The Problem With Eyewitnesses
One of the first things investigators often have when something unusual happens is a witness.
Someone saw something.
A pilot saw it from the cockpit. A military member saw it while on duty. A police officer saw it while driving. A scientist saw something they could not immediately identify. Or perhaps it was simply an ordinary person looking up at the night sky when something caught their attention.
The witness may be completely sincere.
They may be absolutely certain about what they saw.
And they may still be wrong about what it was.
That distinction is one of the most important things to understand when looking at UAP reports.
It is also one of the easiest things to get wrong.
When people hear that a pilot or military professional reported seeing an unusual object, there can be a tendency to treat the witness’s experience as if it were a recording. The person saw it, therefore the description must be an accurate representation of what was actually there.
But human beings are not cameras.
We don’t simply collect an exact copy of everything happening around us and store it perfectly in our memories. We interpret what we see. We make judgments about distance, speed, size and direction. We fill in missing information. We use our previous experiences to make sense of unfamiliar things.
Most of the time, this works remarkably well.
We can walk down a street, recognize a car approaching us and immediately understand that we should move out of its way. We can hear a familiar sound and know what caused it without consciously analyzing every part of it. We can look across a landscape and estimate distance well enough to get where we’re going.
Our brains are constantly making judgments.
The problem appears when the information is limited, unusual or unexpected.
Then our brains can make mistakes.
That doesn’t make us bad observers.
It makes us human.
This matters enormously when investigating something in the sky.
Imagine someone looking up at night and seeing a bright light moving across the sky.
The person knows they saw a light.
That part is real.
But then the questions begin.
How far away was it?
How high was it?
How large was it?
How fast was it actually moving?
Was it moving at all, or was the observer moving?
Was there anything nearby that could have provided a reference point?
Was the object changing direction, or did the movement only appear that way?
Was the light itself changing, or was something about the atmosphere affecting its appearance?
These questions are not meant to discredit the witness.
They are meant to understand the observation.
That is an important difference.
A witness report is evidence.
It is simply one form of evidence.
And like every other form of evidence, it has strengths and limitations.
A pilot reporting an unusual object deserves attention.
Pilots spend enormous amounts of time observing the sky. They are trained to identify aircraft, judge situations quickly and make decisions under pressure. When a pilot reports something unusual, it would be foolish to simply dismiss the report because it came from a human being.
But it would also be foolish to assume that training makes someone incapable of misidentifying something.
Experience does not eliminate human perception.
It improves it.
There is a difference.
A highly experienced pilot can still encounter an unfamiliar object under unusual conditions. They can still have limited information. They can still misjudge distance or speed. They can still see something from an unusual angle and interpret its movement incorrectly.
And if the event happens quickly, there may not be enough time to gather all the information needed to understand it.
That is why investigators need to separate two questions.
What did the witness observe?
And what caused the observation?
The first question can sometimes be answered with considerable confidence.
The second may remain open.
Consider a simple example.
Someone sees a bright object moving unexpectedly across the night sky.
The observation may be completely genuine.
The person wasn’t imagining it.
They weren’t necessarily mistaken about seeing something.
But the object could be an aircraft.
It could be a satellite.
It could be a meteor.
It could be a drone.
It could be an atmospheric phenomenon.
It could be something else.
The fact that several possible explanations exist does not make the witness unreliable.
It simply means the observation needs to be separated from the interpretation.
This is where many UAP discussions become difficult.
A person reports seeing something unusual and another person immediately asks, “Do you believe them?”
But that isn’t really the most useful question.
The better question is, “What exactly are they reporting?”
If the witness says, “I saw a bright light moving across the sky,” that is the observation.
If they say, “It was an enormous craft moving at incredible speed,” we have moved beyond the basic observation and into interpretation.
That doesn’t mean the interpretation is wrong.
It means it needs to be investigated.
How was the size determined?
How was the distance estimated?
What reference points were available?
How was the speed calculated?
Was there an instrument recording the event?
Were there other witnesses?
Did anyone else observe the same thing from a different location?
