> Most of the reports of "UFOs" and their characteristics in flight come from untrained, and unreliable sources.
Agreed. But when you filter all those, you are left with a huge pile of true UFO reports, that come from trained personnel, radar operator, astronomers, etc. Look at the conclusions of Blue Book.
But what is that? A report of an object, that is unidentified. The only truth is that an observation was made.
There are many many mundane things, albeit rare, which can explain these observations. Rare mundane things that even trained observers aren't aware of in the moment.
Point is, UFO report is step one. After that comes a boring process of trying to explain the observation with all in all the mundane ways before jumping to extreme conclusions.
A "true UFO", as stated in my previous comment, is a report that survives...
> Point is, UFO report is step one. After that comes a boring process of trying to explain the observation with all in all the mundane ways before jumping to extreme conclusions.
...all this process, and remains unexplained. That boring process of trying to explain it is what I called "filtering".
Maybe it’s real. Maybe it’s a psyop. I know such a radar technician (not one who ‘witnessed’ such phenomena)that has classified access who sides on psyop
Agreed. But when you filter all those, you are left with a huge pile of true UFO reports, that come from trained personnel, radar operator, astronomers, etc. Look at the conclusions of Blue Book.