[chipdart]

> Is it strange? I'd say it's fair to assume that potential alien visitors (...)

Just because you personally can't provide an explanation for a photo or a video, which I might add can very well be fake and often are, that does not mean you can fill in the explanation field with nonsense. That's what nutjobs and conspiracy loons do.

[Timon3]

Sure, but that doesn't mean you should argue with faulty logic. That's no better than what nutjobs and conspiracy loons do.

[chipdart]

> Sure, but that doesn't mean you should argue with faulty logic.

The faulty logic is undoubtedly jumping to conclusions that just because you personally don't know the origin of something, that automatically means it's a fantastic story. It just means you don't know. That's it.

That's how you get lens flares being described as aliens.

[Timon3]

Again, I'm not disagreeing. I thought I repeated "I don't believe aliens are visiting us" in my comment often enough to make that clear.

I am only commenting on your point:

> Before camera phones were ubiquitous, the bulk of reports were very elaborate and fantastic tales where the so-called witness played a central role in the story.

> Once everyone started carrying a camera, all we see is questionable light shows taken from a very long distance.

> Strange, isn't it?

This argument is not based in logic. Don't argue against "aliens" and the like by making points that are not based in logic. Find arguments that are based in logic.