Dr. Rudolf Schild (astrophysicist) is impressed with Bob Lazar's science on the reactionless drive

I don't trivialize that ONE LITTLE BIT. This is a constant issue right here in the real world. There is no question that there is a constant effort by both industry and the military to include or enhance projects in the military budget.

And, nothing I've said should be interpreted as a comment on whether a topic deserves more investment.

 

Now, WillReadmore, brace yourself, this comment will mention aliens (which, I suspect, you've been wanting me to do for sometime so you can push me into the snicker zone, eh? If not, consider that poor humor).

But, at no time, am I, nor do I suggest for anyone, ever, to believe in anything without some level of evidence.

Yeah, but there is a little tug of war on one particular point going on here between you and I, which is the following:

You seem to be pushing the argument that objects (the tic tacs) witnessed by pilots are nothing more than ordinary, explainable things, and there is not likely to be any other explanation, or no reason to suspect otherwise. This is what I'm getting from you on the subject. You asserted that you refuse to look at anything beyond the three videos, which, if you were a scientist or a man of science making inquiries into to what might be the greatest discovery in history, doesn't make sense.

Your response has always been that science demands extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims.

That's reasonable, and I'll get to that, in a moment.

I disagree with that point of view (that we should always assume the banal ) given that until you determine, conclusively what they are, then all of the options that are on the table as to what they are are still, equally, on the table.

You base this on West's calculations of 3 videos, the three videos of which do not account for all the testimony available, testimony, when considered, it will be obvious that their descriptions are either truncated from the videos, or not in the videos and are on some other videos the Navy hasn't released, and, as such, given their testimony, which is to say, credible observations of incredible things, this, in my opinion, further emboldens my view, more than yours (assuming I have correctly stated your view).

You also have made the claim, in a past reply, that you believe there are NO videos worthy of your attention because, as you say, ALL of them are 'schlock' , as you put it, and when you make a statement like that, you have undoubtedly formed the opinion that, based on the few that you have watched, the schlock description applies to all videos, and thus no more videos are worth watching, ever, which is an error of logic. Now, I'm not suggesting that you should go on a wild goose chase, either, so there is no need to indicate that point.

You have repeatedly ask for scientific proof, and that is a fair request.

My answer is that there will probably never be proof, and I have a reason for that assertion. It's not based on hard proof, but it's based on a plethora of testimony, which in an of itself is not proof, but it does open the possibility of this outcome.

Note, the possibility.

From that, you will undoubtedly conclude that, well, if there never will be proof, then the only logical conclusion
is that we have never had alien visitations.

However, I believe that, when we form an opinion, we must consider all possible options, given what we know..

Of course, your response to that could be something like, 'well, the sky could turn green, too, the point being that we should consider options that are reasonable.'.

Yes, that's a fair request, but my rebuttal is that, IF we are being visited by aliens, then that possibility is within the parameters of reason set by the establishment of the aforementioned possibility.

If we will never have proof, then what are our options to consider about this fact ( assuming it's true )?

As I see it, there are three ( there could be more, just a cursory look).

1. We have never been visited by aliens, and probably never will.

2. We have never been visited by aliens, though it's possible in the future.

3. We have been visited by aliens, and the reason there isn't hard proof is because they are on a clandestine mission, their technology is vastly superior to ours, they possess cloaking technology, they will never let us obtain proof, given they are on a clandestine mission and it is not in their interest to a let us have proof.

Now, I have given you option #3, in the past, and your reply was 'there is no evidence of that'. But that's circular reasoning because the reason there is no evidence is that they are on a clandestine mission and won't allow us to have it. Remember, this is not a declaration, it's an option to be placed on the table of options of possibilities given the overwhelming empirical testimony that suggests the possibility.

NOTE: no one is saying it's fact, but I am saying it's an option, a possibility and that this is not being made in a total vacuum. You stated there is no 'wheat in the chaff', and my rebuttal is that you haven't looked as I have looked, havent examined all that have examined, nor have you considered all the possible angles that are not without reason, once your understanding is elevated enough to see the field in it's entirety, which, I might add, is vast.

