Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Remarkable. You make several attacks on the narrow minded approach of the sceptics, criticising their propensity for jumping to conclusions, then utter the above.awdsci said:Despite serving officers confirmation of sightings during flights, with clear descriptions of what was seen and correlated by radar images of `bogey` activity, the uk MoD deny that ` UAP`s ` are solid objects.
Their denial of facts leads me to doubt their integrity. I can only wonder what their reasons may be.
As Oli has succinctly pointed out they are not denying any facts. They are declaring, allegedly, that the observed objects are not solid. Rather than jump to the simplistic conclusion that objects observed in the sky are solid, they have adopted a more cautious, realistic, and, one suspects, investigative approach.
Your entire post smacks of intellectual dishonesty, but I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to ignorance. Thus:
Despite serving officers confirmation
should probably read
Because of serving officers confirmation
i.e. having reliable eyewitness testimony has greatly aided their analysis of the sightings, not provided something to be ignored, as you imply.
with clear descriptions of what was seen
Again, your implication is that the observed objects must have been solid. You completely ignore the benefit to an analysis offered by 'clear descriptions'.
If this is an example of the objectivity you bring to your study of these fascinating phenomena it is not surprising that you come across as gullible.