These questions can sometimes turn an apparently extraordinary event into something much more understandable.
They can also sometimes make an already interesting case even more interesting.
That is the part that often gets lost.
Careful investigation is not automatically an attempt to explain away unusual reports.
It can work in both directions.
Suppose someone sees an object and describes it as moving at incredible speed.
An investigator might examine the circumstances and discover that the object was actually much closer than the witness believed. The apparent speed could have been caused by perspective.
That is a useful finding.
The mystery becomes smaller.
But suppose investigators examine the available information and discover that the witness’s estimate is supported by independent radar data, another witness and an infrared sensor.
Now the case becomes stronger.
The same investigative process can either reduce a mystery or deepen it.
That is exactly what we want investigation to do.
The goal is not to prove that something extraordinary happened.
The goal is to find out what happened.
Human memory makes this even more complicated.
We often imagine memory as a kind of internal video recorder. Something happens, we store it, and later we retrieve the same recording.
That isn’t really how memory works.
Memories can change.
Details can become less clear with time. Other information can become mixed into the original memory. The way a question is asked can influence how someone remembers an event.
This becomes especially important when an unusual event attracts attention.
Imagine seeing something strange in the sky.
At first, you might remember a general shape and movement.
Then you talk to someone about it.
You read a story about similar sightings.
You watch a video.
Someone suggests what the object might have been.
You discuss the event again.
Over time, the original memory may become connected to everything you learned afterward.
The person is not necessarily lying.
They may genuinely remember the event differently.
That is why investigators should try to collect witness accounts as close to the event as possible and preserve the original description before outside information has a chance to influence it.
It is also why multiple witnesses can be useful.
If several people independently describe the same event, that can provide additional information.
But even multiple witnesses do not automatically solve the problem.
People standing in different locations may see the same object from completely different angles. One person may focus on its brightness while another notices its movement. One may estimate a particular distance while another gives a very different estimate.
Their accounts can contain both useful information and contradictions.
The contradictions don’t necessarily mean someone is lying.
They may tell investigators something about the limits of human observation.
This is one reason technology has become increasingly important.
A human being can say, “I saw something moving over there.”
A radar system may be able to provide information about position and movement.
An infrared sensor may record a heat signature.
A camera may capture the object.
Another sensor may record the event at the same time.
Suddenly the investigation has more than one perspective.
That matters because every independent piece of information can help reduce uncertainty.
This is where eyewitness testimony becomes most useful.
Not as the final answer.
As the beginning.
A witness may be the person who notices something unusual in the first place.
Get Morrissey Ward’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
They may provide the time.
They may provide the location.
They may describe the direction of travel.
They may identify unusual characteristics that tell investigators where to look for additional information.
Without that initial report, an event might never be investigated at all.
In that sense, eyewitnesses are extremely important.
But their reports should be treated as the starting point rather than the destination.
There is another issue that makes eyewitness accounts particularly difficult in UAP cases.
Expectation.
If someone already believes unusual objects are visiting Earth, they may interpret an unfamiliar object differently from someone who believes such things are impossible.
The same light can be seen by two people and become two different stories.
One person sees something strange.
Another sees an aircraft.
Neither person necessarily has dishonest intentions.
They are interpreting incomplete information through different expectations.
This is part of the larger problem of cognitive bias.
Human beings naturally look for patterns.
We need to do that. Pattern recognition is one of the abilities that has helped our species survive.
But it can also create mistakes.
We can see patterns that aren’t there.
We can interpret ambiguous information according to what we already believe.
We can give greater importance to details that support our expectations and overlook details that don’t.
And this does not happen only to people who believe in extraordinary explanations.
Skeptics can do it too.
Someone who believes every UAP report has an ordinary explanation may be just as tempted to settle on an explanation too quickly as someone who believes every UAP is extraterrestrial.
The difference may only be the conclusion they reach.
That is why a good investigation needs to challenge everyone involved.
If you believe the object was an alien spacecraft, you should be willing to consider the possibility that it was something ordinary.
