No. Not of any great drama.
Joya and I were coming back from Durango . . . late afternoon.
At Aztec, it was getting on toward twilight. Way off to the South extarpolated to roughly between NAPI . . . well, the center of NAPI . . .
very high up . . . looked like a balloon with a gondola but was not behaving like a balloon. Bright in the sun at that altitude.
Pulled over into Wendy’s parking lot, took out binoculars.
It was a standard, relatively small sized looking triangle UFO with the 3 biggish lights in the usual places. Watched it for 20 min or so thru binoculars. It slowly seemed to go higher and further South. My cousin and wife saw it, as well.
Was NOT a balloon.
Have studied the topic since Jr High . . . 1962.
Mostly collect puzzle pieces. Been able to interview international experts across 2-3 continents . . . including the best Japanese UFO expert.
Don’t have a great deal of patience left for naysayers any more. The data is quite conclusive. Only the willfully blind and those terminally uninformed, &/or the willfully addicted to a virtual certainty of a TYPE II error are on the other side.
I don’t really give a very big rip what naysayers think or say of me . . . though their duplicity is often outrageous and sometimes annoying.
Other than “balloon” what other possibilities did you consider, reject and why?
For example for me to believe your “like a balloon but not a balloon” was an alien craft, I would need to trust your expertise, your data (limited to visual only), your sanity and your senses (in this case).
Even if I did all the above, I still only have “small sized looking triangle with the 3 biggish lights” that you deduce is a an alien craft (I assume).
This is akin to me picking a rock and saying, “I don’t know what this is; it’s from an alien.”
Hard physical evidence of aliens just doesn’t exist. Until it does the “naysayers” hold the sensible objective high ground.
Right. All of those who disagree are guilty of Type II error, you cannot Possibly be guilty of Type I, though. (I didn't think so.)