I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but I cannot stand it when when people like Sean Kirkpatrick (or project Bluebook, the Condon Committee, or what have you) talk about identifying 95%-98% of sightings as being of prosaic origin. As if that means “whelp, we’re done here. The vast majority are nothing but a bunch of misidentified airborne garbage… let’s just round that shit up and get home in time for dinner.”
No. Hard no. This is a bullshit excuse for doing a lazy, sloppy, or intentionally incomplete job. I give absolutely zero shits about 95% or 98% or 99.99999…% of sightings. I care about one. Because the first that is well documented enough, transparent enough… undeniable enough to penetrate the zeitgeist and gain traction is absolutely world-breaking. It opens new doors to science that either nobody knew existed, or willfully refused to acknowledge. It rewrites our place in the universe, and possibly even human history.
Honestly, the tic-tac should probably be this case, but the FLIR video is a bit abstract and no civilians can get ahold of the radar data. It’s not quite undeniable enough. Maybe DC in 1952 should’ve been. I don’t know… but what i do know is that what we’re looking for isn’t in the 95% of sightings, and any person, project, or agency that working with high quality data and is okay with waiving away the last 5% of cases, or even just the last five cases is just trying to obfuscate the issue.
And to Sean Kirkpatrick: if you want to say that it’s all nothing, then get the DoD to release the data. Let academic researchers, civilian aerospace experts, and the public at large check your work. Academic publications have to undergo peer review, but AARO gets to drop a redacted 14 page executive summary of a larger unclassified report, and say “nothing to see here folks…” Be transparent. Oh yeah, sorry, I guess that’s not your job any more… and transparency… never was.
submitted by /u/E05DCA
[link] [comments]