3 ms·
It doesn't need to. It's easy enough to view the videos and confirm that this is, in fact, what they are.
by user-the-name 5y ago
It doesn't need to. It's easy enough to view the videos and confirm that this is, in fact, what they are.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> It doesn't need to. It's easy enough to view the videos and confirm So the U.S. government is going through the trouble of declassification to reveal the limits of its sensors to adversaries? From what we can tell, the reports categorise them as UFOs. That implies a non-artefact theory.
- Apocryphon 5y agoThis could all be a feint to claim their sensors are weaker than they really are.
- king_magic 5y agoDoesn’t really pass the smell test. 80+ years of advancements in US gov’t radar tech, and these systems get fooled this easily? Hard to buy that IMO.
- king_magic 5y agoThat’s a pretty bold statement to make, especially when these objects were observed with multiple independent radar systems and multiple humans’ visual sight. Amazing what camera artifacts can do, isn’t it?