Wolfgang - you make many excellent points. Obviously, it is cynics for whom I should reserve my barbs, not sceptics. Point taken. (Little Hawk)

You remember, LH, that was your response to my very first post on this topic when I explained to you that what you attack isn't a skeptic at all. But I see that 'point taken' does not ensure you don't make the same mistake again. A skeptic withholds judgement and never says he knows already. He's the one with the open mind.

Why do you get so upset when error is mentioned as one possibility? You have started and titled this thread out of an error, so you should be open to such a possibility, even if you consider it not very likely.

I have reread your old description of your two UFO encounters. I may be tempted to follow them up but some vital information is missing: Could you give a date as close as possible to when it was? And for the second encounter, could you tell me the time of the day?

In all times, people have reported (and, occasionally, sworn) seeing things in the sky or seeing entities at night. In past centuries they have ssen ghosts, women riding on a broom, battles (yes, dozens of people have seen a battle in the sky, centuries ago), in this century they see UFOs (not in all parts of the world, in India they still see fancy animals or ghosts).

One explanation, of course, is that we always had UFOs, and we now know better than the eyewitnesses describing women riding on a broom. They must have erred but modern observers don't. One other explanation should be obvious.

only those who already have seen one seem to CARE (Little Hawk) If only those who have seen embrace one interpretation that's a telltale sign that something could wrong. It reminds me of the emperor's new clothes.
Another telltale sign is if most of the observations of one phenomenon are made in the dark or under bad viewing conditions.

When I was interviewed for a skeptics' magazine one question was which I would consider the most fascinating finding I could think of. I responded: The detection of life outside of the Earth. I still think so, but my bet for such a detection is on space probes or optical analysis of planets around distant stars and not on amateurs with no good knowledge about what they report. The amateur being right against the experts is the Hollywood version of detection. Appealing, more interesting than the reality, but very rarely true.

Wolfgang