>>11667723>not a forensic expert on aircraft FLIR footage =/= completely incompetent>The Pentagon and Navy don't have access to forensic experts or people competent at reviewing FLIR or radar dataThere are only three arguments you can make to support your position. 1) The Navy, Pentagon, and dozens of pilots/operators are all completely incompetent and have no access to experts who can analyse the video/radar data. 2) The Pilots and equipment malfunctioned for weeks on end, with dozens of pilots experiencing mass delusion or confusing birds and other U.S. military jets for UAPs. Also several, independent, radar systems malfunctioned at the same time on multiple ships and jets. 3) The Navy and Pentagon are lying when they say they don't know, even though they have never had an issue before with debunking UFO sightings.
None of these are plausible given the two independent cases, Roosevelt and Nimitz, and the circumstances surrounding them.
>Also the military labelled this as a possible balloon in the document.No, this is your misunderstanding. Louis Elizondo, who first requested these videos internally and later leaked them, labelled them as "Balloons" and "UAV" in the document because its obviously more appreciate than "UFOs" or "Aliens". He obviously did his sneakily, which is what people like John Greenwald and writers are popular mechanics, who have spent the last two years digging out FOIA information have shown.
>Also because it needs to be said. You're making an argument from authority. Just explain what's wrong with the parallax explanation and you could embarrass this guy. If you can't then you're not fit to judge the explanation anyway and shouldn't have an opinion UFOsI'm making an argument from all the available data. Which completely contradicts these sham arguments made by West and this guy. I don't profess to know what they are, but the Navy and Pentagon don't know either. Which MOST LIKELY means some youtube autist certainly doesn't know either.
