posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:35 AM
This is indeed refreshing, and serves well as a reminder of how terrible eye-witness accounts are.
Too often we hear the "I know what I saw!"
Human beings make for crap observation and recording of any event or phenomenon we have no prior experience with.
Whether you saw birds both times, a UFO both times where you mistook the UFO for birds the second time around, or A UFO the first time and Birds the
second, we'll never know for sure.
The best approach is the true open-minded approach where you simply leave it at "unknown" without any speculation until there's data enough to
reasonably essay the event.
Too often, "open-minded" is code for 'aliens', where completely objective open-mindedness will be just as equally prepared to accept a mundane
explanation as a fantastic explanation, as well as, even more importantly just leaving it at unknown without speculation.
Confirmation of birds the second time around, while indicative that the first time may have also been birds, does not necessarily identify or rule out
a factor of unknown on your first sighting.
It's simply indicative that you've made a memory connection in similarities.
We make for crap recording devices, so, who's to say?
Whatever the case, for these very reasons, eye-witness testimony alone should be considered mostly irrelevant.
edit on 25-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)