So the official account is whatever eyewitness think happened? What makes that official? Is anybody's stamp of approval needed? Suppose an eyewitness is delusional. Would his account still be "official" in that case? Also, is an official account supposed to be an explanation of what happened, or just a statement of the mysteries to be solved? Oh, and you missed all these questions from my previous post (why is that?): --- Also, is this an argument from authority that you're making? We have to accept it was aliens because an "official" source told us so? Also, is it at all important that the evidence supports the "official" account, or is it the fact that it has been rubber stamped sufficient? Also, is it ever the case that the "official" answer is "we don't know whether it was aliens or something mundane"? Or must the official account always come down on one side of the fence or the other? Also, why must the skeptic produce eyewitness evidence in order to question an "official" account? Why is eyewitness evidence better or more important than any other kind of evidence? Also, can official accounts ever be wrong, or are all officials infallible? Also, what happens if the "offical" account is based on unconvincing, weak evidence? Who is the onus of proof on, then? Do the "officials" have any responsibility to make their case, or is their official feat sufficient?