I believe MR considers eyewitness testimony to be “evidence,” and this goes back to a recent detour this thread took along the path of “what constitutes evidence when it comes to UAP sightings?” It’s not possible to reconstruct these scenarios in a lab for example, or observe repeatable tests, so credible witnesses should be relied on to an extent, to relay what they’d observed. To an extent. Witnesses aren’t always reliable, though. That is true. We need reliable evidence that any of us could agree upon (collectively) but it’s not readily available, when it comes to UAP’s. Therein lies the conundrum. But, it’s fine to disagree with MR…and explain why. This sub-forum isn’t part of the hard science section so the jousting matches don’t make sense to me. It should be expected that members will float alternative theories in the “On the Fringe” section. Is the section designed to post pseudoscience and alternative ideas, only to be immediately dismissed or shamed by those who disagree? I’m not suggesting you stop urging MR to rethink his position but the section itself is to discuss alternative ideas that fall outside the norm. So, his ideas shouldn’t seem that outlandish. They’re just ideas.