There are other, older videos appearing to possibly, at a considerable stretch, show the same object - in long term orbit around the Sun. Could it be a portal? On the other hand, it could be comets or just NASA foolin' around. That do do that, you know.
If you take the time, you can actually get into NASA data files. Some of it may be retouched or deleted, but some of it will show anomalous artifacts which may or may not be explained in one way or another. There is no compelling case, but enough to provide fodder for speculation. So, in short, you're being prudent and sensible in demanding rock-solid evidence before buying into the mother of all rabbit holes.Am I being part of the conspiracy to cover this stuff up if I ask for a link to the actual unretouched NASA data, or at least a statement from NASA before I buy into a bunch of headlines about how NASA has pictures of giant UFOs?
Dark matter would be a more efficient energy sourceIf they have the technology to travel from star to star trying to shoot one down could be a catastrophic. It probably wouldn't work anyway. They must have shields. And lasers and photon torpedoes and deathrays and desintegrators and you name it. And I believe they use gravity to fly.
If you listen to enough UFO fanboys you might just hear about "Operation Nightingale" and "Operation Windchime" which were the Airforce personnel and aircraft that were assigned the specific objective of shooting down a UFO.If they have the technology to travel from star to star trying to shoot one down could be a catastrophic. It probably wouldn't work anyway. They must have shields. And lasers and photon torpedoes and deathrays and desintegrators and you name it. And I believe they use gravity to fly.
Apparently repeatability is no longer a problem. The US Navy discovered it could lure them into everyday visits over a two year period with a fleet of nuclear aircraft carriers.Sadly, it's all like a court case.
Witness testimony is hearsay, the weakest kind of evidence. Photos and video evidence are all only as good as the provider (from Hynek, back in the day). There are so many web fakes out there. And throughout the community, the profit motive prevails. It can be honest, but when someone stands to make a buck, it takes some of the verity away from the books and movies.
Since observations of objects are not repeatable, most scientists won't touch them with a stick. Non-repeatable experiments don't roll with the scientific method well.
And it gets more offbeat as you zoom forward from 1947 - now there are books about underground bases, the X-Files, MiB, and Conspiracy Theory movie plots are part of the canon, and there are different species of aliens visiting us.
Adding to it, the books on the subject reference each other, allowing debunked sightings to be recycled over and over again.
Interpretation is also important. It goes like this:
1.) Someone sees something
2.) They report it to someone (newspaper, investigator, etc.) - the observation is interpreted.
3.) The interpretation is interpreted by a UFO book author - another layer of the subjective
4.) Etc. Etc. Etc.
A long time ago one of my friends was taken in by an internet screenshot from the movie "Stealth" purporting to be a new Navy jet with female pilot. I told him he needed to watch more bad movies : )
I did a paper on UFO's back a long time ago and periodically dip into it to see if there is anything to it - still waiting.
And, drum roll - non reaction based 'drives' are all supposition. Ion electrics have a monster specific impulse but do not defeat inertia or allow reported wild maneuvers in the atmosphere.
Cheers / Robert