An example of UFO testimony that varies because of witness differences
In an article – Alien Contact in Ancient Japan -- by Bruce Schaffenberger in the May 1997 of Official UFO’s Ancient Astronauts magazine, the author presents accounts in Volumes 1 and 2 of the Zuihitsu Taisei of strange women, in or near bowl-shaped objects that appeared, in one instance, on the beach of Harayadori in northern Japan and, in another instance, several hundred miles away, both during the Edo Era (1603 to 1868).
In the first account, fishermen pulled the object ashore, peered inside and saw a peculiar woman with a crystal-ringing box. The woman spoke to the fishermen but they could not understand her.
In the second account, a strange woman was seen near the object on the beach. She held a humming box.
(The account is available on the internet, at many venues, and may be found by a Google search.)
Our point here that it seems both occurrences involved the same object and “woman” but as you can see from the depictions rendered by witnesses, the incidents differ, not in substance but in details – details that may be meaningful but flummoxed by how the witnesses saw or interpreted the episodes.
This is, in our estimation, a recurring problem with witness testimony, in all UFO accounts and reports: witnesses will see, remember, and record events in ways that are shaped by their mental make-up.
This has been the bane of the Roswell story and others, where multiple witnesses are involved. And where one witness is reporting an event, the interpretation or account is surely muddled by the personal vicissitudes of the lone observer.
At least with multiple witnesses, one has a chance to compare details and data to see what, if any, corroborate the testimonies being proffered.
While the Japanese report(s), above, are minutely different, it is obvious that both accounts are of the same phenomenon. The differences can be reconciled, and they should be able to be reconciled in modern UFO/flying saucer reports too. Witness testimony is inherently flawed, but not to the point that the truthful or real elements can’t be discerned, forensically, by serious researchers.
One last note – in the drawing for the first observation, depicted above, there was a symbol or symbolic writing, reproduced here:
If the 1964 Socorro insignia was not bollixed by an Air Force scheme and the complicity of Ray Stanford, one might see similarities in the Japan symbol to that originally indicated as what Officer Zamora said he saw on his craft and reproduced.
That shenanigan aside, there is grist for study in the Japanese drawing of the symbol seen/reported by witnesses.
So while there are major caveats about witness testimony, there are also nuggets of importance in such accounts…..perhaps.