If what you saw with your own eyes (or observed directly in any other way) conflicted with a vicarious account from a "highly respected" scientist in a "highly respected" scientific journal, which would you believe? Yourself, or the scientist?
I think that would depend on the circumstances, really. You may not fully understand the principles involved in what you are seeing, or these scientists have yet to have seen what you've seen.
I think would change on the circumstances involved.
For example, I recall a documentary showing a species of crow dropping snails onto rocks to crack the shells. The scientists in the program claimed that this behaviour was a unique development particular to a small colony of crows at the remote island location where they were filming. However, I see crows and gulls do this regularly in my bustling neighbourhood.
Heh... There was a semi-famous Greek philosopher (can't remember the name off-hand) who was purportedly killed by an Eagle which dropped a turtle from hundreds feet in the air, presumably thinking that his bald head was a rock below. The eagle was probably trying to crack the shell.
I take many of these documentaries with a grain of salt. For instance, have you ever noticed that these shows routinely portray T-Rex as this vicious creature?
I mean, sure, you like at the frame and it has the tell-tale design of a predator, but it could be relatively docile for all we know. Chloroplast cells have been found embedded in their teeth which is a sure sign that they at some plants. It may not have been the voracious carnivore the way it is portrayed.
What's more, they portray these huge gutteral growls coming from the T-Rex. They couldn't know what sound the animal made. It could have hissed for all we know. And in all liklihood, probably did hiss, based on what we currently know of reptiles.
Now, are you really going to take it as the gospel truth?
At the same time, there are lots of things witnessed by people that aren't what they seem to be. UFO's are usually a prime example.
I think that something like this is on a case-by-case basis.
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
™ Version 4.2