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

Well, first of all you really don't need to post all this testimony. You've done a fine job of showing that there are individuals who see these cases very differently than I do.

My 99.999% comment concerns the likelihood that there are Earthly explanations vs. physics being so stupendously wrong in the specific way you want physics to be wrong.

While no scientist can say that is absolutely impossible, it is so monumentally unlikely as to beggar the imagination. My percentage doesn't come close to indicating how unlikely it is.

This Navy stuff just doesn't show what would be necessary to show to make a scientist believe that our physics is that monumentally wrong in that particular way you want it to be wrong.

In fact, if it DID show that, physicists all over the world would be going CRAZY over it!

They are not. And, I think you should respect that.

Remember when I commented on how you disrespect physicists?

West is an engineer. An engineer is a great choice for analyzing information such as this.

Once again, you want me to accept conclusions drawn by someone who has seen evidence that the public is not allowed to see. As I've pointed out before, the Navy published "go fast" - a STARTLING failure to properly analyze information. And, you demand that I ignore that!!

I don't accept the Navy analysis:
- there is the case that absolutely has an Earthly explanation, even though the Navy denied that.
- the Navy is asking me to believe OTHER of its analysis where we're not allowed to see the data, even though it has not retracted its "go fast" blunder.
- the likelihood that our physics is so monumentally wrong in the exact way you want to believe, as addressed above.
- no serious physicists are excited about these Navy tapes.

Finally, there is clearly something else going on here that would cause the Navy to publish "go fast" as if it was something other than a blindingly obvious failure to analyze the information available on the pilot's screen, which is shown clearly in the video. And, they have not repudiated the claims made in that tape, even though they are so obviously false.

So, I want to know why they did that? What are their motives? Are they after more budget? Or, what?

 

But you say nothing to refute the point that there is ship's radar confirmation of Fravor's and Deitrich's testimony ( ingnoring the off-the-cuff remarks on the Go Fast video).

MOreover, you ignore the point that most of the verified pilot's testimony cannot all possibly be contained on the three publicly available videos. You say nothing to refute this.

You ignore the point that the irregular movements of the object, seen visually and on radar, are confirmed by ship's radar, but yet you accept West's testimony that it is an artifact, and ignore the fact that it's a possibility, but it's NOT a 'fact', yet you presume it is fact, when that is not a forensic level conclusion. The ONLY forensic level conclusion is that it is ONLY a 'possibility'.

But, since we ship's radar confirmation of Deitrich's and Fravor's testimony, that leaves us with their testimony as the most compelling of the two possibilities, given the plain fact is there testimony is NOT refuted by the videos.

There is nothing I've written thus far where you can draw such a conclusion, NOTHING.

There is no way to know how unlikely it is.

Nothing I've written can you possible conclude that I want 'physics to be wrong'.

Nothing.

I think you should respect the FACT that science, in general, are not interested in the subject.
That has been true for a long time.

He has admitted he is working with incomplete information.

In a video where he was interviewing Louis Elizondo, who told him that he doesn't have privy to more videos and data of which he is aware, as former head of AATIP. West said he would love to get access to what Lou has been exposed to, but the Navy will not release it.

The point is, he knows he has limited data to work with. You should know it, too.

Yes, the Navy won't release it, and the excuse they will give is 'national security'.

Well, if it's balloon or something pedestrian, that isn't a national security issue, eh?

THere is no Navy analysis.

The argument NOT about 'earthly versus other worldly'.

The argument is about 'ordinary/pedestrian versus 'extraordinary/compelling'.

The latter could very well be earthly, but NOT pedestrian.

Capiche?

You really need to stop framing it this way, because I'm not framing it that way, nor is Louis Elizondo.

I repeat, there is no Navy analysis, and no one in the Navy is asking you to believe in extraterrestrials.
The Go Fast video is not a blunder, it's just an edited video. It's incomplete.

Where do you got this bogus idea?

