The truth is coming out!

[Gibsense]

In this case, as embarrassing as it is, those pilots showed they don't understand parallax and don't know how infrared cameras work. The most famous video released by the Navy clearly shows an object overflown by the plane that actually flies much more slowly (also see NASA analysis) and the more recent, ridiculously long but definite Pentagon re-analysis), and its speed, flight height and IR appearance is consistent with those of a duck.

You may be 100% correct here. Maybe that's why they were authorised for release. But I would say that would I not? The Tic Tac, or was it Tik Tok (not familiar with American sweets) is not so easy to explain away. If it were then we should worry about aviators' competence. Wow I have underestimated US pilots and their machines; let's see, they fly at a speed of --- without a stall and can shadow a duck for a lengthy period with targeting equipment. How far away would they need to be to hold that lock before passing a duck. I haven't done the maths but it sounds a bit iffy to me. Was it a long way from shore?

In your second paragraph, you don't understand your own point. Yes, unidentified aeial phenomena do exist. But they aren't a category unto themselves, they are only marked by being unidentified. And most of them can be identified upon closer inspection. Usually with something mundane like a plane, a planet or a lens reflection. Not what you wish for. Avoid wishful thinking.

The US Gov explicitly rules out reports where obvious explanations exist ( in their request for data). This to avoid reams of nonsense obscuring and distracting. You demean Western Pilots and should retract that statement and apologise perhaps. I assume you wrote this in the heat of the moment. They (the anomalies) are a category unto themselves; at least that is the intention.

It will be interesting to see what effect recent changes will have ( To Government and DoD staffing). Anyway I hope I have managed to address your 'points' I missed earlier. Please can you offer more substance to your claim that the officer Luis Elizondo is a crank

 

[Gibsense]

Maybe I should be more aggressive in my responses to the M4n8t. Let's start with the accusation that Lui somehow left his post in disgrace in 2017. An open letter from Harry Reid stating that contrary to Pentagon propaganda Lui worked for the 'Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program' (AATIP). Harry goes on to say he performed the leadership admirably. The letter is dated April 26th 2021
Harry Reid was the United States Senate Majority Leader. The Pentagon wrongly rumoured he (Lui) had no part to play in the AATIP.

Lui left to further alert the public of a possible threat to security by integrating with a similarly focused commercial organisation. It didn't work out but years later he was able together with many key people in positions of significance push back against the secrecy to achieve some disclosure and some protection for whistleblowers when revealing data to selected Senators.

Perhaps I should also indicate that the rumoured alien dead and also hard evidence damaged technology is probably true. The resistance to disclosure by modifying the proposed new disclosure laws is rather curious. It suggests there is much to hide. We can of course go deeper but I would encourage the curious to search the internet. Wikipeadia has contributions that are available I am told, but the script is locked (unusually). I have not checked this myself. Having made these comments, I am pleased to not have disclosed my address or confirmed I still reside in the UK mostly, lol

 

[promytius]

I have directly served with Top Gun aviators. They are no more credible that the average Joe. Not a slam, they are human and prone to human error like anyone else.

Anecdotal opinions hold no weight in any argument - you're asserting in the exact same way you're denying others. You've served with a few[ of tens of thousands of] pilots; top gun, low freight delivery, pilots who are all human and all are exceptional humans, brave humans, factual humans that use technology every day. We trust them. Just because you say a few are average, has zero to do with the multitude of sightings reported by pilots.
Then, one turns around and claims that any one sighting of a UFO is irrelevant because it's not corroborated, (even when tens of thousands of people see the same thing) and claims it's just swamp gas.
There's no using those tactics on me.

 

[COLGeek]

Anecdotal opinions hold no weight in any argument - you're asserting in the exact same way you're denying others. You've served with a few[ of tens of thousands of] pilots; top gun, low freight delivery, pilots who are all human and all are exceptional humans, brave humans, factual humans that use technology every day. We trust them. Just because you say a few are average, has zero to do with the multitude of sightings reported by pilots.
Then, one turns around and claims that any one sighting of a UFO is irrelevant because it's not corroborated, (even when tens of thousands of people see the same thing) and claims it's just swamp gas.
There's no using those tactics on me.

Tactics? Not intent at all. Just stating a fact regarding human perception. Being a member of an elite community does not make said member any less prone to human error.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. To date, however, zero concrete evidence of anything alien in origin has been documented. None. Zilch. Nada.

In time, that could change, but not to date.

 

[promytius]

Tactics? Not intent at all. Just stating a fact regarding human perception. Being a member of an elite community does not make said member any less prone to human error.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. To date, however, zero concrete evidence of anything alien in origin has been documented. None. Zilch. Nada.

In time, that could change, but not to date.

"zero concrete evidence of anything alien in origin has been documented. None. Zilch. Nada."
Would you please provide a specific definition for "concrete" evidence? While we're on it, how about scientific theories, do any of them not qualify for your definition of concrete? Are there any science theories based only upon individual observations, personal encounters, mass viewings, videos, photographs that are considered "concrete"? Thanks.

 

[COLGeek]

"zero concrete evidence of anything alien in origin has been documented. None. Zilch. Nada."
Would you please provide a specific definition for "concrete" evidence? While we're on it, how about scientific theories, do any of them not qualify for your definition of concrete? Are there any science theories based only upon individual observations, personal encounters, mass viewings, videos, photographs that are considered "concrete"? Thanks.

Sorry, but if I need to describe what constitutes concrete, objective, measurable evidence, then nothing I say or source will matter.

Good luck with your pursuits.

 

[promytius]

Sorry, but if I need to describe what constitutes concrete, objective, measurable evidence, then nothing I say or source will matter.

Good luck with your pursuits.

Seriously? You're walking away? If that's the kind of dismissive, elitist response you think is adequate to terminate a discussion - well, I'm perfectly fine with your non-participation! Good luck with whatever "pursuits" means to you.