While I'm a skeptic, this isn't much of a debunking video.

He's using analysis of a FLIR video to debunk the David Fravor story while incorrectly attributing it as a video taken by Fravor's plane (which it's not, and doesn't take a lot of research to discover this).

I mean if you're going to the effort of debunking UFO videos, at least try and appear to be more credible than the people screaming "ALIENS!!"

Also on first watch this does not appear to relate to the parent story?

Yes, you are right, it was meant as a reaction to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy4xWZ9IkXo

Because that was also a recent video with Jeremy Corbell, I incorrectly assumed that all references were to the same video.

Please don't post unrelated video, or show contempt for something before investigation. The link you posted came out on May 8, the radar footage was released on May 27. Your link does not refer to this radar footage, so it's not a debunking ;p ;) xx

"Unrelated"... literally talking about the same guy who posted this to twitter and saying how wrong he is. Yeah its related. "UFO" just means unidentified. Normally cause the cameras not in focus.

It is unrelated, not it's not "related". The video above is talking about nightvision footage. The twitter thread about Radar data. First, nothing showed "how wrong he is", as the claimed "debunking" that it was an out of focus plane is not very smart, because a plane doesn't just sit there and hover. Please don't believe this crazy "Thunderfoot / Mick West" stuff without some critical reflection on it first. Second, even if the debunking had showed "how wrong he was", so what? The footage does not originate from nor belong to that guy. He's completely unrelated to it. He's just a release vector. Even if you want to see him as someone you don't think has credibility, that cannot alter the credibility of the nightvision footage that's confirmed by the Pentagon.