That one comment about my UFO analysis made me rethink how I present evidence

I've been posting UFO sighting breakdowns on here for about 4 years, always with radar data and flight path overlays. Last month someone replied 'you keep proving what it isn't, but never say what it could be' and it hit me hard. I was so focused on debunking that I forgot to offer a plausible alternative explanation for the 30+ cases I covered. Now I spend more time researching weather balloons, military drills, and satellite flares before I hit post. It's changed my whole format, I even start with the most likely mundane answer now. Has anyone else gotten feedback that forced them to flip their whole approach to case analysis?

0 comments

0 Comments

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this discussion.