There have been some memorable sightings in the past. I guess we each
have our favorites that for us clinches the case for UFO reality,
that is, of alien reality. There are many sightings that if the
observers were truthful and accurate, would reasonably close the case
for an alien presence, certainly a heretofore unknown intelligence,
and it should stand even in lieu of hard physical evidence, so
remarkable are some of these cases.

My frustration is not being able to follow up on these cases to see
what, if any, new information has surfaced. What you get in your
research is the same, more or less, original sighting. What is needed
is to follow up on these cases and to report the up to date findings.
No use holding up a "solid case" where in fact, that particular
sighting has fallen on its face while all along claiming it as prime
evidence as a true blue case giving strong support for an alien
presence. To continue to repeat old but disproved cases doesn't
encourage confidence from the general public, media or the scientific
community, to those of us trying to convince the media, politicians
and the scientific community that we have a real foreign intelligence
interacting with us. Should the scientific community have to be
reminded that the bed rock of scientific investigation begins and
ends with observation, or be reminded of the illogical premise, "if
we can't do it with our knowledge and engineering, it can't be done
by any intelligence." If we haven't mastered interstellar travel,
then you can't believe your eyes if some one else has accomplished
the feat. Imagine an astronomer facing, close up, a truly anomalous
object; what will he do, believe his eyes or his false premise?

Sky