Latest activity

"We have good photos" is a simple declaration, the truth of which could be demonstrated by showing us some good photos. Then we can turn the analytical skills of dozens of experts on a picture to see if meets the definition of "good" in any way...

I did not state anything. Indeed you said (post #31): Now it'd be interesting to know what you actually think, do we have good photos (in which case, obviously, I'd like to know which they are!) or don't we? But yet again, what I wanted to...

The members at Metabunk have looked at a very large number of cases, and failed to find any really convincing examples. If you have some good examples we will be pleased to examine them. Note, however, that most examples from the 20th century...

Does this count: stepson was listening to "Great Balls of Fire" on Spotify. His cheap fake vape did just that and was sent toot-sweet out the window.

I mean, sure, a testimony can be right or it can be wrong. When people see Venus, some correctly identify it as Venus, others think it's a star, others think it's an airplane, and still others sincerely believe they've seen a large hovering...

Journalists are not scientists. And, as has been pointed out, the fact that a word is used in one discipline does not give them exclusive possession of an uncopyrighted word. That's as true for "biologics" as it is for "aliens" or "orbs". Trying...

You seem to misunderstand the burden of proof. We skeptics are not the ones claiming there are anomalous cases that may turn out to be evidence of alien intrusion into earth's atmosphere. Those who make the claim must provide corroborating...

But I think people often approach this from the wrong perspective. I don't think only a handful of witnesses are credible—I think almost all witnesses are credible. The problem is that credibility does not imply reliability. Honest people can...

It is, however, an attainable booby prize. ;)

This is a bit of a tangent from the original discussion, but since so much of this thread has ended up revolving around eyewitness testimony, I think it's worth addressing. One point that keeps getting lost in these discussions is that honest...

Yes, in any individual case. The weakness in the "you can't expect good pictures because people are surprised and need a moment to recover, think of their camera and pull it out" argument is that it has to work EVERY TIME. A similar argument...

Tim Printy's analysis of the Stephenville event and the MUFON report has been online for eighteen years, and yes, MUFON (or certain individuals associated with MUFON) have responded). Indeed, one individual from Texas MUFON was quite impressed...

No indeed, I'm rather trying logic vs. the purely rethorical assertion you made: This assertion has exactly zero epistemological value, as demonstrated by the fact that you can change the subject at will to fairies, leprechauns, angels, demons...

So you discount the possibility that we do not have authentic good pictures of truly anomalous objects because no truly anomalous objects exist?

So does "biomatter". I'd take an alien bug/spider/crawly, they'd look alien enough under a microscope to reveal their non-terrestrial origin. "Extraterrestrial" exists. The problem that these people are having is that you can't convince anyone...