Why would I consider #3 as an OPTION ( remember, not saying it's fact)? Because of overwhelming testimony going back decades. And why should we even consider such eyewitness testimony which such could be wrong? Why? Because it is all that is available, and might be all that will ever be available, given the contingency described herein. We should at least look. There is no harm in it.

Consider what Major General John A. Samford's statement at a press briefing, 50 years ago:

"...However, there have been a certain percentage of this volume of reports [2 - 3k mentioned earlier] that have been made by
credible observers of relatively incredible things..."

so, IF there is any truth to it, we should have had concrete proof of some kind by now, that's a fair assumption, right?

Not UNLESS #3 is true.

THAT is why I assert #3 is an option on the table of possibilities.

And for those of you (not you, Willreadmore) in the peanut gallery who are riding on some kind of imaginary high horse, spare me the platitudes, this comment is not making any declarations of fact whatsoever -- I speak only to possibilities based on an overwhelming abundance empirical evidence. I say this here because that detail gets lost on some .

IF it is true that the aliens are not going to let us have hard proof, it's a fair statement that, we should at least look at what evidence we do have, not losing sight of what that evidence actually is, and if it is compelling, we should at least come to that acknowledgement.

No one is suggesting 'believing' in anything. I say that because I keep getting accused of it.

 

You're not only postulating that it is evidence while refusing to consider the refutations that are available from various sources ... You are actually moving on to postulate their STRATEGY!

Yes, I do not agree that we have evidence of aliens.

And, I'm not interested in pursuing the problems with the Navy tapes, because you have been steadfast in your refusal to examine that evidence. Given that refusal, there is no point.

 

I do consider them, as an OPTION, which was the orgiinal point you seem
to be missing, entirely, Why is it an option? Simply because their refutations
are not absolutely conclusive. Until such time, they are options.

I do consider such strategy, as an OPTION, given the abundance of testimony you have yet to consider which suggests it, which was the original point you seem to be missing, entirely,

I ACCEPT West's findings of the three videos.

What more needs to be said about them?

Nothing.

Now then....

You do not make sense.

the objective is to answer the question:

"Are there, are there not, objects in the earth's airspace which our currently knowledge of science cannot explain".

To find the answer to that question, we must consider the entire field, which goes far beyond the three Navy videos.

Do you not see this?

 

I think you would need to be willing to examine the videos to determine whether they are unusual.

And, you have refused to do that.

It doesn't help for you to hypothesize some broad field of evidence that is not referenced.

 

I just told you I accept West's calculations.

They suggest something, sure, but it's not conclusive.

The testimonies by the pilots clearly indicate their descriptions are not revealed in the videos.

What do you mean by 'not referenced'?

Are you saying that any inquiry to answer the question:

"Are there objects in our airspace which defy current knowledge?"

Is not legitimate if there isn't an available Navy video?

Is that what you are saying?

Because, if that is what you are saying, that makes no sense, per the quest, which MUST consider the larger field.

 

I think you referred to some sort of evidence beyond the Navy tapes.

I just meant that I can't respond to what isn't cited.

 

I just want to say again that I believe the pilots reported what they saw as accurately and honestly as they possibly could have.

I would point out that the higher ups in the documents you have cited have been TOTALLY dismissive of any analysis other than the claims of exactly what the pilots claim.

The various independent analyses of "go fast" video demonstrate that it is important to take a broader view of what "analysis" means than a simple literal interpretation of the pilot's testimony.

 

You won't consider pilot's testimony enough to raise the conclusion to 'we don't know what they are'?

(as opposed to 'they are probably balloons').

 

Really? I haven't seen it. Can you provide evidence of this?

The field is much broader than the Go Fast video.

There is no way the broader question of what they are can be construed by those three videos, given pilots' testimonies.

do you not see this?