They are truncated, what remains isn't that spectacular. Makes sense.

There is no 'failure' to analyze anything, there is only their intention to withhold information.

I don't know, but there is speculation in the UFO community that they eventually want to disclose what they know about them, but they are putting out information in small amounts, to gage public reaction, for an eventual 'disclosure'.

You must understand, the military still hasn't forgotten what happened in 1939, when Orson Welles did a radio play of the book "War Of The Worlds", where, if you tuned in a little late, where you missed the announcement that it was a play, it sounded like a live news reel where they were reporting martians landing and destroying cities, and the whole east coast panicked. This is a famous story, and so, they are cautious about releasing information or anything to do with the subject. Personally, I think modern audiences are far more sophisticated that than, now, and such a concern is misplaced.

But, that's just pure speculation, I have no idea. My guess is that they put out a teaser to see what would happen, and changed their mind about releasing more.

I want to make a comment here. I think have figured you out. You tell me....

You think that this idea that if these vehicles were some sort of physics defying event, that this threatens our current knowledge of physics, that it means 'we got it wrong'. That is a bizarre framework to think from, in my view. If you are an engineer, I am
actually suprised that you think from that vantage point. That doesn't mean you'll swallow anything, either, but the pint is you feel 'our knowledge is threatened' by 'the way I want them to be'. That's nuts. I want nothing of the sort.

Frankly, i doubt even physicists would look at it like you do, and would agree with me on the following point

You really need start thinking in terms of potential expansion of horizons rather than confrontation against knowledge

IF these things are real, and they 'appear' to defy physics, it doesn't mean we are wrong, it only means
our knowledge is limited, and in need of expansion.

Any serious physicist would welcome it, IF it were true. Yes, the videos are not enough.

Moreover, I saw an interview with a Navy guy who claimed he was an insider, 'in the know', and said they were ours.

Perhaps we have already expanded our knowledge, all along, and you don't have a thing to worry about.

By the way, that forensic report I gave you were done by three individuals with far more life experience in the sciences
and engineering than West, and, by that measure, every bit as qualified to analyze it as West is, even more so, and you've given me no comment on it. It's very detailed and thorough.

If find that odd.

 

I need to append, qualify the statement I made in my previous reply (#152) to your above statement, and my reply was:

I think you should respect the FACT that science, in general, is not interested in the subject.
That has been true for a long time.

I will qualify that statement in that Science is not interested in the notion that we have been visited by beings
from other planets, though some science is looking for life on other planets. What they are not interested in
are UFOs and UFOlogy, in general, they are not interested, for the most part, that practical interstellar travel is possible,
though a few scientists on the fringe might be. Or, if they are, they are operating in the context of black projects and it is not being revealed to the public. In my opinion, the latter is true, but I have no proof.

 

I've answered this several times now. I don't have any responsibility for refuting testimony by these people.

I just don't accept the interpretations for the several reasons that I've stated.

Yes, West doesn't get access to the data.

But, YOU think that means I need to believe the interpretation of someone who saw that data. I don't agree. And, I've pointed out why I don't agree with you on that.

All you are doiding is coming back with the same argument you gave weeks ago - that you believe these Navy guys are brilliant and therefore I should believe them, regardless of the mistakes they have made on these tapes and regardless of the fact that nobody is allowed to see the data!

Also, I DO have an idea concerning how unlikely it is that our physics is as wrong as YOU want it to be in the way YOU want it to be.

I think YOU should accept what physicists are saying. I have way more faith in the entire field of physics around the world and over the last 100 years than in what some radar operator claims to have seen.

 

Well, all over this world scientists are spending BILLIONS on looking for life that didn't originate on Earth. In fact, just looking for places where life MIGHT exist - even just microbial life.

So, you can't claim disinterest in that.

The problem with this UFOlogy stuff is that the evidence being presented doesn't have credibility.

