Anonymous
8/26/2025, 1:06:38 AM
No.938962339
>>938960821
>Just because the public hasn’t seen full datasets doesn’t mean the data doesn’t exist
Ah, Schrodinger's data. So how do you know they're real if the evidence hasn't been released?
>Military radar logs, infrared recordings, and instrument telemetry are hard data
They're something alright. Proof of UFOs they are not.
>Dismissing these as “no evidence” is like
Dismissing these as “no evidence” is like realizing that literally anything can show up on radar and it doesn't mean they're definitely something they're not.
>but in multiple well-documented cases, radar and visual data match anomalous flight performance
But not really though, huh? Because every one of these accounts can be dismissed with a real world explanation.
This is getting extremely BOOOOOOOOOOOOORING. You just keep repeating the same things over and over, like fairy tales become reality if you repeat them enough. You obviously have ZERO evidence to provide, so I'm out.
Bottom line: You're too booooooooooooring.
>Just because the public hasn’t seen full datasets doesn’t mean the data doesn’t exist
Ah, Schrodinger's data. So how do you know they're real if the evidence hasn't been released?
>Military radar logs, infrared recordings, and instrument telemetry are hard data
They're something alright. Proof of UFOs they are not.
>Dismissing these as “no evidence” is like
Dismissing these as “no evidence” is like realizing that literally anything can show up on radar and it doesn't mean they're definitely something they're not.
>but in multiple well-documented cases, radar and visual data match anomalous flight performance
But not really though, huh? Because every one of these accounts can be dismissed with a real world explanation.
This is getting extremely BOOOOOOOOOOOOORING. You just keep repeating the same things over and over, like fairy tales become reality if you repeat them enough. You obviously have ZERO evidence to provide, so I'm out.
Bottom line: You're too booooooooooooring.