 

The chance that the "go fast" case isn't a weather balloon seems remote at best. It behaves like that. And, it certainly doesn't behave anything at all like the pilots thought.

As to the others, my own view is that the non-Navy, non-pilot analyses are very likely.

Once we assume aliens are here with magical powers it's exactly the same issue as religion.

 

You say you accept the explanation of the "go fast" video, but then you add it back in to the "it's aliens" group.

I really don't want to discuss this anymore.

I'm very comfortable with the prosaic descriptions of the Navy tapes. And, given that I can't even sell the "go fast" explanation, I'm not going to go on from there.

 

Are you still going to ask me to comment on something besides the Navy tapes when I have no idea what that might be?

So far, yes, I have not seen evidence that would cause me to think that aliens have visited this planet.

And, that includes the cover to the sarcophagus at Palenque, Mexico, which many believe shows an alien at the controls of an incredibly complex spacecraft.

Take a look:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/388505905340999468/

 

Quit saying 'once we assume aliens', jeezus, no one is assuming anything.

one assumption is no better than another.

Are you even aware of how vast the field is?

Consider what Major General John A. Samford's statement at a press briefing, 70 years ago:

"...However, there have been a certain percentage of this volume of reports [2 - 3k mentioned earlier] that have been made by
credible observers of relatively incredible things...

Credible observations of incredible things.

He said that because a percentage of the volume of reports was unexplainable.

That was 70 years ago. How much more testimony of credible observations of relatively incredible things has been given since then? And you are going to sit there and brush it all off, as 'not likely', and not even willing to look or consider it? Why, because Mick West, at the end of this 70 year stretch, came along and declared the three videos were a dud, so let's ignore the entire field?

Does that even make sense?

The three Navy videos are unremarkable, and hasn't it occurred to you that that Navy might have far more compelling videos that they are not going to release because they don't want the public to know what they know?

since you are willing to speculate on the likeliness of the three videos which are likely to be ordinary things, and that may be true, are you willing to speculate on the likeliness that the Navy is keeping secrets?

 

I absolutely did not 'bring in aliens' with respect to that video, I said,
unless you know for absolute fact what they are, given the pilot's testimony, all options must remain on the table.

What, that doesn't make sense to you?

I told you I accept West's findings on the video. and No, i did not 'bring in aliens' with respect to that video.

and you last statement, therefore, makes zero sense.

 

I'm just trying to find out if you are willing, thus far you told me that it's the three videos or nothingi and you are not willing to look at anything else, which makes no sense.

I"m willing to bet you've barely scratched the surface. There's more to the field than just videos.

Frankly, 'ancient artifacts' suggesting aliens, to me, are not compelling at all.

Someone showed an Inca (or Aztec or Maya, whatever) carving of a guy which looked like a space helmut

No, it was a headdress, which American natives no doubt wear, quite commonly.

See, methinks you've got me pegged for your typical UFO nut.

 

No, I said all you have presented is the 3 videos.

Then you claimed there was more that I wasn't looking at.

But, you didn't present anything more!!

So, I think you are off base with your accusation.

I was the one citing the Palanque carving. I saw that when I visited there. One has to descend through multiple flights of stairs that were designed into a pyramid in order to see it.

Yes, it definitely looks like local art, but how else could they possibly have depicted aliens other than with local art??

And, you will note that MANY UFOlogists see that art as clearly depicting alien visitation.

 

The Navy absolutely IS keeping secrets! I think we can agree that our Navy doesn't dish our military capability to our many adversaries.

And, that's absolutely true in terms of what the Navy will admit to being detectable and achievable.

Think about the fact that there is a completely prosaic explanation of "go fast", while the Navy supports the idea that the object is behaving in a way that is impossible for human craft. We know the Navy contention is false - it can not be true, because of high school math.

The question isn't, "Is that an alien?".

The question is, "Why did the Navy publish that tape and publicly support the notion that the object is behaving in a way that is impossible for human craft?"

 

Why? Because of the plethora of human testimony of objects, observed and tracked on radar, which defy explanation, which they can no longer deny.

that's why.

