The Proof Is Out There

While watching tonight's episode, I saw the clip of the 3 rows of lights where the right most light on each row would go out, and be replaced by another light at the far left of the remaining lights. After watching the deliberations, the resulting verdict was that the lights are military flares, but I beg to differ with that theory, because if they were military flares, they would drop due to gravity, but none of these lights are dropping.......they are all moving in a straight line. And when a fighter jet releases flares, they don't normally release 1 flare at a time, they launch several! I have no idea what these lights are......but I highly doubt that they are military flares!

I find this show occasionally tries to debunk potential genuine UAPs.

I enjoy watching this show, but I feel like if they're doing a story on something that may be difficult to "prove" or distinguish between fact or fake the do not do enough investigation. If the subject is easy to come up with an explanation for, they do a good job discussing what the phenomenon actually is. But, with things that don't have an actual explanation right away they just write off as "unexplained phenomenon" or stop investigating and just SAY it can be explained. I wish they would continue investigations on harder to prove things until they get an actual explanation, or at least narrow it down to a few choices.

To be honest, I love looking at the unusual things around us and trying to figure it out with logic, science and common sense. This show leaves me divided. I know that many things we see on the show can be misidentified, optical illusions or very rare, and some are complete hoaxes, but I also know that not all things can be easily explained even with science.

The scientific method requires the same results repeatedly, so when they speak to 1 expert for their 'opinion' without actually showing the scientific method, I am still left with doubts of credibility.

I love that they start by analyzing the video for inconsistencies since AI and video compositing can produce realistic results. This should be the first test in all cases. If it's a fake, stop there.

However, there's a 'Marine Biologist'... thats the only title. No credentials, no PHD or title or accolades to build credibility, who gives her opinion in debunking animal related incidents and that is 'fact'? I'm not saying she's not correct, it's still her words, opinions and observations. A generic title doesn't make an 'expert' and an opinion from this 'expert' isn't proof. I wish there were a little more science in some of the episodes and less opinion to quickly dismiss things that still could be something else.

I'm a skeptic and think there are logical explanations for most things. One thing I love about this show, is they don't try and build some BS like other shows. They separate the BS from the true unexplained. Great show!

I believe Tony Harris is the real deal. He calls them as he and experts see them. No sugar coating, no bs analysis, he's not fake. I gave Him and the show a 9 was because there were some things blatantly obvious and they called it unexplained. Other than dat, Tony Harris is genuine and give the show two thumbs up! Congratulations on the new season. Im glad to see the show made it for another season. If you don't like it, don't watch! Don't be bagging on Tony Harris for doing a job, that's fun and trying to show the public, some of the most bizarre crazy a** sh't, thats out there. That's what its all about! Get it! Some of the weird a** experts still are experts and I trust what they say to be true. Unlike the News, there's at least video, were the news would say a unnamed source, now that's BS!