wollery,
Simply because it's possible that people can be fooled by a perceptual illusion doesn't mean that they were.
And your infallible method of sorting the fooled from the not fooled is _____________________ ?
In the absence of a deliberate and professional hoax, the chances of being fooled into certainty about anything is exceedingly small.
And this explains why mass sightings of UFOs never, ever turn out later to have been the result of misidentification of mundane objects such as Chinese lanterns, weather balloons, Venus, etcetera.
Except that it obviously doesn't, does it, fo?
You don't want to believe that and prefer instead to think that UFO witnesses are incompetent.
The lack of a mulderesque desire to believe is considered to be a good thing in critical thinking circles, fo. It's little surprise that you'd be unaware of this.
The garbage about generalising all witnesses as being incompetent is yet another of your straw men. You really should consider going into the stock feed business.
But the fact is that you are just plain wrong. Most witnesses are reasonably well informed people who can tell the difference between something natural or manmade and something out of this world.
Only if they have the
Jane's Extra-terrestrial Craft Recognition Guide handy, although considering the small number of sales we've made I wouldn't have thought this would happen very often. You haven't been flogging pirate copies via your website, have you?
Then there are highly qualified people familiar with things seen in the sky who have also seen them.
Exactly what kind of qualifications do you think are required to see something unidentifiable, fo?
Then there are even more highly trained and rigorously tested people familiar with the most advanced aircraft in the world who have also seen them.
Seen what? UFOs?
Nobody here has ever denied that, fo. What's being questioned is your claimed ability to make the leap from "Wow, did you see that?" to "OMG . . . aliens!"
Your stubborn choice to dismiss such evidence amounts to willful ignorance.
The pot calls the kettle "Snowflake" and wonders why everyone is pointing and laughing at it.
By contrast, at least I can admit that it's both possible, likely and actually the case, that some number of UFO reports are the result of misidentification, hoaxes and other natural or manmade phenomena.
The problem is that your version of "some number" is several orders of magnitude smaller than the one indicated by reality.
Butterflies, little girls and your pathetic straw men don't require excuses.
