4 ms·
I don't recall seeing anything in the article about experts being asked if the videos are legitimate. I think very few people question that the videos are real
by tgflynn 7y ago
I don't recall seeing anything in the article about experts being asked if the videos are legitimate. I think very few people question that the videos are real because the DoD has confirmed them and isn't thought to be in the habit of producing fake videos.
I think the experts were asked if the objects in the videos might be conventional aircraft. There is still some discussion going on with regards to that point, but the Navy says they consider the objects "unidentified".
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y agoSorry, it's in a related PM article by the same author (and linked in the original post): "In an effort to try and clear up the debate, Popular Mechanics sought the help of a digital forensics expert to analyze the video. Having processed over 1,000 cases, including high-profile investigations like U.S. vs Zimmerman, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, and the shooting death of Laquan McDonald, Primeau Forensics is regarded as one of the nation’s leading digital forensics experts. ... When asked if there was enough with just the video to meet the threshold of legally admissible evidence or make a definitive conclusion, Primeau says, “Based on preliminary forensic video analysis, it is my opinion that the FLIR video recordings provided cannot be relied upon as true and accurate, and therefore should not be admissible as evidence in a court of law.” https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a30538203/navy-ufo-video-investigation/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a30538203...
- tgflynn 7y agoI think the Pentagon's statements confirming their origin alone would make them admissible in a court so I'm not sure why they felt the need to obtain that expert opinion. Again that says nothing as to what they actually show.