That's unnecessarily pejorative. Presenting something as evidence, requires some amount of rigor. This is why an in-depth analysis is valued. Presenting as strong a case as possible for either side, is the method by which we can best decide on what is known.
> Regardless I think the simplest counter argument is that if that were really the case, you'd see these damn things on every flight facing the sun and people would know to ignore them
I don't believe that's a counter-argument, as it applies to both conclusions. A unique coincidence does not imply it's common. ie If the gimbal video was a UFO, you'd see these damn things on every flight, etc.
> Lens flares also don't show up on radar and on pilot's eyes.
Mick West's analysis video does not contend that the object is only a lens flare, but an object with a lens flare (or lens artifact) overlaying it. There is no dispute that the pilots saw a group of objects with targeting information on a singular physical object from the video source.
That's unnecessarily pejorative. Presenting something as evidence, requires some amount of rigor. This is why an in-depth analysis is valued. Presenting as strong a case as possible for either side, is the method by which we can best decide on what is known.
> Regardless I think the simplest counter argument is that if that were really the case, you'd see these damn things on every flight facing the sun and people would know to ignore them
I don't believe that's a counter-argument, as it applies to both conclusions. A unique coincidence does not imply it's common. ie If the gimbal video was a UFO, you'd see these damn things on every flight, etc.
> Lens flares also don't show up on radar and on pilot's eyes.
Mick West's analysis video does not contend that the object is only a lens flare, but an object with a lens flare (or lens artifact) overlaying it. There is no dispute that the pilots saw a group of objects with targeting information on a singular physical object from the video source.