It's like "go fast" - dismissable with ease by anyone who knows high school math. It doesn't require time from some physicist.

You want physicists to get excited by giving them some story from a radar operator concerning data they aren't allowed to see!!!

And, you claim that the cosmic speed limit isn't real and that there is no significant interest in interstellar travel??? This is so ridiculous it can't even be seen as insulting.

 

Oh, really?


Christ Lehto, veteran F-16 pilot, vastly more familiar with the systems, debunks Mick West, using a ruler and a protractor.

High School Math!

 

Yes, did you not read what I wrote?

I will qualify that statement in that Science is not interested in the notion that we have been visited by beings
from other planets, though some science is looking for life on other planets. What they are not interested in
are UFOs and UFOlogy, in general, they are not interested, for the most part, that practical interstellar travel is possible,
though a few scientists on the fringe might be.

You haven't surveyed the field sufficient to give a qualified answer on that score, nor has science, in general.

Besides, my other reply does have credibility, the reply where Veteran F-16 pilot debunks Mick West.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ctionless-drive.595406/page-7#post-1073222432

Mick West is operating on an assumption about the reads on the radar screen, which Chris Lehto reveals is incorrect.
See above link.

No, but properly interpreted radar data that the public has access to should at least pique their interest, see above link.

I never claimed SOL isn't real.

Oh, I"m sure scientists are dreaming plenty about interstellar travel.

But, how seriously are they taking the notion that non linear travel via some kind of non reactionary propulsion is possible?

Because, Newton's third law / thrust based linear travel is not how we are going to travel to the stars in any practical amount of time. I mean, who, among us, is going to want to sit in a space ship going half the speed of light for 40 years to get to a place we have no idea of what is waiting there when we get there?

't ain't gonna happen.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

I'm just not even slightly impressed. This pilot is making assumptions about how fast the object is going, for example. From that he's making an assumption about distance. But, the thing is, there ARE jets that go speeds that would put the object much farther away than this pilot is assuming. Plus, there are claims of FAR greater detail than is shown in the video - but we're not allowed to see that. Why?

Guessing at what the shape of the object is based on a photoshopped video is ridiculous.

Beyond that, I haven't investigated what West says about "gimble". Does this guy have a valid argument that the object is otherworldly - somehow exceptional? I don't see it.

I've been trying to get you to focus on "go fast". A big part of that is that I don't have enough interest to get into all these videos to the same depth. This pilot briefly mentions "go fast" and speed, but the big issue with "go fast" is the degree of parallax that comes from the mistaken interpretation of the altitude of that object as compared to the altitude of the jet.

I'm really tired of this topic.

Please stop. Go find yourself a physicist that thinks this is interesting. I don't believe you can do that.

 

Did you listen to the entire video?

No, you didn't.

he is refuted, totally, utterlly, completely. This pilot knows his math and the systems.

He does the math in front of you, and explains, point by point, WHY and HOW West got it wrong.

But you reject it.

I'm sorry, Willreadmore, you have just destroyed your credibility.

 

He didn't debunk ANYTHING I've said.

Why do you keep thinking that I don't read or watch what I say I read and watch? You are wrong OVER AND OVER on your bald faced accusations - yet you think YOU have credibility?

I do agree with him that we have a right to know - his last comment.

And, the follow-on to the "we have a right to know" point is that if there is something inexplicable by modern physics going on here, then the first world nations of the world all know about it. We're not the only ones who have detection capability. This isn't something that is US specific.

>> From there, this becomes a world wide conspiracy theory.

And again, I am not interested. The Navy can take care of itself. And, if the first world nations need the help of physicists, they know where to find them.

 

He debunks West, upon whose 'math' you cling to.

You specifically asked me for something that would refute West.

I just did. By a former veteran F-16 pilot, using high school math.

And, you told me 'this is not about physics, this is about high school math'.

Well, there ya go, high school math based on correct data, not assumed data.

