[keepamovin]

Did he mean that like:

- "I know I saw something that violated my laws of physics, but my knowledge of physics prevented me from believing it (was a physical object/ was real/ was actually behaving in the physics-violating way I saw)." or

- "From my knowledge of physics it was clear that aliens could not get here, so whatever I saw could not have been their craft."

or something else?

[karmakaze]

This seems to be over-analyzing. I take it to mean it didn't feel like any kind of physical object to him. You know how in the moment you're either going to react with "oh shit!" or "curious..." because you made an unconscious snap judgement. I don't think he deeply considered how different alien physical objects could behave with far advanced science, then decided how to feel about that.

[keepamovin]

It's not over analyzing, hahaha! :) We're going to get more by analyzing what it is. I get what you're sayin' but it's important to consider the possible meanings, right?

I think your take is fair, but it's just another interpretation like mine. Otherwise how it's taken or presented could be totally different to how it's intended.

> I don't think he deeply considered how different alien physical objects could behave with far advanced science, then decided how to feel about that.

No but he could have considered more on reflection then provided an answer that was the result of that. Hahaha! :) This discussion between us is like proof of why it's important to consider.

We don't want Jimmy Carter to be a puppet for whatever ideology or theory, we want to know what we thought. Hahah! :)

But I also reflect that maybe these sort of statements where it's ambiguous isn't that important to consider, because you can't really know, ya know what i mean? :) Hahah. So funny you say over analyzing but then we get down into analysis of it hahahaha! :)