 

I don't agree. There are prosaic explanations for the Navy tapes.

I've pointed that out in detail for the case of the "go-fast" tape.

I showed the math!

Yet, you keep claiming there is no explanation, while presenting nothing to disqualify what I've pointed out!!

I think you're moving beyond logic and into "belief"

 

No, you claimed you wouldn't look at anything until I refuted the Go Fast video.

My answer is that I have no refutation to offer, I'm fine with West's calculations, however, and this is a however in all caps, that the testimonies of pilots clearly indicate that the three videos do not reflect their testimony, which can only mean that

1. The Navy videos are truncated so as to exclude video corresponding to the pilot's description of 'zig zagging' and 'dropping 80,000 feet, and gravity defying maneuvers.

Or....

2. The videos which do correspond to the pilots descriptions have not, and probably will not, ever be released.

Moreover, I've repeated the above more than once, and more than once, you ignore it.

My reply was that the field was vastly larger than the three videos and that, the overriding issue is the answer to the question 'are there craft in our airspace that defy explanation", and that any data, testimony video, document, etc., in pursuit of the answer to that question was fair game. Why do you ignore this?

I've never presented any videos. The reason I didn't is that I'm trying to get you to see the wisdom of going past the Go Fast video, because why would I post anything about any video when you are telling me you are not interested in anything but the Go Fast video, which, of course, makes absolutely no sense.

However, I presented a forensic study, by three individuals who are every bit as qualified to render a conclusion as West,
but were more thorough in that they interviewed more witnesses, which West did not, yet you intentionally brushed it off and you called it 'spam', which, by no means is spam, because that is not what spam is. Why you did this and why you said that makes no sense.

I also posted an interview with Chad Underwood, whose testimony reflected that West's conclusion that the 'darting to the left' was an artifact of the camera, was an error, yet you refuse to accept his testimony. How is that logical?

How would West know, without an actual study of the camera system in hand, know what is, and what is not, an artifact of the camera? How could he possibly know this? Why would it not be more logical that the actual pilot has a better idea of what is, and what is not, artifacts of a system on which he has been trained to operate, upon which his very survival might depend on making accurate interpretations of what he is seeing on the screen?

You also made a statement recently that went 'when a video is debunked, that's it'.

That's' a false statement, because I've seen debunkers debunked.

NO ONE is the final arbiter as to what these things are, math or no math. To say so, especially if it speculation based on math calculations done without paying any attention to pilot testimony, is not scientific.

Ancient alien theory is not my cup of tea. There are a lot of nuts in UFology, don't get sidetracked by them.

 

There is no way for me to respond to claims that there could be other evidence.

Well, I'm not very excited about going through another email storm on the other videos.

I'm fully satisfied by what various analysts have said about what they likely show.

I'm not very excited about eye witness testimony where there is physical evidence. Humans get TOTALLY fooled, all the time. The "go fast" video is an example of that.

I'm fully satisfied with the conclusion I've come to on this subject.

Yes, the possibility of aliens flying around Earth isn't 0. But, fantastic ideas have to come with overwhelming evidence. And, let's remember that aliens arriving from some distant galaxy is well beyond fantastic. Evidence that would indicate that our physics is that false and that our first brush with aliens comes as what appear to be weather balloons and jet airplanes just doesn't exist.

Yes, there is every possibility that more testimony, tapes, pics, etc., that some believe support an alien conclusion will show up. The same has been true for Bigfoot - which quite frankly seems far more likely.

 

I'm not asking you to respond to claims of anything that hasn't been presented.

I'm asking you to SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGE the following:

1. That the truth in the concept that the field of evidence, however strong or weak, is vastly broader than the three videos
2 That the overriding objective is to find the answer to "are there objects flying in our airspace that defy our knowledge, and if there are, what are they?
3. And that any video, document, testimony, film, artifact, old or knew, etc., that aid in the pursuit of the answer to the above question is worthy of consideration and is, by that fact, fair game.

