>>13237791well, i mean lets look at what we have. even if it is aliens, those are some of the most advanced sensors available to the US and they still dont give a clear analysis of what they depict. the subjects in question only seem to appear by happenstance, near naval ships, flying near fighter squadrons, or near military bases, so whatever it is it seems to only bother with military forces and as far as we know isnt as commonly sighted by civilians, or if it is civilians dont have sophisticated enough sensors to record them so civilian accounts are all anectodal which is usually dismissed out of hand
then we have to ask, ok, if it is aliens, and they dont want to be observed, and this is the best level of evidence we are going to be able to gather, these infared cameras and photos out the side of cockpits, then what can we glean from that? and at what point is sufficient evidence gathered first to
A: rule out optical and sensor artifacts.
B: rule out manmade crafts and drones
i think you would have to meet the threshold for A before you can actually consider B, and if you can, i think B is fairly easy to knock down given what some of these UFOs are reported as doing, but A is a big one, and particularly hard to convince skeptics who have replicated similar looking artifacts personally.
i think a good smoking gun to eliminate A would be to have multiple sensors from disparate angles capture a phenomenon at the same time. the gimble debunk is very dependent on the exact angle the gimble rotates at and its angle of view, if you have one sensor from one angle and another sensor from another angle both agreeing on the angle the UFO is rotating at, i think that could go a long way towards ruling out the gimble infared artifact hypothesis
