Magical Realist: Suppose I have the following evidence before me: 1. Signed statements from Magical Realist's mother and his best friend and one of his workmates say he fell into a swimming pool fully clothed. 2. A report from the Magical Realist Appreciation Society saying that the witness statements all look legit to them. 3. A drawing by Magical Realist's best friend's showing him falling into a pool. 4. A blurry photograph of some guy that may or may not be Magical Realist falling on the edge of a pool, possibly about to fall in but we can't really tell because the photo is cruddy. The photo is "digitally enhanced" and approved by the Magical Realist Appreciation Society, which got one of its members to "find" the photo and "enhance" it. This evidence would prove beyond all doubt that Magical Realist fell into a pool fully clothed, would it? Is this "compelling evidence" that it happened? Would it be unreasonable for anybody to ask for more evidence if it was important for some reason to determine whether the event actually occurred or whether the story was made up? We have only one (or two?) witness statements to support the humming and the floating over the trees and the speeding down the highway. There's nothing else. So, much hangs on those witnesses, wouldn't you say - basing your conclusions entirely on the evidence like you say you are and all? Are you satisfied that you know all there is to know about those witnesses - particular in relation to the night in question? But "everyone" wasn't there. Everyone didn't see it. Just three guys claims to have seen it, I think. Clearly I am not insane, so I assume this was intended as a personal insult which, as you know, is a breach of sciforums' site rules. Will you apologise? Moving on... Are police officers infallible? Who measured the 300 ft? You never did tell me your method for determining the size and height of aircraft, Magical Realist. Are you going to get to that eventually? What evidence have I dismissed? What have I denied? I've read many articles on it, all based on the same set of documents that you linked to earlier. There are a few contemporary newspaper reports that take us no further in our investigation than the witness statements. Do you think you have something I haven't already read, that provides important additional information or confirmation of alien activity? I already read about that. If you have found a copy of the Air Force's investigation report, why not link me to it? I don't think you've read any such thing. We're justified in believing aliens are visiting Earth based on what has been presented about that case in this thread, then? Is that what you're saying? If it hasn't been debunked in 50 years, then there are two possibilities, at least. (1) Aliens are real! or (2) Aliens aren't real, but there hasn't been enough evidence available to debunk the case. You're advising us to turn a blind eye to possibility (2), rather than investigating further. Why is that? You can't possibly know that! What a blatantly silly thing to say, Magical Realist. It's quite possible that new evidence will come to light tomorrow to debunk it. You don't know what exists and what does not exist. You're not omniscient. Please have the good sense to admit that this was a stupid blunder on your part. Own your mistake this time, and I'll think better of you for it. I've made no such assumption. Take your own advice. Don't assume it must be real! I want you to respond to the many specific questions I've put to you regarding the case, above. An honest response would be a bonus, if you can manage that. Magical Realist, I am really not interested in getting into another argument about what a UFO is. You can take it as read that when I say "aliens", it can be whatever woo you think it actually is, whether it be time travellers from the future, inter-dimensional beings from the Z-sector, or pixies from the magical Forest of Souls. The bottom line is: I'm investigating to what extent, if any, a paranormal or supernatural or extraterrestrial explanation is necessary to explain cases such as this UFO sighting. You say the only answer is the woo. I say let's see if there's a reasonable mundane explanation before we jump into the woo with you at the deep end of your pool. OK? They spent years investigating this, and all they came up with it the lousy paltry set of documents on their web site, all of which I read in about half an hour? Are they completely incompetent? Or are you just making up the whole "years of investigation" thing? LOL indeed. It's evidence all right. But evidence of what? I haven't debunked that Elvis is still alive, either. Do you find that idea compelling too? I haven't forgotten it. So you're saying that's all there is? Just that? For "aliens" read "whatever woo floats your boat". See above. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nothing to do with anything, eh? Maybe you're the only sane one after all. There there, Magical Realist. It must be hard dealing with the insane like me, who post their bullshit questions that have nothing to do with anything. I applaud your patience. I think you'd probably be wrong to guess that. What makes you think that? But the photo is suspect, as I have pointed out. And my questions regarding the other evidence haven't been answered. No, better to keep an open mind while we're still investigating this together, you and I.