Yes but isn’t this argument unfalsifiable?
Unless there is absolutely no way to tell what we are looking at in any moment, I think human perception errors have limits.
I don’t.
But there’s also a problem with your analogy.
1) It’s a photo of “something”, not an object in the sky.
2) I only have one frame and two dimensions to check.
3) still doesn’t prove that to identify a bird I must kill it and analyze its...
Interesting, it seems @Brian Dunning is saying the study/paper showing a positive correlation between detected transients and nuclear testing was based on just 9 transients?!:
Out of more than 107,000 transients that had been detected in the...
Haha you already fell into the same trap as the original poster and some people on here, you can't walk towards this thing really, not easily anyway.
With that in mind any ideas what it is?
I have no idea, but I don’t think this is a perfect comparison.
This is a photograph, if this situation happened in real life it would be easily identified by walking towards it.
I was strictly talking about people seeing stuff in the sky, I...
Occasions where you get fooled are enough for it to be notable and it never gets resolved for you a few seconds later are fairly rare, some people seem more prone to being fooled, some seemingly want to be fooled and argue against any explanation.
I understood the question. If a bird can fool someone into seeing a UFO, it means the bird is the trigger. I'm saying that trigger has never worked on me. A bird always looks like a bird to my eyes.
I've observed the sky many times and I have...
Yes but isn’t this argument unfalsifiable?
Unless there is absolutely no way to tell what we are looking at in any moment, I think human perception errors have limits.
It is common for people--myself included--to misperceive things.
Sometimes later circumstances strongly suggest to us that our previous perception was probably in error.
But much of the time there is no "correction," and we never find out that...