If you believe the object was definitely an aircraft, you should be willing to examine evidence that might suggest otherwise.
The important question is not which side you belong to.
The important question is whether you are willing to change your mind when the evidence requires it.
That is a difficult standard.
It is also a necessary one.
There is something else worth remembering about witnesses.
Sometimes people are reporting something genuinely unusual.
We should not make the mistake of assuming that because human perception has limitations, every unusual report is therefore meaningless.
That would be going too far in the other direction.
Human beings make mistakes.
Human beings also notice things.
Every scientific discovery ultimately begins with someone noticing something.
A strange pattern.
An unexpected result.
A movement that shouldn’t have occurred.
A result that doesn’t fit the existing explanation.
The observation itself may be imperfect, but it can still be valuable.
What matters is what happens next.
Does anyone investigate it?
Does anyone collect additional evidence?
Does anyone test alternative explanations?
Does anyone attempt to reproduce the observation?
Does anyone compare it with other information?
That is how an initial observation becomes something more useful.
The UAP question needs exactly this kind of approach.
There is no reason to treat eyewitnesses as either unquestionable authorities or completely unreliable sources.
They are people who experienced something.
Their reports can contain valuable information.
Their memories can also contain mistakes.
Both things can be true at the same time.
That may be uncomfortable, especially for people who want a simple answer.
But reality is rarely that simple.
A witness can be honest and mistaken.
A witness can be accurate about what they saw but wrong about what caused it.
A witness can describe something that initially appears impossible and later discover that the explanation was completely ordinary.
And a witness can also report something that remains genuinely unexplained after investigators have examined the available evidence.
The job of investigation is to determine which situation you are dealing with.
That requires patience.
It requires questions.
It requires comparison.
And sometimes it requires admitting that there simply isn’t enough information to reach a conclusion.
That last part is particularly important.
We often think of investigations as producing answers.
But sometimes the most honest result is uncertainty.
We don’t know.
Not yet.
That is not a failure.
It is a statement about the evidence.
And it leaves the door open for better evidence in the future.
A photograph might surface.
A radar record might become available.
A second witness might come forward.
An instrument might provide information that was missing the first time.
A new explanation might emerge.
Or an explanation that already exists might finally fit the evidence.
That is how mysteries are solved.
Not by deciding what we want the answer to be, but by gradually reducing the number of possibilities.
The most useful thing a witness can give an investigation is not certainty.
It is information.
Where were you?
What did you see?
How long did it last?
What did it look like?
What direction did it move?
What did you hear?
What else was happening at the time?
What conditions were present?
What did you know about the situation before you saw it?
And perhaps most importantly:
What are you certain about, and what are you assuming?
That final question can be difficult.
But it may be one of the most valuable questions an investigator can ask.
Because sometimes the difference between an observation and a conclusion is only a few words.
“I saw a light.”
“I saw a craft.”
“I saw something moving.”
“I saw an object moving at impossible speed.”
Each statement takes us a little further away from the original observation.
The farther we move from what was actually seen, the more carefully we need to examine the assumptions being added along the way.
This is not about disrespecting witnesses.
It is the opposite.
Taking a witness seriously means taking the details seriously enough to examine them.
It means not turning someone’s experience into something it may not have been.
And it means not dismissing the person simply because the answer is inconvenient.
The witness tells us what they experienced.
The investigation determines what that experience means.
That distinction may be one of the most important principles in the entire UAP discussion.
There will always be people who want to believe.
There will always be people who want to dismiss.
But somewhere between those two positions is the actual investigation.
That is where we should be.
Because if there is something genuinely unusual happening in our skies, the only way we are ever going to understand it is by learning how to separate the observation from the interpretation.
Listen to the witness.
Take the report seriously.
Ask questions.
Check the instruments.
Look for alternative explanations.
Compare the evidence.
And if the answer still isn’t there, say so.
We don’t need to turn every witness into proof of something extraordinary.
We also don’t need to turn every witness into a mistake.
Sometimes a person simply saw something they could not identify.
