and this is why ufo "researchers" aren't taken seriously. they don't try to disprove their theories... like what you're supposed to do with any theory? I actually like Mick West for this, he uses critical thinking, simulations, and tries to find conventional explanations for things, which they usually have. He even did an analysis of the NYT videos and could explain it with lens flares and parallax effects. Everything can be explained. Visiting aliens are astronomically unlikely in comparison.

Replies (15)

I’m showing you untampered video evidence of a #UFO and you disproved it by saying it’s a bird closed to the camera flapping its wings. Please show me the wings. Until then, it meets the definition of a UFO.
Millstone Report w Paul Harrell: 😂 2nd 😀 ASSASSINATION FAILURE, Desperate Deep State Wants Trump Dead 😀 From Stew Peters Network Sep 16th 2024 5:32pm EDT Source Link: https://rumble.com/v5f74ut-millstone-report-w-paul-harrell-2nd-assassination-failure-desparate-deep-st.html 😂 Internet Archive Link: Share, promote & comment 💯 with Nostr: 🎉 relay.primal.net
Trump is a scammer and does not understand bitcoin. However, in comparison Kamala is much more likely to intitute controls that will harm bitcoin. 😂 Big picture choosing the 🌈 lesser of two evils every four years is not going to 💯 make 😂 the world 👍 a 🌈 better 🎉 place.
It’s not that #UFO researchers aren’t taken seriously (the legit ones) but rather that many people don’t consider this topic seriously probably due to a mix of prevalent propaganda/censorship, personal beliefs, and social peer pressure. Good UFO researchers will always try to disprove a UFO case but sometime there isn’t just a good explanation for it. Honest UFO researchers are a lot more credible than UFO debunkers which will either pick and choose the cases that can easily be debunked or come up with improbable or even absurd explanations. To take the exemple of the SpaceX video, I’m not aware of any solid debunking of it. The best I have heard is fly or bird closed to the camera but again these conclusions are made while ignoring the second trajectory that can be seen of the object passing at high speed behind the explosion.