

[17.03] Robert Buckhout, “Eyewitness Testimony”, Scientific American, December 1974, page 23.

 

[17.04] Robert Sheaffer, “The UFO Verdict” (1980) at page 106 (in Chapter 10) of the Prometheus softback edition.

 

[17.05] Robert Sheaffer, “UFO Sightings: The Evidence” (1998) at page 146 (in Chapter 9) of the Prometheus hardback edition.

 

[17.06] Allan Hendry,  “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 89 (in Chapter 8) of the Sphere softback edition.

 

[17.07] Allan Hendry, “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 191 (in Chapter 14) of the Sphere softback edition.

 

[17.08] Allan Hendry, “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 191 (in Chapter 14) of the Sphere softback edition.

 

[17.09] Allan Hendry, “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 192 (in Chapter 14) of the Sphere softback edition.

 

[17.10] Allan Hendry, “The UFO Handbook” (1979) at page 194 (in Chapter 14) of the Sphere softback edition.

 

[17.11] J Allen Hynek, "The Hynek UFO Report" (1977) at page 261 (in Chapter 11) of the Barnes & Noble hardback reprint (1997) at page 271 of the Dell paperback edition (with the same page numbering in the Sphere paperback edition).

 

Category: