You literally said you have professional experience of the scientific method yet you have no objective proof to present that these UAPs are more than hearsay or optical artifacts.
I'll eat my hat if there is any, any objective proof there's something other worldly going on. Indulge me.
Might as well confirm the Lock Ness monster is real, because so many people over the years have claimed as such. Are "they" keeping the truth from us?!
What's my background got to do with it when any other discipline requiring but a modicum of common sense coupled with a decent amount of reason or logic will do? I only mentioned it because Screech took it on himself to query my suitability at being able to reason/judge what would amount to proof? (Post 1362).
There's no me in it either since I'm not the one gathering the evidence. Given the way your describing things you'd think I was responsible for providing the evidence to Congress not the Pentagon or the AAITP?
Whilst you correctly mention extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence-when mentioning no evidence being in the public domain as a critique, you t fail to consider or mention, absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
I never even mentioned the word aliens throughout the entirety of this "discussion". It was implied I did and conveniently ignored when I asked to point it out.
All I have done is listened to the eye witness testimony from two of the pilots who were sent out to investigate an anomalous object which was picked up when the Princeton had upgraded it's radar. Here the radar detected the same object-or a different object descending at hypersonic speeds before disappearing into the water. It was the pilots that confirmed the object that was independently verified by the system wide monitoring capability of the entirety of the fleet belonging to the USS Nimitz carrier group. It was the pilots who stated there was no visible means of Propulsion and no wings to generate lift and no heat signature - and it was the Pentagon that said a legitimate consideration should be given to them being of an extra-terrestrial nature.
Unlike the cabal of dogmatists in this thread I asked how it would be possible to prove what was being said? For that I examined how it was the fleet with regard to the "Tic Tac" would prove it wasn't a glitch. At least two pilots confirmed the same observable event backed up by the entirety of the fleets monitoring systems over the period of a number of days/week. What kind of optical artefacts and hearsay can be responsible for that? Especially when you are given the chance to check for chances of system error and the same assumed targets are witnessed and corroborated in person?
I'll eat my hat if there is any, any objective proof there's something other worldly going on. Indulge me.
Might as well confirm the Lock Ness monster is real, because so many people over the years have claimed as such. Are "they" keeping the truth from us?!
Go and indulge yourself. There's enough information out there to do with the way the Navy would identify threats and what they would use to assess the flight capabilities of such things. They wouldn't be much of a navy if they couldn't.
The analogy you give for describing the situation of the Loch Ness monster is in no way remotely comparable to that of monitoring of UAP by the navy.
