Absolutely they have not, no credible debunking of those videos exist.

It's completely disingenuous to just link that video as an authoritative source (when it's not... in any way).

You should also put Ryan Grave's response to that video - https://youtu.be/vNjB3LxBw_0

Except for that the reply doesn't actual counter any of the analysis made in the sceptic video, but instead criticises Mike for taking a sceptic approach and disregarding the audio from the pilots (because they essentially see the same thing as we see in the video). This is the typical approach one sees over and over again from most people invested in some sort of conspiracy theory, they never reply to technical criticism, but instead either switch to some other "evidence" or criticise the sceptic for "not taking an open minded approach".

> because they essentially see the same thing as we see in the video

If the pilots see the same thing with their eyes then that significantly undermines West's theory, because human eyes wouldn't have the same visual artifacts as these sensors. It would have to be an extreme coincidence for this all to line up just right across multiple sensor systems and human eyes as well. No impossible, but very implausible.

But they couldn't the video was incredibly zoomed in, it is too far to see with the naked eye. The video actually explains this.

It could be like a lens flare / bokeh that rotates with the camera, but that doesn't change the fact that it originated from a flying object. A camera artifact doesn't rule out that the camera was still tracking something, even if the remarks about it "rolling" and maneuvering were off base. Just as you'll see lens flare when you film the sun - the sun is real even though the flare streaks on video are artifacts.

You're right, the camera was tracking something: an airplane.

stfu

Interesting. Source?

That's not the source for the claim though... he said "engineers who actually knew how the sensors worked."

And you linked a video by a video game dev.

Who cares what his credentials are? His arguments are rational and make more sense than any other explanation. It sure is weird how much UFO-ologists suddenly care about credentialism as soon as a video game developer starts shitting on their party.

It is not even verbal argument, he (and others) did the math (open source), so only way to dispute his argument is by math too, irrespective how he is, or even what language he speaks. (aliens probably use math too)

I’m just asking for the source that the original poster referenced. If you don’t want to provide the source referenced, that’s fine… but if you don’t have the source then I don’t know what you’re adding here with this reply.

It's completely disingenuous to just link that video as an authoritative source (when it's not... in any way).

You should also put Ryan Grave's response to that video - https://youtu.be/vNjB3LxBw_0

And his response is not providing any confidence what so ever, if only he had build simulator to explain what people seen.

Please provide references to this analysis. There are plenty of folks here who'd love to read this.

Gofast, FLIR and Gimbal all have very compelling explanations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8

Mick West has reported on this all over the place.

Interesting, yet I find David Fravor's response to the points that Mick makes (on the Lex Fridman podcast) quite compelling.

It's possible that this entire endeavour (the military witnesses and the release of the videos by the pentagon) is one huge psyop, but given the number of years, the number of individuals involved, that quickly starts getting into conspiracy theory territory itself.

This is untrue.