What he reveals is that it is West who is operating on assumptions.

Then you go off on some kind of rant about CT.

Give me a break.

And, by the way, I've said many times I'm a layman, so the point of credibility regarding me is moot.

but Lehto has credibility.

Watch the entire video, please, and get out your ruler and protractor
and follow his instructions.

Please do it, or you are being absurd. You're the engineer, this should be a snap for you.

 

LOL - you are REALLY desperate!

I've not addressed "gimbal". I don't even know if West used math when talking about "gimbal". Remember - I've meticulously focused on "go fast" when it comes to the videos.

Let's be serious. No more crap.

Better yet, no more UFOlogy, OK?

 

I realize I've committed some ad homs, myself, but that doesn't negate the simple fact that it's not an argument.

You see UAPs as a threat to physics knowledge, I do not.

I think they are incredibly fascinating and if they are objects defying known physics, it doesn't mean we are wrong, it just means we have to expand our knowledge.

THere is a video of Chris Lehto and Mick West debating each other, and both gave concessions on some points to the other, but in the final analysis, they both acknowledge they are Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

Here are some facts you tend to ignore:

1 Fleets of these UAPs were observed on ship's radar. Fleets, got that? That fact, alone, refutes 'pedestrian objects'.

2. CIC ordered Fravor and Deitrich to go check them out.

3. The totality of Their testimony is not reflected in the videos.

4. Christ Lehto, a veteran F-16 pilot, in a debate with West, disputed some of his analysis with facts known to Lehto, as an experienced pilot, but not known to West. His most recent analysis, came out just a few days ago

5. West is not privy to ship's radar data which conflicts with his assumption that the objects are pedestrian.

6. We have testimony to that radar data that confirms Fravor's and Deitrich's descriptions. Seeing a UAP 10 miles out is one thing, but a CIC personnel's up close observation of Radar screens right in front of him is another thing, altogether. You seem to ignore this fundamental logical point.

7. Lehto told us that in his entire Naval flight career, he had never seen objects on videos that looked liked the UAPs in the three Naval videos. Almost always, there is more definition to the objects revealing what they are. However, a tic tac shaped object would explain it.

8. These objects have been observed on both American coasts.

9. There are no reports of Foreign militaries seeing them, and if that is true, then it suggests that the objects are American military black projects, but a few pentagon officials and denounced this possibility. However, black projects are notoriously compartmentalized, and their denouncement by those officials who might not have been read in to those projects, doesn't settle that argument. One argument against it is explained to us by Commander Underwood, who explains that whenever they encounter a black project craft, they are debriefed for hours on what they saw, often by CIA personnel, etc., and that this did not occur with these objects suggests that they are not black projects. However, that's not absolute proof that they are not, though.

And the remaining overriding glaring fact is that if these were pedestrian craft of one kind or another, they would have been identified via IFF protocols, and if they were smaller aircraft, it is still possible to communicate with them and not only that, if they were pedestrian objects we wouldn't be having this conversation as it would have never made the news.

And finally, you often do not refute specific and important points I raise, you just say 'I'm not convinced'. That is not an argument.

If these objects are defying known physics, that should be of tremendous interest to science.

This subject really isn't about 'aliens' as much as you want to frame it that way, it is about TECHNOLOGY.

As an engineer, why you wouldn't be curious to at least search for anything that might confirm Fravor's testimony is beyond me.

It's more like the first tidbit analysis that comes along and confirms your bias against 'aliens' and you cling to it.

Hey, it's not about aliens, it's about technology, got that?

West is not the final word on this, and he has acknowledged he is working with a very narrow set of evidence. he WELCOMES criticism. He is not afraid of anything that would challenge him. That is what I DO like about West.

However, all we have is testimony, as the videos are edited and co not accommodate all the testimony, nor is the Navy not releasing the radar data, and this is why hard core phsycists are probably not interested until they do. However, there are engineers and scientists that are interested. Such as...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...own-as-ufos-deserve-scientific-investigation/

 

Sorry, not interested.

