Cheers, that is very much a 2 way street.
I agree, its usually only by starting again that you find different paths that people before may not have explored.
do we not see what we fear though? If so how do aliens enter our thought process? i.e. during war we are fearful of the enemy (whatever country that may be)....not spacecraft piloted by ET. Although I do see and agree with your point, this example does make me think its not so cut and dry.
Not one person has had a fair go at trying to solve the real mystery - the performance of the craft. This is where solid evidence turns to liquid.
It amazes me that you maintain support for the other side when all you have had to work with is 99% woo woo. As I have mentioned to others,. I think there are 2 types of believer. Good ones and bad ones. The Good ones have names like Sagan, Drake, Hawking, and Quillius. The bad ones are not worth mentioning. They feed of the good work. It more pains me that real believers have to carry the credulous.
As soon as we assume that Father Gill was incorrect in a description, we are re-writing the description. That to me is a no-no. We can then bias and influence it in any way we want, hence a reference to time travellers. This illustrates that another answer is more plausible than ET, even if it is not the answer. They explain the situation better than ET, but next thing you know I have people telling me time travel is not possible, Yet one man has actually time traveled. Granted only one 50th of a second into the future, but he actually did it. Therefore, I do not feel it is any more than bias that indicates that time travel is more likely than ET, in fact, using a wormhole for time travel would be easier than building one for space. We could do it now, if we could make the wormhole. All we need is two ends of a wormhole, and a very fast spaceship.
could he have been incorrect? well I guess it depends on how he reached the opinion that they were human....