Given the professionalism of the pilots who reported the sightings, I am fairly certain that they did indeed see a UFO. The problem is that many people jump directly from the "unidentified" in "UFO" to "flying saucer." And that's just too large a jump to be reasonable. There is simply no credible evidence that the Earth is being visited by aliens. There are no artifacts, no clear photographs, no captured aliens, no alien bodies -- nothing.
The reports of UFOs are from eyewitnesses or poor resolution photographs or videos. Ask a criminal prosecutor about the value of eyewitness reports: they have contributed to a majority of the convictions that were later overturned by DNA evidence. An eyewitness can be an unreliable source of information and, in the case of something as extraordinary as the observation of alien spacecraft, pedestrian evidence simply won't do. As Carl Sagan often said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The reality is that unidentified means just that. The pilots could have seen a real object that they couldn't explain, or they could have experienced an instrumental artifact, which is basically just a glitch in the electronics. In the San Diego incident, there were earlier reports of high-altitude radar contacts from surface ships. And just prior to when an unidentified object was recorded on the fighter jets' infrared camera, there were reports of something in or just below the water. Even though there were multiple observations of multiple phenomena, what is missing is multiple reports of the same phenomenon. It would be hasty to link these independent observations together.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/21/opinions...coln/index.htmlდაიშალეთ არ მოსულან უცხოები და რომც მოვიდნენ მანამდე ვერ გაიგებთ მაგაზე ამერიკისგან სანამ თვითონ არ მოუნდებათ
პენტაგონმა ამოუცნობი ფრინავი ობიექტები დააფიქსირა
