The author ignores what many find most compelling about those videos. Namely, the domain experts (navy pilots) who filmed the videos and discussed them at length[1].
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&t=5207s&pp=ygUWam9...
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&t=5207s&pp=ygUWam9...
The first thing we teach pilots is that they have to get comfortable with the fact that their eyes play tricks on them in flight. Our visual perception wasn't tuned for high speeds, high altitudes, and truly three-dimensional relationship assessment, and they're as prone to misinterpretation of things they didn't train on as everyone else is. If they say "That blob is a fighter-jet near the horizon's edge," I believe them; but if they say "I think that blob is a space alien," I don't because nobody knows what a space alien looks like (and "That doesn't look like anything I know" still doesn't imply "space alien").
I don't think this is accurate - "navy pilots" are domain experts in operation of navy aircraft.
What you are maybe getting confused here is that the three examples in the article are actually part of several domains, each of which is very different from aviation expertise.
The domains we're talking about include topics such as optical physics, radar physics (transmitters & receivers), optical sensor technology (and attendant physics), and digital processing including chipset hardware and software stack (and implementation of specific physics). Each of these are their own 'domain', which is important here because faulty implementation in any one of them can lead to such anomalies.
In general, navy pilots do not have that expertise, though I would very much like to hear the opinions of a navy pilot that is indeed 'expert' with all of these 'domains'.
They are domain experts in what they saw with their own eyes in their domain (the sky). The videos are just corroborating evidence.
getting a degree in aeronautics is not like passing a driving exam or heavy machinery license.
though I reject analyses that lean towards LGM, i recognise that people flying these aircraft have necessarily demonstrated enough advanced math and physics competency to understand well the boundary between known vs inexplicable physical phenomena. they are either deliberately ignoring their own training or else have some undiagnosed amnesia, instigated by sudden exposure to celebrity status.
I'm not a true believer by any means, but the claims are much more compelling than this post gives them credit for.
I've seen pilots with their head down in the targeting system saying some really really silly things that were obviously wrong when they got their eyes up and got some SA.
People tend to fall back on these videos as "expert proof" as if military witnesses are more reliable in some way... but they're not at all experts on atmospheric phenomenon, optics, UFOs, or a multitude of other things that could potentially explain these. When it comes to what they're seeing here the expertise ends at "not a plane"
By definition there’s low information. Where I grew up there was a ton of 1980s UFO sightings, generating lots of speculation. Later, we learned they were test Tomahawk cruise missiles that used to develop their terrain navigation system.
They are indeed real, UFOs, but that’s where it ends. We know of several different kinds, but we know not of their origin or how they work. Or at least that information is still sealed. The pentagon knows. Maybe not their communications department but the top brass knows, or at least has access to, the blue book files.
The Joe Rogan Experience video is such speculation that I cannot take any of it as fact. He jumps around in speculative ideas, descriptions and theories. Using titles or rank as a means of factual integrity is thin. It's still hearsay.
People want to believe, but the fact remains there is zero undisputed evidence for off-world UFOs.
Speculation is speculation, but he also methodically goes through exactly what he and others saw on the day the video was recorded.
> People want to believe, but the fact remains there is zero undisputed evidence for off-world UFOs.
I agree, but this is a compelling case of something, that according to multiple witnesses, seems to defy the laws of physics as we understand them. Saying it is aliens is speculation, saying it is something we do not understand is not.
I doubt it :)
But despite this, there’s budget planning, whistle blowers, leaks to the press, corruption, and political struggle. I’m completely positive that no human organisation can keep something so far reaching secret for a prolonged amount of time.
It'd be interesting to see a "time to disclosure" metric, of average times from classification to leak, to get a lower bound on secrecy, but it could only be reasonably considered a lower bound, the upper could be anywhere.
It's also possible agencies responsible for secrets may have worked hard to maintain an aura of being incompetent at keeping them, in order to hold an advantage over their adversaries by misdirecting efforts to the wrong areas.
People are paychologically inclined to dispute, dismiss and deride things conflicting with their convictions.
The crucial point is, few are distinguishing between "sombeody is against this" and "somebody has a rational argument against it". Arguments do not count more just by many repeating them. That is, they shouldn't.
Why would this ever be a useful qualification for any kind of evidence?
Seems like a simple troll with questionable intentions could in such a case easily undermine useful evidence of any quality.