superluminal said:
1) I was drunk and misinterpreted a satellite reentry.
2) I was sober and misinterpreted a satellite reentry.
PROOF that all sightings are easily explainable!
How often do satellites fall to earth? How often do these satellites not leave a fiery trail? How often would this fiery reentry be mistaken for something like this:
a "large, round, silver metal object" with dark portholes equally spaced around the circumference, which "descended into the atmosphere from above," according to his hand-written report. Schultz and his first officer braced themselves for a mid-air collision; the object suddenly made a high speed turn and departed.
Oh, that's right!
3) I was bored and needed a bit of excitement so I made up a story
Of course! How could I have been so stupid! If you can't attack the sighting, attack the credibility of the witness; it's easier. That way it becomes a "yes" versus a "no". Stalemate.
4) I was in need of some cash and a good "UFO" story is always good for some publicity income
RIDICULOUS BS! Roughly 95% of UFO sightings and reports remain confined to the files of organizations that investigate and compile these sightings. Rarely do they make it to a book, magazine, or television show, and if they do, there's no guarantee of any money. Unless you're a researcher who writes and sells books, or does lectures, etc, there is little money to be had. By far the majority of witnesses get nothing. They're just footnotes, more or less.
5) I really did see something I can't explain. Since I'm the credulous type and easily swayed by the media, I conclude that an alien spaceship buzzed my jet.
What does that have to do with anything? Whether or not someone concludes that what they saw was an "alien spaceship" does not necessarily change in any way their testimony.
Two of the three pilot's sightings said nothing about what the object might be. And if the object definitely resembled a piloted craft beyond a reasonable doubt, and it was not readily identifiable (or behaved in a peculiar manner) then it is perfectly understandable why someone would call it a spaceship.
You seem to be confusing the characteristics of the sighting with any hypotheses or attempts to identify the craft (like calling it a "spaceship").
I could go on but you get the point.
By all means, go on!
Nothing matters but physical evidence and repeatable controlled experiments and observations.
Ball-lightning is a rarely observed phenomenon. Probably fewer photographs of ball lightning exist than do photos of UFOs. It is one of those things that cannot be confined to a controlled-environment (though a very small handful of people claim it can). Practically all of the known data concerning ball-lightning relies solely on observation, and nothing more.
Funny, though, that no one is denying its existence, just because it rarely sits still long enough to have its picture taken. It is given the benefit of the doubt, despite its mysterious and often inexplicable behavior.
But if two trained commercial pilots encounter
a "large, round, silver metal object" with dark portholes equally spaced around the circumference suddenly the odds are against them, and they must be witnessing and misinterpreting a burning satellite falling through the atmosphere. And if that can't explain it, then they certainly must be lying.
