This episode featured people who claim to have seen a large creature of a description that has been collectively labeled a "Mothman" -- 6 to 8 feet tall, large bat-like wings, man-like but with bright, red glowing eyes. We have no way of knowing exactly what these people saw, but the show brought in renowned skeptic Joe Nickell, who believes they misidentified a barn owl. And to prove that they probably mistook a 2-foot owl for a 7-foot creature, he made 3 plywood cutouts of a Mothman shape in 3 sizes -- 2 feet, 4 feet and 8 feet tall -- and fitted them with red bicycle reflectors for eyes. He then asked several test subjects to drive by the cutouts at night, which were set at various distances from the road and illuminated by a search light. After, they were asked to report their estimations of the sizes.
Now, here is where Joe the skeptic reveals his bias (should we say dishonesty?). First, he admits on camera that the data he collected showed that for the most part the witnesses did a pretty good job of judging the size of the 3 cutouts. With a big "however" and a smirk, he then concludes that because 3 of the witnesses were way off in their judgement that people are not good witnesses. Huh? A bit later in the show, the narrator repeats that Nickell's experiment proved that people are not good at judging size in those situations. But didn't Nickell say the data showed they did a pretty good job?
To downplay his data even more, Nickell then said that if these figures were moving that the witnesses would do an even worse job of judging size. Oh, really? What do you base that on, Joe? Actually, I think the opposite is true. If a figure is moving, it has more perceived 3-dimensionality and a witness can better place it in the context of its environment and better judge its size.
Again, let me emphasize that this review is based only on the show as presented. I haven't seen the actual data Nickell collected or how many test subjects were involved (an Internet search did not find anything). On the face of it, however, it appears that Nickell had his conclusions beforehand and that the data didn't really matter. So who is really unreliable? Eyewitnesses... or biased debunkers?