Radar operators looking at top secret data and the testimony of fighter pilots doesn't compare to even just ONE Einstein, whose work has been under intense study for more than a hundred years, with gigantic rewards awaiting anyone who can falsify it.

The Navy has budget for studying the data they won't let anybody see!!

If they learn something, we will hear about it, because it would be Earth shattering news.

 

You really amaze me.

Did you stop to think about what you just wrote?

You are saying that a radar operator's description of radar activity is not comparable to one Einstein, as if this is a valid point.

And then you went on to pontificate about how Einstein's work has been under intense study for one hundred years, as if THAT was a valid point!

What is the point of that statement? Are you saying that because the radar operator is no Einstein we should deny his testimony?

How in holy hell is that even logical?

For someone who purports to be an engineer, you say some really illogical things.

Not if the 'something learned' would give advantage to Russia and China and thus compromise national security.

If that is true, and it is probably true, these things are not 'pedestrian' or 'ordinary', which has been my only point, all along.

 

Yes, I think those ARE valid points.

There has been almost ZERO examination of the Navy tapes by any comparable measure.

So, believing verbal testimony that these objects broke physics has had NOTHING like what would be required to make that believable.

I liked the approach taken by the expilot in that last vid you posted - he had a solid analytical approach, it looked like. I think he still made an assumption concerning how far away the object was, and I'm not so sure he actually answered the issues that others have found.

Plus, the whole story line of "the Navy released fuzzy vids because they were previously leaked" story line.

I trust our Navy to handle the national defense issues of the Navy.

But, to me, this looks like the same old UFO thing: "I saw a fuzzy saucer flying through the air, diving underwater and otherwise breaking physics!!! If that's a UFO, you should be REALLY interested!!" And, then when debunked, followed by "Oh, I don't mean THAT video. I meant the other one." Seriously? You want a Mulligan on that?

I know - it's the Navy so it isn't THAT bad. But, it's in the same family, especially when compared to our model of physics that has been tested by LARGE numbers of serious physicists for more than 100 years - a model of physics that satisfied all know phenomena, PLUS predicted black holes that hadn't been found, predicted the speed of gravitational waves that couldn't be detected at the time of Einstein, predicted the expansion of the universe that couldn't be detected, etc. THAT, is a stupendous record

And, without using data you are not allowed to see!

 

Okay, here's what is happening. You are aligning your argument to a different framework than I am. You are looking at this thing in what is in my opinion the wrong context.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I get from you is that you feel physics is threatened if these things are, in truth, actual physics defying objects of some kind

But, the rebuttal is that, if it is true about the objects being physics defying things, they most certainly are not going to 'break physics', this argument is a sentiment. Even your choice of words 'break physics' betrays emotion, not reason, and it is therefore not a rational argument.

How can the possibility of objects which, given what is known and observed, appear to defy physics as it is currently understood be damaging to physics in any way?

How can it? The more I think about it the more absurd the idea becomes.

What does 'break physics' even mean ?

You feel physics is threatened by this?

You feel physicists/scientists/engineers, et al., are going to be made a fool of?

What competent physicist or science professional do you know of who would assume that vantage point?

How is it possible for something that can potentially expand our knowledge of physics threaten it?

@WillReadmore, can you not see the illogic of your position?

The only logical thing to expect would be that the body of physics would take a leap forward to a level hitherto unexperienced in history, or be among those great advances of knowledge of history once the physics are understood. A science, as a whole, would welcome the advance, would it not?

And, you appear to be bothered by your ASSUMPTION that there is 'no evidence' as in 'zero evidence' for them?

How many times do I have to repeat the fact to you that the field is much broader than these three videos?

How many times do I have to remind you that, when the rubber hits the road, all we have (since the videos were released) are pilot's testimonies, because the three videos officially released are not complete? If that is true, then they are worthless. All that remains is testimony.

