Some are more surprised and definitive, like Luna, but I also wouldn't consider these folks to be able to debunk UFO butterflies much, anyway. It's all kind of getting to be farcical. I wish we could put a bunch of them under oath.
I'm not sure putting them under oath would make any difference.
Even if we assumed that everyone put under oath, mindful of its solemnity and the penalties for perjury, always tells the truth, what they believe to be true might not be objectively true.
We know that different people looking at the same photo can "see" different things. The butterfly referred to in
@JMartJr's
post #165 is a good example, see thread
Claim: ''UAP researcher'' released clear smoking gun photo of Orb captured by photographer.
For some years many UFO enthusiasts believed George Adamski's photo of a "Venusian Scout Ship" was real; the same applies to pretty much
every UFO photo unless and until it has been shown to be a hoax or misidentification. They want to believe; they place the burden of proof on sceptics.
Personally, I think it's likely Barney Hill believed he had seen a black-coated Nazi with a scarf and weird eyes, and a smiling red-headed man, looking at him from a UFO.
We know highly-trained personnel, having to make decisions about what they can see in literally life-or-death situations, can make errors in identification and misinterpret visual features, in one case misinterpreting features
specifically added to aid visual recognition by the personnel concerned,
post #59 in thread "How Can Highly Trained Military Pilots Possibly Misinterpret Things They See?"
We know intelligence photo analysts can misinterpret reconnaissance aircraft and satellite imagery, and draw incorrect conclusions.
And we know senior decision makers can interpret, and present, such imagery as evidence for things that do not exist. Satellite imagery was used to support the claims that Iraq had facilities for producing weapons of mass destruction in 2002-2003,
External Quote:
..the CIA released an unclassified version of its new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi WMD, which contained several satellite images of Iraqi facilities of concern. Images were also released at the time President Bush gave an October 7 speech on the Iraqi issue and the following day as part of a Defense Department briefing on Iraqi denial and deception. ...Image 9 is the "Abu Ghurayb BW Facility," which Iraq claimed was a baby milk factory. U.S. intelligence had classified it as biological warfare facility since 1988, and Image 9 is one of several (including some from commercial satellites) presented in the DoD briefing in October 2002 on Iraqi denial and deception.
The National Security Archive [
not a USG website], "Eyes on Saddam, U.S. Overhead Imagery of Iraq", ed. Jeffrey T. Richelson 30 April, 2003
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB88/
Many online articles still contend the Abu Ghurayb sire was a BW facility, it might have been, and was struck in the 1991 Gulf War. But this was 2002; and it is highly relevant that after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Abu Ghurayb complex was
not cited as proof of a recent WMD program.
8 days after the President's speech and the release of satellite imagery, the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autho...ilitary_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002
So I'm not convinced the opinion of individual Congress members about satellite photos is necessarily dependable; and I'm not sure Congress, or Congressional hearings, is/ are
always the best way to establish the objective truth about something. Scientific findings should not be determined by the vote of politicians.
Up till now, relevant agencies of the US government have made it clear that there is no testable evidence that leads them to conclude that ETI exists or that UFO sightings have any connection with ETI. There is no testable evidence anywhere of the existence of non-human technology (excepting known instances of tool-use by animals and extinct hominid species).
If the evidence Rep. Luna claims to exist is made public, it can be examined. If it is not made public, it is not evidence of ETI visiting Earth.
It would be the latest in a line of claims that the USG, US agencies or (rather improbably) defense contractors have evidence that UFOs are alien spacecraft which they're not sharing.