And why do we do this?

I'll tell you why

Because you incessantly misunderstand my comments, and I'm forever having to correct your misunderstandings.

Some of the time, but you are saying ALL of the time, and that isn't even logical.

So, you are absolutely content the conclusions West has made on the three videos is all there is to know about the subject, and if any document, video, testimony, artifact of the vastly abundant field over the last 70 years might put us closer to the most important story known to mankind, the answer to the question of which is we are not alone, you don't even want to look?

How logical is that?

You're making an error of logic.

First, there is abundant evidence, though empirical in nature, evidence that is not remarkable when any one piece is examined by itself, but when the entire field of it is weighed, points us closer to the the understanding that we are not alone.

However, the oft held rebuttal to that is, well, if that is true, then why aren't there better photographs?

There is an answer to that question, but your rebuttal will be a circular argument, and that is sad as that you don't understand that it is a circular argument. What is your argument?

You said it, you said (paraphrased) 'there is no evidence that aliens do not want us to have evidence'.

Do you not see the circular reasoning in that rebuttal? Okay, I'll explain it to you

IF the aliens do not want us to have evidence, THAT IS WHY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

Moreover, why would alien visitation be extraordinary?

It's only extraordinary because it is unusual.

And why is it unusual?

Because the aliens won't let us have evidence.

Your reply no doubt will be that that is pure conjecture.

No, it's not pure conjecture.

We have forty to fifty years of testimony by abductees, who tell us that every time they tried to take a picture, the aliens disabled their cameras, that, while they were being abducted, other persons who might have witnessed were switched off, and when they tried to bring back an artifact on the ship, the aliens wouldn't let them. This leads us to believe they do not want us to have evidence, and that can only mean they are operating clandestinely.

However, reports exist that when they were returned, the abductees had unusual bruise marks, scooped skin marks, triangular marks, tiny implants, clothes put on backwards, sometime they were returned wearing someone else's cloths, sometimes they were returned to the wrong city. There is plenty of testimony of such things. And, there is a lot more to this story that I'm not telling you, facts about what they are doing which come up, almost to all abductees, from all walks of life, from all over the world, it doesn't matter, the same facts keep appearing over and over and over and over again. John Mack, the famous psychiatrist, he could find nothing wrong with these people. They are normal in every way, except for the abductions.

But you won't even consider it because you believe that they are ALL fooled, and that, out of the thousands of testimonies, NONE of them are true. When the first debunker comes along, and debunks, you automatically assume that that is the final word on the subject, and that there is no possibility the debunker hasn't factored it more aspects to the story which would have led them to a different conclusion.

I can only believe you do this because it puts you back to your comfort zone.

Excuse me, but if you are on this journey, you must be willing to go out of your comfort zone, or you will never find out anything. You will never find the answer to the greatest question ever asked. Are we alone? Oh, yeah, SETI and some science slow pokes are on the scene, sorry, they are barking up the wrong tree. Aliens do not use RF technology to communicate and probably haven't for millions of years. Ask me how I know, but, of course, it's all hooey and you won't even look.

Consider this, that, long before the first well known cases of abductions ( the Barney and Betty case) we had testimonies of abductions given, and almost every testimony for the last 50 years basically tell the same story. If these stories were pure imagination they would be vastly different. Even if the Barney and Betty story were published, there might be a few copy cats, but most of the abductees are just ordinary, very ordinary people, not UFO nuts, people from all walks of life, doctors, lowers, scientists ( none of whom want their peers to know about it, for fear of divorce or being fired ) and all kinds of regular people, not anyone who want anything to do wit aliens or UFOs, and many the never heard of any Barney and Better story, let alone their descriptions, and one fact that keeps appearing, is that most want to find out that they are just crazy, and that this isn't really happening.

In view of this fact, you do not consider that these testimonies have any value whatsoever, even though, when considered on the whole, they just might give us a clue to what is going on.

You won't even look, or read, or do what a curious person would do?

