[Frank_Discussion]

I think that I may be more pragmatic than you, but I think to close the door on reasonable but riduculed possibilities is shortsighted.

The subject of UFO's is one of those possibilities. Often there are folks who say "there's got to be a scientific explanation" and I'm inclined to agree. Where the knee-jerking begins is when the scientific explanation includes unfashionable discoveries.

That dark spot may be a data transmission error, a falling meteor that is no longer superheated from reentry, a piece of debris from a Martian dust-devil, a bit of dust on the panoramic camera, or a spacecraft/aircraft. OR other possibilities I can't currently conjure up.

One thing IS for sure: It's not something you expect to find in this particular field of view.

[Quix]

I agree.

I suppose . . . having been born genetically a

'bird of rare plumage'--some would say 'very, very, very rare plumge'

it has been easier for me than it is for most people . . .

to construe options, realities, factors, issues, possibilities which seem to rarely occur to others or which are too eagerly and rigidly dismissed out of hand by other people.

Certainly there are plenty of both TYPE I and TYPE II errors in such a life.

But what amazes me is that

NAYSAYERS SEEM VIRTUALLY 100% ADDICTED TO TYPE I ERRORS and seem to absolutely ignore TYPE II errors those some of those can be much more dramatically life/way of life threatening.

It's a fascinating phenomenon amongst a group pontificating so arrogantly about being logical and scientific!

Sheesh.