Now, here's where we get to the nitty gritty of the argument.

How reliable is the pilot's testimony?

See, the error you continually make is that you think this is about 'proving aliens'.

How many times do I have to remind you that it is not about aliens, it is about technology.

Moreover, what hard proof there may be, the Military is certainly not going to give it to us, ostensibly for national security reasons.

But, that notion presumes these objects are not pedestrian objects. Given the fact we know there are more videos, uncut versions of these videos, taht what was cut was being cut because of national security reasons. That right there would suggest these are not pedestrian objects. Isn't it better to know that much than to not know anything?

You appear to be worried about getting your ego bruised, as a member of the science and engineering community? Is this not so?

But of what value is ego in the search for knowledge?

Did not Galileo threaten the church?

You are acting like the church would to Galileo. Is that who you want to be? (the religion being irrelevant to the point, we are comparing behavior, not religious belief).

How is a leap forward in technology a bad thing?

Can you explain your position on this?

Because it makes no sense.

Do you remember him stating a number of times that the camera did not determine range that the range indicator is not reliable whatsoever ( I think I remember him saying there was a range given ,but it was never accurate, and he said you could determine range with a ruler and a protractor).

This is his most recent video, like a few days ago, and i think it is good to review prior analyses with a fresh new look

If there is a department that handles these UAP sightings, and I strongly suspect there is ( because it is logical, but in fact, there is a department ) they are highly compartmentalized, and the rest of the Navy has no idea. This is why you can't expect what you are assuming, that the Navy, in general , knows about this stuff and is acting monolithically. No, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. And don't tell me they can't keep secrets, I'll give you back evidence they they most certainly can and do.

You really should try and abandon all the baggage you appear to be carrying around on the subject. Not trying to be rude, just sayin', because that's what is sounds like.

The vidoes are cut, and by that fact, 'debunked' is a moot point.

You are fogging the issue with an unimportant fact. we are at a place where it really doesn't matter which video.

Why?

Allow me to repeat what I"ve stated many times:

The videos are of very little forensic value because they are cut. All that remains is pilot and CIC testimony. Your point, therefore, is moot.

West has not, in point of fact, debunked anything, by virtue of the above fact, even is he is correct in his calculations.

If he had debunked anything, he could tell you with 100% certainty what they are.

He might have given you that impression but if you watch the video of him debating with Lehto what these things are, you will find him agreeing with Lehto that they are, indeed, unexplained, which is to say, they do not know what they are. You see, 'debunking' has a certain standard, or I would assume it does, and that standard is or probably is that if you cannot say, with 100% certainly, what they are, then you've not debunked anything, you just hold an opinion.

You can suggest what they are, and you might argue why what you believe they are is the most likely answer, but, when the body of evidence from multitude of videos, testimonies, radar data, excitement of the pilots, their years of experience, etc., is factored in, it's not that it's 'absolute proof' but we can say which way the scales are tipped in favor of, insofar as 'pedestrian/ordinary' or 'extraordinary/compelling'. We can go that far and if that far is all that is available it's still worthwhile place to be which would be better than total ignorance.

That's the best we can arrive at, and so if you are rejecting data because it's not absolute proof, you are denying the field a position it can have, as in which why the the scales are leaning. The Navy, in the latest report, in the final analyses, they state they do not know what they are, and as to what they are remains an open question. Oh, there were a few suggestions as to what they might be, but none of those were included in the final analysis, which was the very first line in the report:

The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP.

In short, it's an open question.

West does not improve on this stance, because the videos are shortened and there is compelling testimony not reflected in the videos, but the pilot's testimony is better that 'he said she said' in that their testimonies were confirmed by CIC radar operators (who, I might add, do not require a degree in physics in order to provide reliable testimony about what they saw on the radar screens, not to mention Fravor and Dietrich were pilots sent to the Nimitz, which means they are among the Navy's best. Forensics would find this relevant in a report. )

What is in the same family? Again, and you do this alot, you are vague.