What you want, is a video that clearly proves alien visitation. What you want is someone to produce and alien artififact the clearly proves the object is from another world.

Based on what I know, that is never going to happen (except there are reportage of physical trace evidence). Unless, the day comes when they want their presence known, and we do know that that day is coming, because they told just about every abductee that that day will come and it will correspond to a spectacular event, such as a climate crisis. Just about every abductee, at some point, tell us this. Note that abductions are intergenerational. If a child is being abducted, so is mom, so is sister and brother, and grandpa and grandma. Not only that, no one is abducted once, they are abducted hundreds of times over the course of their lives. Another fact is that the vast majority of abductees do not even know they are abducted, because the aliens return them with their memory erased, which is more evidence that they are operating clandestinely. Moreover, the aliens are following genetic lines and they are clearly interested in our genetic make up and neurology. NONE appear to be interested in anything else, like heart and lungs, respiratory, etc. And, you would say that this is unremarkable?

IS this fantastic? Yes, of course it is fantastic, but you are not even the slightest bit curious to find out if there is any truth to it, you are content with Mick West's conclusions of the three videos, and that is it, your mind is made up. You are content.

The way you approach the subject is way too narrow, when the subject is vast, dynamic, multilayered. You're playing checkers when the field requires you to play 3 dimensional chess.

I imagine that the natives on the American continent, when they first heard a fellow native coming home from the beach saying their are huge ships with gods on them approaching, that they, too, thought that was fantastic.

Can you possibly see how myopic your statement is?

Your saying that it would prove our physics is false is an ASSUMPTION. It wouldn't prove our physics is false, only that our knowledge of physics is limited.

And what are the odds are knowledge is limited, I mean, it's not like only 120 year ago we were riding horses. I mean, it's not like we are babes in the cosmic woods. Wait a minute, we ARE babes in the cosmic woods.

That you think you have it fairly well pegged, and that the vast field that exists beyond the three videos, you won't even look at it because, as you say, 'there is no wheat in the chaff' and that it is ALL 'schlock'.

You are so incredibly wrong I don't know where to begin. What, you think I'm stupid, and I will believe anything that is woo and illogical?

You make a lot of assumptions, and misunderstand a lot of my comments.

 

Well, there are decades of hubcap pics and vids. So, there is no denying this.

I agree the military has that objective.

I don't agree that the Navy tapes reinforce each other. They are separate cases. The same is true for any other claim.

For example, we know that the "go fast" video demonstrates nothing other than that eyewitness testimony can be very wrong.

You are starting from the belief that there are aliens.

I'm not willing to start from there.

I don't see any evidence that comes close to suggesting the kind of event you are proposing.

 

clichés and stereotypes?

Really?

Interesting.

Good

I don't know about whether they reinforce each other, that wasn't a concern I expressed. However, There are, apparently three unremarkable videos, except for the one where the object darts quickly to the left. I'll take Underwood's testimony about it, if, indeed, he is speaking about the same video, and I think he is, but I'll have to check. His description cannot be an artifact. You claim it is an artifact because West said so, but how can West know it is an artifact if he is not in possession of the camera, is not familiar with the system and it's nuances? Did he speak to someone who is familiar with the FLIR/Radar system who has confirmed this is an artifact? Did he interview the CIC personnel on the ship who claimed to have tracked the object which 'darted' and disappeared from the screen and picked up by the ship, 2 seconds later 60 miles from the jet?

Also, Andrea Themely, looked at one of the videos and made different calculations, she's an airline pilot who use to be a LT Commander Naval jet pilot and I should think she is more familiar with the system than West is.

Then there is the forensic report which you refuse to look at, of which you accused me of spamming this forum, which makes zero sense, since a forensic report cannot be spam, by definition, the report of which was created by three individuals all of whom are just as qualified to do a forensic study as West is to do some 'high school math', and they came to some different conclusions.

How am I, a lay person, given all the above, to believe that West is the final word on what the things are?

How is that even logical?

