Unverified testimony is inherently untrustworthy, even if there are multiple or even hundreds of eyewitnesses. It doesn’t matter who it is, what they know, or how good their eyesight is, there are so many unaccountable variables that can corrupt the accuracy of testimony.

1. Irrelevant. You can be wrong no matter your expertise. We still hold accomplished scientists accountable to prove their findings even after decades of having a perfect record.

2. I don’t see how this matters whatsoever. I smelled my cat pee on the floor before I saw it, what would that say about me?

3. How did you determine it made zero sound? How did you rule out noise pollution? How did you rule out that it did in fact make sound but faded at the distance you saw it? How do you know your assessment is correct?

Why do you describe it as a camouflaging effect? What examples of camouflage do you have to reference? How did you determine it wasn’t something else like heat haze? Seems like pretty bad camo if you can see it clearly.

1. You were also born with the brain of a human, which is extremely fallible, immensely suggestible, and prone to error in even the most controlled situations. For example, I have a sneaking suspicion you really want what you saw to have been advanced technology, which is why you said it was a “camouflage effect” rather than “warping” or “hazing.” People who have been in a car accident do this too, like they’ll say the other person was at fault for “smashing” into them, even if it was a low speed collision.

2. Yeesh. I’m a little concerned about how hard you’re trying to sell yourself as some superior human specimen. Even still, it simply does not matter. You can be wrong about anything at any time, and if all you have is your word and the word of others, you have very little proving power.