How is any of that relevant to the subject at hand?

I feel you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the objective should be, on this subject.

You are operating from the context of 'absolute proof'. This is a mistake, because if what they are cannot be proven one way or the other, we can at least acknowledge that it is possible they may be something we do not understand, if there is evidence, whatever the degree of evidence there is ( and I believe there are four levels of evidence)

You say their is no evidence for that contention, but, I repeat, there is a large amount of data on the subject, that will, in material and logical way, point to that possibility. Anything we can know about it, even if what can be known about it is limited to knowing that they are real or could be or are probably real, that is better than just throwing up our arms, and saying, 'Harummph, phooey, that isn't proof'. Even if we can't have a level 1 evidence, we can go for level II, or III, etc and see if we can come to some kind of conclusion, that is better than clinging to ignorance.

If you are waiting for that kind of proof, you are probably going to wait a long time. In the meantime, we can have opinions about it and the more facts there are, the closer we can come to some kind of understanding

 

No, the material you have posted does propose that our model of physics is crap. Pilots stated that some object moved in ways that defy physics - turns and acceleration far faster than possible, lack of indications of energy during massive acceleration, smoothly entering the sea and reemerging at speed, etc.

This evidence is nowhere near what would be required to suggest that the standard model of physics is crap in the way you hope. I'm scoffing at the nonsense, not fearful of physics.

Now, you say that the videos have been invalidated by editing, I'm fine with that. But, then you demand that the videos be considered evidence!! If the videos are invalid, why do you post pilots who argue about the videos? Why do you care about what West has said about the videos?

It does not take anything anywhere NEAR "absolute proof" to determine what the proper reaction to this Navy stuff should be.

And, that is to back off and let the Navy try again if they actually think they have something.



So, PLEASE. Let this be the last time we discuss these tapes, OK? This is turning into sealioning.

 

I believe sincerely that there is no consensus among physicists for your SENTIMENT. 'Crap' is a sentiment, and sentiments do not exist nor belong in the scientific realm.

A more accurate statement would be that if the objects appear to defy physics, it would mean that our knowledge of physics is incomplete. "Incomplete" is a description devoid of emotion. I strongly recommend you avoid terms of rant, sentiment, emotion, etc., because emotion clouds objectivity and accuracy.

Given that we were riding horses from point A to point B only 150 years ago, what are the odds that our knowledge of physics is incomplete?

I'd say the odds are 100%

If you claim to be an engineer, how is it that such a fundament concept as that eludes you?

I hope for no such thing, now you are making stuff up.

What nonsense might that be?

I did not say West's calculations are invalidated, though they might be based on the assumption that camera provided accurate range data, which Lehto told us it didn't, but be that as it may, even if his calculations are correct, no conclusion can be drawn from them given that the Navy has cut out the juicier parts, which suggests they do not want us to have evidence of extraordinary objects flying in our airspace.

Not the three navy videos, only videos of pilot and CIC testimony. The videos of Pilots and CIC are not put out by the Navy. Therefore, You can't conflate the two.

You can't conflate truncated videos with videos of Pilot and CIC testimony. The videos of Pilots and CIC are not put out by the Navy.

Given that the Navy vids are cut, I don't really care what West said. I would care, however, if he had access to all the data and understood that the testimony given is not fully reflected in the videos, which he has yet to acknowledge, as far as I know.

The Navy is not 'trying' to do anything but perhaps putting out videos to gauge public reaction. I don't think they care about it, that much.

There are tons of evidence (of varying degrees) that point materially and logically that something is flying around in our airspace that cannot be explained. No one piece of available evidence is hard evidence, but conclusions can be drawn more than just 'they don't exist' based on the plethora of compelling facts and circumstances, and we have tons of that kind of evidence.