[peetle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that all the data about these "UFO"'s:

1. is conspicuously low quality, grainy 2. presents inconsistent imagery of the phenomenon 3. originates from sensor equipment most laymen are unfamiliar with and thus unable to know if they've been spoofed 4. presented in the context of clickbaity commentary

[graderjs]

It's funny that you make this claim on a post with clear video of radar data: it's like the post already pre-emptively corrected you, but you said it anyway.

But yes in general I agree with you pm 1. I think the "grainy footage" status quo is an embarrassing debacle.

[CydeWeys]

It always ends up being something completely explainable, like birds, planes, floating balloons, imaging artifacts, out-of-focus stars, what have you. Forgive me for not suspending my disbelief this time when every previous time disbelief has ended up winning the day.

It's well known that you can get all sorts of problematic radar artifacts that don't end up being real objects. Hell, the world was almost ended over some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...

[graderjs]

Crying out for help to be convinced. It's a sad sounding existence you related in that comment. Without hope. Defeated. ;p ;) xx

1997 phoenix lights, Italy 1960s Friendship case, Belgian UFO wave, Mexico City mass sighting...it doesn't "always turn out to be something explainable" at all

[simonblack]

Radar displays will display whatever the underlying circuitry produces. Faulty circuitry will produce erroneous displays.

Faulty does not necessarily mean "broken", it could simply be that the software which is being run has many bugs and produces echoes on the display which are just not existent in reality.

As far as I can see it, if the UFOs are not secret new aircraft, then they are non-existent artifacts in the inadequate electronics.

[graderjs]

That's a possibility and a fair point, but only if these data were not independently confirmed by other sensors, like night vision footage, iPhones, FLIR targeting pod footage, and pilots. You can't say it's faulty sensors if you get the same signal across multiple unrelated systems.

I'm not saying you're saying this specifically, but some people do, and that's crazy, it's a conspiracy theory to invoke the idea that all sensors failed at the same time in the same way, include hallucinating humans, it's very much reaching for a crazy explanation just to deny evidence or preserve a belief system challenged by that evidence.

[nomy99]

it's a thermal vision scan; inherently grainy