Are you purposefully dodging the obvious difference between actual research and “doing your own research”?

What I was citing is an example of how “doing your own research” (colloquialism) can yield something productive and valid when I was sharing my article. I was using that as a example, and comparing it to my brother who “does his own research” (again, we’re talking about the colloquial meaning…) and believes QAnon insanity and conspiracy theories about everything.

That is what the original post topic is referring to. Not literal scholarly research as you appear to be stuck on.

What I wrote on UAP is not the equivalent of QAnon crazies. I cited declassified documents from the National Archives and quoted various pilots/military/government personnel.

Your retort here just tells me you read snippets of my UAP article and are not acknowledging most of the information. Kevin Day was the Cheif Radar Operator, and this is a direct quote:

"…Immediately we were thinking: ‘Are these things real? Are they some type of glitch?’ So when we ran a bunch of diagnostic tests and we brought all our systems back up, the contacts were stronger now. That’s when I became concerned about these things and I strongly recommended that we take one of the aircraft that just launched off the Nimitz and go intercept one and go see what it is.”

The pilots witnessed the object/its movements with their own eyes, which corroborated the data from their sensors and radar data on the Princeton. I’m going to trust the concerns of the Cheif Radar Operator, multiple Top Gun pilots from a world famous squadron, and their weapons systems specialist over you and your arrogant condescension.

I guess I should have specified that what I am referring to is the category D UAP (see the COMETA report). I believe that some percentage of category D UAP could be possibly explainable by more conventional explanation.

I’m also not arguing that there is evidence of extraterrestrials; I’m only arguing that a percentage of category D UAP represent intelligently controlled physical objects, which represent disruptive/breakthrough technology.

That does not mean the technology could not be of human origin. But this technology represented in the Nimitz Event outperformed our F/A-18F Superhornets, and that same type of craft was identified on a mass scale beginning in 1947.

The sightings were so prevalent in the 50s that the US Air Force issued a public address on UFOs to the nation.

The reason I don’t rule out the possibility of non-human technology myself is because this kind of technology being invented and concealed since 1947 somehow seems even less reasonable to me.

You can disagree with me, the expert individuals’ accounts, and refuse to acknowledge the documents from the National Archives, but it doesn’t make my argument crazy.

I am simply arguing there is breakthrough/disruptive technology represented in a percentage of the category D UAP. That is supported by ODNI’s report as well, in which it states a potential national security concern is that they could represent breakthrough/disruptive technology by an adversary.

Of the 510 total UAP reports studied by ODNI, 171 remained “uncharacterized and unattributed,” and “some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis."

I am up for debating the subject. If I am wrong about anything and you have expertise and can share it/information, I’m all ears. Unlike most people, I want to challenge my beliefs and will gladly shift my beliefs in the face of compelling evidence.

There’s more supporting evidence of disruptive/breakthrough tech represented in category D UAP than there is evidence of any religion.

And if this is a bogus area not worhy of study, why is Harvard’s Galileo Project so invested in studying UAP? Or UAPx? And why was there such unprecedented unanimous bipartisan support passing UAP related bills in the least productive House in history?