Because this is so circumstantial that there’s nothing to refute other than a couple of retired military guys who are professed UFO believers. It’s not like there are fuzzy pictures or such to pick apart. In this case it would amount to little more than he said she said.
Fascinating perspective . . . in a sad sort of way.
Actually, eyewitness accounts are not circumstantial evidence but direct evidence.
What is pathetic is your effort to impeach these witnesses with nothing more than an insult--"a couple of retired military guys who believe in UFO's." No logic, nothing close to critical or empirical thought...just a sloppy little insult.
While it is obvious on the face of it that you are pressing a deeply held prejudicial opinion instead of being willing to consider evidence--any evidence--these men just presented the facts (corroborated evidence in many cases) of what they had witnessed and drew no conclusions as to what it was.
Of course, if you had watched the video before engaging mouth, you would have known that.
” . . . couple of retired military guys . . . “
. . .
That’s quite a distortion of the facts of the conference by a wide margin.
I’m SURE you can count beyond 2.