Not only eyewitness accounts, but also recorded military footage (e.g. onboard cameras, FLIR sensors mentioned in the hearing). Are you suggesting that numerous high-ranking former military officials are lying under oath? And that the expensive, high-tech equipment recording the objects also failed in a way that showed something that wasn't actually there? That sounds much more frightening to me than the alternative explanation.
Yes. And those that aren't lying are severely mistaken. Expensive high tech equipment can fail or show weird readings ALL THE TIME. You get small piece of debris on a camera moving at mach 1 and it's going to look like something is moving at mach 1 with you, and somehow magically keeping up in strange ways before "zooming off" when it falls off the camera.
Pilots are NOT techs. Their jobs is to fly the plane and shoot shit down. They need a working understanding of the tools in front of them and do their best with the information presented. If my car says that my engine oil pressure is at 0, but somehow the car is still running, I don't assume magic. I assume ignorance and take it to a mechanic. MANY of these supposed UFO sightings boil down to such situations, and techs have verified that multiple times, but that gets ignored.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but the testimonies provided under oath today do not match your description of a piece of debris on a camera/sensor. If you have not already watched the hearing I would recommend it.
> MANY of these supposed UFO sightings boil down to such situations, and techs have verified that multiple times, but that gets ignored.
Source(s)? I would love to read more about techs who have talked about these events.
Yes? It's not like that hasn't happened before, and there's no real way to contradict them. And if they did they wouldn't be prosecuted. And if they were prosecuted they would be pardoned.
We can't see the footage, so that's not admissible as evidence in the court of public opinion.