Exactly. If I could reasonably explain it as anything else, then I would be inclined to think it was something else. But that's just not the situation. So although you have sufficient reason not to believe, I don't have that luxury, and it's not like I haven't tried to find other answers that fit. I've considered a lot of things. None of them fit with what was observed to the extent that it provides a reasonable explanation.
I can't really comment about a discussion in the abstract. I have no idea what you observed or what about it would be unexplainable. I have seen things over the years that were surprising. For example, if you see a C-5 Galaxy flying at low altitude, it appears to be hovering like a blimp. I don't know of any other aircraft that gives this illusion although I would imagine that the same would be true of the Russian An-124 Condor and the even larger An-225. I've seen Boeing 747's and they don't have this illusion. I assume this is because the stall speed of a 747 is higher and because the fuselage and wing area is smaller.
Skeptics have tried, and some of them have ended up invoking denial, mockery, ridicule and character attacks because nothing they can offer that is reasonable works.
I'm not sure what you mean by "skeptic". If I see a magician's show then I assume that nothing supernatural is going on. This seems rational rather than skeptical. However, what most people don't seem to quite grasp is that the fact that magicians' shows are based on trickery, misdirection, illusion, and props is extremely strong evidence that things such as clairvoyance and telekinesis do not exist. Otherwise, people with such abilities would surely have gravitated to these types of performances over the years. The notion that animals have psychic abilities is also at odds with things like the Native American sport of bear-smacking or the way that seal hunts were conducted. None of these things are skeptical; they are merely common sense.
I'm not sure exactly what "denial" is other than that line from a comic movie, "Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?" I'm also not sure about mockery and ridicule. I suppose if you believed that someone was being dishonest then you might accuse them of such and some might do it in a rather sarcastic fashion. I think it would be simpler though to just say why you think someone was being dishonest. The other aspect though is that someone might believe that a claim was either lacking in specific knowledge of the subject area or that the statements were based on faulty reasoning. For example, I have heard some religious fanatics make the argument that being homosexual is bad because if everyone were homosexual then the population would not reproduce and humans would go extinct. This, to me, is an almost textbook case of the Hasty Generalization Fallacy. You could make identical and equally nonsensical arguments about why being a bank teller is bad. I suppose the difference is that a rational person would understand once this was pointed out that the argument was indeed invalid whereas someone of perhaps a lesser amount of personal integrity would ignore it or try to change the subject. You also do tend to find that people who use ridicule in their arguments tend to be the recipients of ridicule. Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, and Kent Hovind come to mind. How exactly does one respond to an argument of the form, "I don't understand science and refuse to either study science or engage in rational discussion therefore whatever appeals to my prejudices must be more correct"? Ridicule would be understandably tempting in such cases.
Looking through your previous comments in this thread, you've used word like "craft" and "alien". I'm not sure what the circumstances were that would lead you to use these terms. A craft to me is a mechanical construct designed either to carry passengers or one that strongly resembles something that does. So, for example, a Global Hawk, might be described as an unmanned craft because it is big enough to carry people and could be easily mistaken for a piloted aircraft. In contrast, I would not describe a common, remote control airplane as such because it is clearly too small to have people inside. However, craft can be used in a general sense when size is not known (in other words, it could be big enough to carry people). I suppose some people would object to making such statements when there really is no evidence of a solid object. This would be of the form, "I saw a pattern of light that appeared to be a large craft." There really is no reason to assume that a pattern is part of one object unless someone observed maneuvers that would imply a fixed relationship. And then there is context. Military aircraft commonly fly in groups of two, three, or four. So, having an Air Force base nearby would tend to weaken the assumption that a pattern of lights was part of one object. You get similar weak assumptions about height by seeing eye shine without taking into consideration that something could be in a tree. These types of things are only common sense.
Most people would assume that "alien" meant from somewhere other than the Earth. However, I could see it being used in the sense of something that appears to be strongly out of place. For example, if I were on an expedition to the South Pole and came across a hotdog vendor, I could imagine referring to that scene as alien. Again, I would have to have more details to make any specific comments about what you've seen and your conclusions about it.
Can you give an example of skepticism that is not a refutation of unfounded belief? For example, if someone were to claim that they knew that aliens exist, I would tend to doubt that they could make such a claim. The person appears to have an unfounded belief. However, if someone said that intelligent life probably exists elsewhere in the galaxy, then I would have no immediate cause to doubt their reasoning. I recall a doctor stating that "we now know that most colds are spread by shaking hands." This seems to be to be an unfounded belief. Hand washing is very important in hospitals to prevent cross contamination from one patient to another. However, I don't know of any evidence that refutes the idea that the vast majority of colds are transmitted by coughing and sneezing. Now, I do understand that it would seem icky to think you were shaking the hand of someone who just coughed or sneezed into that hand but the chances of contracting a cold because of this seems remote at best. This might appear to be a strong argument simply in favor of being polite even if there is no medical reason. However it might interest you to know that at one office where I worked, surrounded by people with college degrees, half of the men did not bother to wash their hands after using the restroom. On this scale, I'm not sure that a cough or sneeze on the hands really stands out that much.
I assume my posting is on-track for the discussion of skepticism rather than the specific topic of the existence of aliens.
Some people are just more credulous than others and have a will to believe without evidence.
