[timschmidt]

> It wasn’t only video. The reason the planes were scrambled in the first place was because of hits from the ship’s radar. The planes also saw them on radar. The pilots also made visual contact, and testified under oath before Congress as to what they saw.

Unfortunately eyewitness testimony (even from trained pilots) is notoriously unreliable, and none of the other supposed evidence seems to be available for analysis.

Mick doesn't seem to shy away from looking at any available evidence. It's not his fault that nothing incontrovertible has shown up yet.

[PaulRobinson]

You're right that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, and that the supporting evidence - multiple independent radar traces from multiple different radar systems (ship and aircraft systems are built by different manufacturers, have different sensitivies, etc.), plus the video, plus the eyewitness testimony, plus the fact that while the raw data is not available to you to analyse the people who have analysed have sworn under oath that it all corroborates each other - may not be enough to meet your arbitrary bar, but I'm prepared to accept witness testimony which says "we don't know what that was, and perhaps we should figure that out some more", rather than your claim that because you can't independently verify it, we shouldn't figure out what it was because a guy on youtube can explain one single aspect of that evidence in a way that doesn't actually align with the entire scenario.