>>938957326
>Glare explains some footage, not all.
All the footage that shows glare, glare explains it.
>you’d still have radar logs, visual corroborations
Yeah, like other jets.
>and encounters where physical effects were recorded (EM interference, ground impressions)
Why don't we have any of those? We have stories about them, and people making them, like crop circles. Why never the real thing?
>Wormhole metrics do work within general relativity
picrel
>To ants, a biologist kneeling nearby may look like aimless wandering
If it was the first time encountering those creatures, it would be obvious they're being investigated. And no one's travelling 5000 miles to study ants by circling the rental car lot.
>In short:
You seem too closed-minded to understand the breadth of what I'm discussing.