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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
