3 ms·

> speeds beyond what is possible Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One of the transcripts was something akin to "you won't believe it, but i

> speeds beyond what is possible Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One of the transcripts was something akin to "you won't believe it, but it's back over there" - there's no claim by the radio operator that they "saw" a track move at speed X, it could just as well be taken as "it was here, and then it was back there". Unless the object was squawking an IFF or transponder code, how would they know it's the exact same object? Since we don't have that evidence - guy claims before he could even lock up the E2C tapes a pair from the USAF appear on a Naval Carrier (like teleported or what?) to take them. All the worlds most advanced collection systems, optical and radar and all we have are fuzzy videos no better than a bigfoot video. The only decent video is debunked by someone actually doing the math.

istorical 6y ago
My point is not that there is evidence or that we should believe their clams. My point is that debunking the video is pretty pointless and the video really is almost a side note compared to the real judgment call one has to make which is whether a verbal anecdote about sensor data from a US Navy squadron commander on an aircraft with millions of dollars of sensor R&D working with radar operators in a fleet that is worth billions deserves more weight than the verbal anecdote of an Iowa farmer who saw a light moving in the sky. If you're only interested in hard data and hard evidence then the entire thing is almost pointless as any UFO videos could just be doctored anyway.
kipchak 6y ago
>"USAF appear on a Naval Carrier (like teleported or what?)" The story is they came in by helicopter.