You, jarlrmai, in particular, do amazing image and data analysis, as does Mick West and many others here. There’s no disputing it. I’m thankful for it. I depend on it.Still it turns out that this forum and the general sceptical community is light years ahead of the Navy on being able to id this stuff.
But the skeptical community has the luxury of saying a particular sighting is most likely a balloon or a commercial airliner or a commercial drone or a kite. I don’t think the Navy shares that luxury, given its mission of national defense. I might very well be wrong, but no one in this forum has definitively ID’d the objects in any of the Navy videos. Posters have made excellent arguments as to what types of objects they most likely are. These arguments are good enough to convince me of their likelihood. I think FLIR and GIMBAL are probably distant planes and GOFAST is probably a balloon. These arguments might even convince the Navy of their likelihood. It appears the Navy is aware of metabunk’s work to some degree.
But it also appears the Navy doesn’t find these arguments conclusive enough to end their investigation. You assert their hesitancy to reach a conclusion stems from ineptitude. It might. But it might be because metabunk’s analysis isn’t conclusive enough to satisfy national defense requirements. I can see them even agreeing that FLIR is probably a distant plane, but national defense requires a more specific explanation.
If the Navy believes something has a 90% chance of being a balloon, the 10% of the time they’re wrong could mean a breach of national security so severe that it wouldn’t be acceptable at that probability. So they deem a 90% accuracy rate as unacceptable while someone such as myself, or maybe yourself, deems it good enough to move on to the next post.
You might be right in your claim that you’re light years ahead of the Navy and the DoD (I agree 100% you’re light years ahead of congress based on some of their remarks) but it might be worth considering that the Navy & DoD simply don’t find metabunk’s analysis conclusive enough, particularly because in some instances the military might be privy to classified data (which they allude to in the hearings) that you or I unfortunately can’t consider.