When the rubber hits the road, he doesn't know. But you are comfortable that they are ordinary things?

No one is saying 'aliens' in this instance, but could you acknowledge that they might be extraordinary, in at least, a moderately plausible sense? given the abundance of testimony more to the extraordinary than the ordinary, isn't this more logical? I repeat, no one is asking you to believe in aliens. I would NEVER do that.

I find that rather amazing. that you accept West's calculations over the testimony of several pilots who are familiar with the system. Now, Fravor and Deitrich are talking about maneuvers not in the videos. Why would you not even consider their testimony at least enough modify your opinion that they are ordinary objects? This does not make sense to me.

You said you want to start with the assumption there aren't aliens about.

I can understand that, but in the face of compelling testimony from pilots, pilots who lives depend on the accuracy of visual recognition training, which is intense, you're asking me to believe that their testimony should not be believed, only appreciated. Given who the persons are giving the testimony, that doesn't ring true to me.

Don't misunderstand me. We don't have to accept their testimony as proof, and therefore as fact, but it is quite acceptable to lean in the direction that the incredible descriptions might suggest extraordinary objects, and not losing sight of this kind of perspective. We don't have to be so darn rigid in our thinking that, for example, since we don't have an alien in our living room handing us some space objects to take back to the lab, we therefore cannot have hunches about what the credible testimony points to. Is that absolutely out of the question?

I fear you're letting that starting point override compelling testimony to the contrary, not so much that they are 'aliens', because there is no proof of it, but there is credible observations of relatively incredible things and you reject any notion that might allow to you have a feeling about it. I get that you need something on the order of hard proof, such as you need a space object to bring back to the lab or something long these lines and that's that. That's fair, but so cold. has engineering and science stripped you of your humanity? I realize science is not about humanity, but you are a human, let's not forget.

No one is asking anyone to be foolish and blind about anything, don't make that mistake about me. I'm just saying it's okay to be a little looser in your approach, say, for example, Avi Loeb. He's nobody's fool but suggested that Oumuamua might be an alien craft, or drone, or something along those lines and gave some interesting reasons why that might be so.

Now, he's a real scientist, one who leans a certain way on the subject, but he is NOT saying what it is, not losing sight that it could be just an astroid, etc, still, he suggests the possibility. Why can't you?

What eye witness testimony is that? The only eye witness testimony are Dietrich and Fravor, and they are describing objects which are not in the Go Fast video, or in any video. Underwood might have, and if he has, he refutes the 'artifact' conclusion. IF that is true, I have a direct challenge, to that contention, [see above highlighted in italics].

Only because I've studied the field for several years, which I doubt you have.
Before that, it was just wishful thinking. but, of course, I'm not going to deny hard evidence to the contrary, but
evidence which disproves it doesn't exist. . Evidence which suggests it does exist, exists in tremendous quantities which
you can't possibly have studied or choose not to at any length because of assumptions you have made.
I realize 'suggest' isn't good enough for you, but, as a lay person, it's okay to lean one way or the other.

I can understand that, if you haven't studied the field as long and as intently as I have, then that makes sense.
Even with what I've studied and seen, I wouldn't expect someone to believe as I do, but I would think that they would
at least consider it's moderately possible.

You haven't looked. You'd have to have studied this field with more intensity, patience and time.
It's similar to being an archeologist. Lots of dust, but, once in a while, something compelling is uncovered.
And no, you don't need to harp on the distinction between real ancient artifacts and pilot testimony, which is why
I chose the word 'compelling' which could apply to both such that no distinction beyond it is needed.

And why bother? We are talking about searching for an answer to the greatest answerable question that is available to mankind, are we alone? There are other greater questions, but those are not answerable, such as the why of the universe, etc. But this one, the one we are talking about here, that is answerable.

Maybe not soon, but it's answerable and worthy of pursuit in a serious manner. However, that would require admitting there is more out there beyond just photos of hubcaps and trashcan lids

I suspect you are not willing to do that.