The evidence they have are the videos submitted to them in which these crafts are performing maneuvers that known aircraft are incapable of executing based on the latest engineering capabilities.
Can you show even ONE video that demonstrates maneuvers that known aircraft are incapable of executing?
First off, I'll point out that of the 18 incidents that involved "unusual movement", we don't even know how many of those movements are on video and how many are just eyewitness claims. Since the report said that observer error is a possible explanation for the movements, it's clear that not all and perhaps not even most of the 18 have any video supporting the claims at all.
Second, so far four videos have been shared publicly that have been claimed by their proponents to show "unusual movements". This is the BEST evidence that Luis Elizondo and
To The Stars has been willing to put forward. But none of them actually show any good evidence of "maneuvers that known aircraft are capable of executing.
GOFAST: Data from the video itself shows that contrary to
To The Stars's claims, the object is not moving at high speed:
GIMBAL: Rotation by itself is not an indication of advanced technology, and the object isn't even rotating - it only appears to be rotating due to the gimbal mechanism on the plane's IR camera (which - duh - is probably why the Navy labeled the video "GIMBAL")
FLIR1: What seems to be sudden movements are just lens changes and loss of camera lock
AGUADILLA: Appear to be a pair of heart-shaped Chinese lanterns released from the place next to the site that literally releases heart-shaped Chinese lanterns. Claims that the craft "go in and out of the water" are completely unsupported - the objects are moving fairly constantly in the same direction at the prevalent wind speed and only appear to disappear and reappear on occasion because the resolution is so poor that they occupy very few pixels on the screen and the camera's in-house compression algorithm is occasionally compression those pixels out of existence.
Aguadilla Infrared Footage of 'UFOs' - Probably Hot Air Wedding Lanterns
For the incidents that we actually have video on, there are no indications of "advanced technology" in any of them. So why should I believe claims that there is advanced technology proven in other sightings that we don't even have evidence for, when even the Pentagon's own report, the only evidence we have of these sightings, says itself that there's no proof of advanced technology yet?
Not only that but to add.. out of the 144 cases they investigated they could only definitively explain one which was a ballon..
They could only definitively explain one sighting because the data they have is so limited and poor, and partly because (as Elizondo himself said repeatedly), the effort they put into investigation was very meager.
Therefore any craft observed conducting these maneuvers are displaying "advanced technology." THAT IS THE EVIDENCE. Do you lack reading comprehension skills? You're purposely ignoring what doesn't fit your narrative. You cannot be this big of a simpleton.
There is no EVIDENCE that the UAP observed in this report can be explained away due to sensor errors, spoofing, observer misperception, parallax errors, or changing zoom views. Yet you continue to tout these as "explanations." If there were evidence, the reporting authorities would gladly use it to explain the questionable phenomena.
First, don't spend more time insulting me than actually laying out evidence. It makes it look like you don't have much of a case and need to fill the space with insults.
Second, in downplaying the report before it was even released, Luis Elizondo himself said that the Pentagon had put very little effort into the investigation and likely had only taken a cursory look at many things. They were basically just collecting and tabulating sightings. So the suggestion that the authorities have some massive operation to study this shyt and can't find any explanation isn't supported at all. NO ONE involved with the effort has said that the Pentagon put a huge amount of work into it. I would bet that both the UFO-community and the UFO-skeptics (and their overlap) have put far more energy and manpower into analyzing the videos than the Pentagon has.
Finally, no serious investigator is going to claim so confidently "No other explanation is possible or we would have found it!" Anyone who takes science seriously knows that there are always other explanations we haven't considered or evaluated correctly. I'm reminded of Dr. Antonio Ereditato and the OPERA project, a team of 160 physicists who
claimed they had found neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light. They presented their results to the global community with "a high degree of confidence", but asked the community to look and see where they might have erred. And the global community figured it out - a cable used to transmit data was poorly connected, leading to an extra signal delay of 73 nanoseconds, which threw off the velocity calculations. When the poor connection was corrected for, the calculation of neutrino speed became something perfectly reasonable.
The real reasons nothing can ever go faster than light
That was a case where 160 physicists, conducting their own experiment, with an enormous amount of data on hand, still messed up their result and thought something unprecedented and impossible was happening....when in fact they had just failed to detect a minor equipment malfunction.
