Anyone who's served on a few juries knows that eyewitness testimony is often wrong. I've served on over a dozen, and I can recall cases in which apparently disinterested, well-meaning, honest people swore under oath to absolutely contradictory conditions: the green truck ran the red light. No, it was the red Toyota that ran the light, the brown Chevrolet truck had a green light. The green Ford truck was driven by an elderly man. No, he was in the red Honda, and the woman was in the black truck. That's a summary of eyewitness testimony in a traffic case (the woman was suing for damages; there were, iirc, FIVE eyewitnesses, each of whom thought himself or herself correct and no two of whom agreed on the major details). The jury finally found for the plaintiff, but awarded her a very trifling sum, $100 instead of the $50,000 she asked for, because we couldn't really figure out exactly what happened from the eyewitness testimony.
An eyewitness anecdote unsupported by physical evidence cannot be trusted, whether it's about a UFO or a traffic accident.
