I'm arguing that no matter what bits of data comes forth, skeptics will not take his verbal account as proof of Fravor encountering something of non human intelligent origins. Especially considering Fravor acknowledges there is no gun camera footage.
Can I take a stab at that one, even though you were conversing with somebody else? To me, eyewitness accounts are interesting but not really evidentiary barring associated hard data, for the simple reason that eyewitness accounts are so often inerror -- not just about UFO sightings, but about everything. People make mistakes in observation. Memories are fungible. Some people make up stories. Some people hallucinate. Pointing this out is not to say that this is the case for any particular witness of any particular event (Fravor maybe saw exactly what he reported and possibly made no mistakes and has had no "memory creep" since then.) But there is no way to know, just from the story, how accurate the story is. That being the case, NO eyewitness story can ever rise to the level of PROOF that there are Aliens flying around, or interdimnesional visitors, or any of the other UFOlogist hypotheses. The claim is too extraordinary to be proved by mundane eyewitness testimony evidence, that we know is of the sort to often be in error.
The stories told by Fravor et al of their sighting of whatever it was are interesting, but sadly they did not capture (so far as I know) corroborating evidence that the thing they saw did the extraordinary things they said that they saw it do. Attempts to tack on the Flir1 video as proof of the claims made about the Fravor incident are not compelling -- the Flir1 target does not do anything extraordinary and may or may not be the same object, or even the same sort of object. Claims that radar data showed targets doing other things than what Fravor et al say they saw are similarly not compelling, especially since those claims also rely on what witnesses say, not on recorded verifiable data that we can analyze.
So Fravor's case remains fascinating as a story, but has no important value in an attempt to demonstrate Aliens (or much of anything else.)
That's my opinion, your mileage may vary.
Or perhaps you disagree. Please give me an example of what it would take to convince you. What would change your mind?
Convince me that Fravor saw an alien spaceship? I am afraid that ship has sailed, the opportunity to capture useful data is years (coming up on decades now) in the past. But IF he had shot some great video footage that confirmed all of his claims, he might have established to some degree that he saw something extraordinary (I am not sure that his claims support one UFO theory over another -- they don't seem, on the face of them and accepted as 100% accurate, to prove any one of the possible extraordinary theories that have been applied to UFOs over any of the others (Aliens, time traveling humans, beings from another dimension, demons, etc.) But he might have at least proven that it was nothing easily explained by known phenomena or known tech.
The problem is, when we do get data, it is always in the low information zone, does not support claims of extraordinary, impossible flight characteristics, and the like.* For some reason, UFOs only seem to do that sort of stuff when there is no supporting video being shot, or other hard data being collected. Claims that FINALLY a UFO video has been taken that shows a nearby UFO, clearly visible, doing the popular impossible UFO things and it will be made public next week never seem to result in anything more than another LIZ target that "you have to look really closely to see them." That pattern is old enough now to seem significant.
Dang I'm a long winded old coot. I yield the floor to the next poster!
*Close up videos showing amazing UFOs in detail pretty much invariably turn out to be hoaxed. Maybe someday that will change and we'll get some compelling footage.