That one of the reasons why I don't take this constant drumbeat of "But they can't explain it so it must be aliens!!!" as seriously as some of y'all. When even huge teams of experienced physicists with comprehensive data can miss an explanation for something they've been studying for months, why should I expect some half-assed part-time guys in the Pentagon to perfectly explain something they're barely looking at and have very little data for? It's far more likely that they just haven't worked on it hard enough to come up with the explanation, or don't have enough data cause their information is so limited.
How is it OBVIOUS that there are drones that can hover thousands of feet in the air in hurricane-force winds?
Can you provide evidence of that happening? I haven't seen that one. Though it should be obvious that if there is an aircraft doing that, while quite impressive it certainly wouldn't be "violating the known laws of physics" or be so advanced to be obviously alien if all it's doing is achieving stability in high wind.
Or drones that lack observable propulsion systems? Please provide evidence of these drones that you're aware of yet military officials are clueless about apparently.
Come on now, the Fleye drone had no visible propulsion because the propeller was hidden behind casing and it's a fukking toy.
Most of the sightings that claim "no visible propulsion" are at long distances and shytty resolution. Do you have any high-resolution video of a craft that clearly has no observable propulsion system? Poor visibility or the craft being further away than thought (or parallax where they think it's moving when it's not) could explain that easily.
In terms of technology we do know of, there are quite simple drones that work
using air blowers rather than propellers to create a
ducted drone and other examples of
bladeless drones. There are
propelled blimp-body drones where the propellers are much smaller than the body and below a tic-tac shape so would be concealed and not visible from most angles or distances, which also reminds me of some of
our odder surveillance drones. Even a
simple cylindrical drone like this one, think of how close you would have to get to actually see the propellers. At the distance and resolution of all the videos we've seen, it's just going to look like a hovering cylinder, you would have to get far closer to see the propeller blades.
And as I pointed out, those are all basically toys, not even military grade. The idea that "We can't make a drone where you wouldn't obviously see the propulsion system at a distance!" is just lazy.
You're still misusing the same, tired murder analogy. The government report IS the equivalent of the police officer stating the case is unsolved and more information needs to be gathered. Yet you seem laser-focused on disparaging people who may believe in the extraterrestrial hypothesis while somehow using the inconclusive nature of the report to buttress your weak argument. You don't believe in UAP/UFOS. Nothing you have posted in this thread lends credence to this absurd statement. Which is your prerogative as I've mentioned before. Just lose the "objective, science-based reasoning" schtick. As far as "little green men" please pull up any post I've made in the thread where I've proposed that as the definitive answer for the UAP phenomena. I'm one of the people who have EXPLICITLY said UFO/UAP aren't necessarily aliens. And now you bring up the farce known as Project Blue Book?
I have never said I don't believe in UFOs/UAPs. I obviously do. I'm just frustrated by people who absolutely refuse to accept any explanation other than "This is impossible and must be aliens or Atlantis or technology far beyond anything we know!" without even looking at the evidence.
If you want me to take the alien hypothesis seriously, then show clear evidence of aliens. If you want me to take the Atlantis hypothesis seriously, then show clear evidence of Atlantis. If you want me to take the alternative dimension hypothesis seriously, then show clear evidence of alternative dimensions. If you want me to take the "this is advanced technology 100 to 1000 years ahead of us" hypothesis seriously, then show clear evidence of advanced technology 100 to 1000 years ahead of us.
But I'm going to base all my responses on actual, demonstrable evidence. Not flights of fancy. And until we get that very specific evidence, there is no reason to invent hypotheses that require belief it extraordinarily unlikely or impossible things when normal everyday explanations are still far more likely.
Now I'll ask yet again....if you are convinced I'm wrong, then why not just show the specific evidence? Why do I continue to be the only one putting up videos of very specific events and links to very specific evidence, while other people are still posting random people in interviews with zero evidence or just attacking me over and over?
It accurately depicts the report's assertion that in 18 separate incidents, the UAP observed appeared to be unaffected by winds, moved in ways that can't be explained, and propelled themselves in ways that can't be explained. How doesn't this tweet encapsulate that sentiment? What don't you understand about the statement? Like are you purposely being obtuse? And if so, why? UFO advocates are admitting there's damn near nothing there because they are already convinced of the FACT UFOs/UAP exist. Therefore, a report released by the government that merely acknowledges this well-known FACT isn't cause for celebration. You clearly don't believe UAP phenomena has any validity on a scientific level so why post in an internet message board thread dedicated to the subject matter? I'm legitimately confused.
