> As the article states, Navy pilots are on record as eye witnesses for this stuff, along with the various radar feeds, etc.
Watch the introduction to the 4 hour UAP panel that NASA hosted a few days ago[1], they address this.
According to NASA, even highly trained and experienced pilots can easily be fooled, and often reported UAPs are artifacts of the technology that detects them, or are indeed things like weather balloons. For example, NASA even used the example of Navy pilots being fooled by a procession of commercial airplanes queueing to land at an airport 40+ miles away from their base.
They also emphasize that radar, detection systems, etc are not scientific instruments that are suitable for the detection or analysis of this phenomenon. They emphasize that the technology that the Navy et al. use are strictly optimized for defensive/offensive interception of conventional weapons. That's to say that they're calibrated for war and not for accurate scientific observation.
Going back to the procession of airplanes waiting to land, according to the instruments available to pilots and their own observations, those airplanes were doing things that were impossible to do without bending the laws of physics. Yet all they were were just a bunch of airplanes doing what all airplanes do.
> Due to the supposed feeds and eye witness accounts, it seems infeasible there is a 'weather balloon' type explanation
Pilots and their system are fallible, you'd have to assume some argument from authority to believe otherwise, which is why I think the military loves this conspiracy theory. It shifts criticism or suspicion of government and power to a narrative that they control and that inflates the military's competence and abilities, and assumes that the military is looking out for us and willing to tell us the truth.
Watch the introduction to the 4 hour UAP panel that NASA hosted a few days ago[1], they address this.
According to NASA, even highly trained and experienced pilots can easily be fooled, and often reported UAPs are artifacts of the technology that detects them, or are indeed things like weather balloons. For example, NASA even used the example of Navy pilots being fooled by a procession of commercial airplanes queueing to land at an airport 40+ miles away from their base.
They also emphasize that radar, detection systems, etc are not scientific instruments that are suitable for the detection or analysis of this phenomenon. They emphasize that the technology that the Navy et al. use are strictly optimized for defensive/offensive interception of conventional weapons. That's to say that they're calibrated for war and not for accurate scientific observation.
Going back to the procession of airplanes waiting to land, according to the instruments available to pilots and their own observations, those airplanes were doing things that were impossible to do without bending the laws of physics. Yet all they were were just a bunch of airplanes doing what all airplanes do.
> Due to the supposed feeds and eye witness accounts, it seems infeasible there is a 'weather balloon' type explanation
Pilots and their system are fallible, you'd have to assume some argument from authority to believe otherwise, which is why I think the military loves this conspiracy theory. It shifts criticism or suspicion of government and power to a narrative that they control and that inflates the military's competence and abilities, and assumes that the military is looking out for us and willing to tell us the truth.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQo08JRY0iM