Thank you for your consideration. To quote you, "If I claim to see an invisible purple rhinoceros that is nothing more than a statement from one person." But why is it not more than just a statement from one person. There is a difference between "claiming to see an invisble purple rhinoceros and positing that you have "truly seen one". Your claim, although limited to one person, ought to have some weight for consideration by others. You have seen something that can not rationally be explained, but you have still seen/experienced it none-the-less. Regardless of whether or not anyone else believes you. I think I see your position that essentially if you make outlandish claims then in order for you to be taken seriously then you must provide clear evidence (whatever that means lol).
Further, to quote TheFallibleFiend, "UFOs and intelligent alien life - to the extent they are not mystical or supernatural phenomena - are susceptible to the scientific method, at least putatively.

UFOs exist. You see something in the sky. You don't know what it is, therefore it is a UFO."


1. Let us refine the definition of UFO (object not from any [known] Earthbound technology) and refine that either you alone, or a large audience have experienced this event.
2. I do not know the general take of the scientific communities position regarding UFO's. But again I do sense that most people, scientists or not, would say, "nuts".
3. Take the "lights over Phoenix" in www.cnn.com/US/9706/19/ufo.lights Hotly debated as to whether or not the "lights" were from a massive UFO or eminated from flares dropped from government planes. This event was witnessed by tens of thousands of people and well documented via video and pictures.
4. A colleague of mine was driving in Phoenix, during the event, and was awestruck by "a colossal object hovering over the city with no sound coming from it". He relayed that cars by the dozens had pulled over onto the side of the road to watch this event.
5. This is an example, akin to DA's "football stadium audience".
6. Did thousands of people optically compute the same experience. Did each person have their own interpretation of what transpired?
7. Were the lights flares or a massive UFO?
8. How can the scientific method be applied to understand an event such as this when there are extremely differing perspectives on the same occurance?
9. I contend that if 1,000 different scientists applied the scientific method to understand the nature of this event, then there would probably be dozens (or more) arrays of equally sound scientific conclusions. How can this be? There is bountiful "evidence" and yet there will be vastly differing approaches (and resulting conclusions) as to how to tackle the issue scientifically.
10. Lets, for fun, further posit that the scientific method was applied by scientists (of varying backgrounds), and still the conclusions ranged from: government flares, mass hysteria, UFO.. even God, and finally inconclusive (not able to determine what the occurance actually was). How can this be? The facts are the same.
11. I do not think the method can be applied because this is extremely likely to be a non-reproducable event.
12. What I am wondering, I spoke with finchbeak about this earlier, is how do scientists (using the same raw data) differ vastly on conclusions resulting from using the same scientific method?
"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010