We all agree that there is nothing per se wrong with having a skeptical mind, in fact, I would say it is extremely healthy and far more preferable to believing everything you are told - without evidence to back it up.
I have just been watching an episode of 'Unsolved Mysteries UFOs - Vol 1' and a part of the programme is given over to the 1980 Rendlesham Forest UFO encounters.
I was made extremely angry by comments made by someone in the documentary (and why? why should this bother me so much?) - probably in the interest of journalistic balance, the programme makers had included comments from an astronomer, namely one James McGahey.
I was astounded at how this 'astronomer' was making definitive pronouncements about an event he was not even present at! I have no problem with people making sure that all possibilities are explored and exhausted before coming to the conclusion that something is 'unexplained'.
However, this idiot - and I choose my words advisedly, as this 'scientist' made public pronouncements of a definitive nature, without any evidence to prove his theory - said two separate things that left me aghast at his blatant ignorance of the scientific method.
I am not going to re-tell the Rendlesham story, if you don't know it already, it is included in the documentary mentioned below.
So, this James McGahey, purportedly an astronomer, although it is hard to believe he is a man of science, at one point says in relation to the sighting of strange lights in the forest next to the base, that - 'This is unquestionably what John Burroughs saw'. He was talking about a meteor that entered the Earth's atmosphere that morning. John Burroughs claims he saw 'strange lights' moving about
in the forest, below the level of the trees. It was because of the proximity of the lights to the perimeter of the base the John decided to pass the info up the command chain, exactly as he should have.
Anyway, even though I find it hard to believe that someone could mistake a fireball meteor (a strange event, no doubt)
in the sky for lights
in the forest for more than 20 seconds, I do not discount the possibility altogether.
So, is it within the realm of possibility that John mistook a meteor for lights below treetop level in the forest next to him? Yes, it is possible. But I contend that as unlikely as alien spacecraft or whatever, are - that is no reason at all to stretch one actual occurrence to fit with a reported one when most people could quite easily tell the difference between lights in a nearby forest and a meteor up in the sky. I should also mention that the reported lights were seen to move down, across and up again. Not the behaviour of any meteor on record I believe. Meteors move fast. Even a meteor at a shallow angle will still move across a huge portion of sky unless it is coming right at you and no-one is saying that happened. It would be over very quickly. Very different than standing watching lights come from the inside of a forest close to you?
So my gripe is not with this alternative explanation, it is with the fact that he said 'this is unquestionably what he saw'. That is something he cannot say, having been no-where near the events. He cannot say that for definite, any more than Charles Halt could say 'yeah, they were alien spacecraft', which of course, he has never said.
Ok, gripe no.1 over.
Gripe no.2 is that James McGahey says that 'the burden of proof is upon those making the claims......where is the evidence?'
Yes, McGahey, that is fair enough.
But there is evidence to back the claims! I would think that combined testimony of multiple people serving at a nuclear-armed USAF base counts for something. I would think 3 indentations in the ground in an equilateral triangle formation precisely where an object was reported to have been stationary counts as evidence. I think radiation readings taken while the events were happening and afterwards too, count as evidence. Broken tree branches were caused by something physical too. An audio recording made as the events unfolded exists, that is evidence to a degree. Unless of course we cannot trust the word of a man trusted with a superpower's nuclear weapons, and his subordinates. Then, we can discount every thing the men reported that night. Case closed, they are all liars, completely uncaring about their careers in the military, just hoping that 20 years later they can make some money from making all this up. Really?
This idiot McGahey then also says definitively that Col Charles Halt and the others saw 'lights in the sky' and that is all they saw. Another definitive statement by someone not present. Yes, they reported seeing just that. But they also reported a lighted object hovering just off the ground moving about over a protracted period of time, whilst Col Halt was making an audio recording! How can so many witnesses mistake lights in the sky for an object 100 yards away moving
in the forest they themselves were in?
Some may think I am being a little harsh to James McGahey, a noted UFO skeptic (surprise surprise). But, in actual fact, I have zero problems with looking for prosaic explanations for strange events. Most 'strange events' that are reported do indeed turn out to have mundane explanations after thorough investigation. All well and good.
But is is unforgiveable for a man of science to say things like 'unquestionably what John Burroughs saw that night'.
How can anyone make such a definitive statement about events they were not party too? He could have said 'it is very likely that this is what John Burroughs saw that night'. That would have been fine. But, 'unquestionably' is not a word you use if you are a scientist unless you have checked you facts, checked them again, and absolutely ruled out any other explanation. No, 'unquestionably' is absolutely not a word a scientist uses in regards of something he was not even a party to.
Any human being is fallible. Any of us could mistake one thing for another, especially at night under duress. Sure. No-one would argue with that. But I would really hope that a deputy base commander of a strategic nuclear base would not make statements that he saw an object hovering in the woods for a long time, close to him, unless he was very sure that was what he saw. Remember, Col Halt says that he went out that night with the express purpose of debunking the UFO claims made the previous night. This was not a man expecting to go out and see a UFO.
There were several other people there too. I would hope such a deputy base commander would not use words even similar to the ones he did unless he was absolutely sure. I find it easier to believe he saw a secret russian plane than him mistake lights in the sky for a lit object hovering close by in the woods in which he himself was in.
Anyone who wishes to watch this doc (quite a good one really) the link is below. The comments that annoyed me so much made by James McGahey start around
20mins 40secs in.
Now, in the interest of fairness, if anyone thinks I have been too harsh regarding the comments of this skeptical astronomer, I would genuinely welcome anyone pointing out where my reasoning may have gone astray. I would remind everyone that the comments made by McGahey were not some offhand comments made on a doorstep before he could compose himself. No, the comments were filmed, obviously in cooperation for the purposes of the documentary about UFOs, so I contend he would have been very sure of what he was saying?
It just looks to me that this McGahey character is yet another 'skeptic' who is in actual fact, a debunker. He does not have an open mind. His mind is made up and even if he has to make things up, to bend the truth to explain this away, he will. For a man like that, having such an event remain unexplained is unacceptable. I have never heard Col Halt state that he thought he saw alien spacecraft. To my knowledge, none of the witnesses claim to actually know for a fact what they witnessed, so, the actual participants of this event are willing to have it labelled 'unexplained' which is what it is.
Debunkers hate the word 'unexplained' because in their universe, no such thing as non-human intelligently controlled flying vehichles exist, therefore the explanation must be something that is already known.
How utterly arrogant.
(Note: I have never to my knowledge seen a UFO. I have no sure idea what they may be or where they may come from. From the wealth of evidence and reports from credible people, I am willing to remain open to the possibility that there are structured, advanced craft in our skies, not under human control - beyond that, I really don't know.)
So, sometime eye witness memory is true to the letter. Not always and we can always find times when it isn't. So, if a pilot tells you he saw a craft of some kind and a skeptic tells you it was the planet Venus. Take the pilots word until you can know one way or the other. imo. 
