Maybe that's all science has been doing all along. Do you really think that attribute of "supernatural" as applied by each and every observer establishes the nature of what is being observed? Is human understanding the sole determinant of what is or is not supernatural? Why should such an arbitrary attributition be accepted as "scientific?" Because you, or some other observer says so, or because a whole group of observers happen to agree? What if God is ultimately as "scientific" as it gets? Is it our understanding, or lack of understanding, that turns Him or His works into something else?
Further testing has been completed. Fester Chugabrew is definitely a web bot, rather than a human being.
Publication will appear in a future issue of Nature, once I've completed the paper.