Magical Realist: You can tell how desperate you are to ignore all counterarguments by the way that you refuse to address any of the substantive objections I have raised, and by your false characterisation of my careful and detailed posts as "long drawn out ranting". Clearly, you choose not to respond because you know that any response you make will be weak and inadequate. I have shown you up for what you are. You're not happy at being exposed, but you have no response that will withstand scrutiny. So, you resort to ad hominems and deflection, while ignoring all of the substance of what I wrote. How disappointing. Let's face it: you jumped to an unjustified conclusion, and now, following my careful analysis, you're looking a bit silly. I'm afraid that trying to bluster your way through this will just look like you continuing to dig a hole for yourself. You'd do better to address what I wrote in an honest manner, rather than this avoidance and insistence that you must be correct just because you say you are. How much unevidenced bullshit about cyclindrical "craft" with "pilots" do we have to tolerate, all in the name of a True Believer's faith in the unproven? It's merits, as I have established, are few. So far, all we have is a third-hand anecdote and some dubious video of unknown provenance. This is objectively true. Those are the merits. I have already addressed this point in detail above. Why don't you respond to what I wrote there? You can establish that my speculations are bogus can you? Go on then. I dare you to try. I'm not a pseudoskeptic. I'm the real deal. Sorry about that, Magical Realist. It makes things hard for you. I can assure you that calling names won't help you, though. It just makes you look inadequate. You're admitting you have no substance to what you say, so you need to resort to ad hominems. I freely admit that. It could be an unknown flying shadow, or an unknown water droplet, for example. You'll agree, of course. Unknown is unknown. Right? I challenge you to back up this silly claim of yours. Point out examples of any strawmen I have erected in my "longwinded" posts. Show where I have not been objective. If you cannot do this, I hope you will be man enough to apologise for your insulting comments.