We have a grainy infrared video, and claims of other infrared, radar and visual observations. Claims are easy to make and hard to analyze. Video is all we can analyze, and the video is unconvincing. Why then should we believe the claims?

We have incredibly strong claims that lead to congressional hearings and classified reports to Congress. The public videos are heavily redacted and lower quality than the classified ones.

So is your claim that they’re all lying? Is Congress in on it?

No, my claim is that a few are lying and/or exaggerating the truth, and most others are unwilling or unable to point out the lies. Just like what happened with Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction", which were a much more consequential lie, I hope you'd agree.

It's definitely an easier explanation than supernatural alien craft.

Nothing in this analysis or conclusion contradicts the radar observations - how are they being "ignored"? And it is unclear to me (as an uninitiated person) how "visual" observations lend any more credence to the story when they are just retellings of the exact same kind of footage, except impossible to further analyze/corroborate.

The core claim of this joke of a production is that it’s just lens flare.

They use weasel words to hedge their bets, but their intention is pretty clear.

The facts are that these pilots also saw these things with their own eyes and got radar locks in addition to IR. These are “targeting” pods remember? It can’t just be lens flare.

The "production" explicitly acknowledges that there is obviously a real, physical object with a strong IR signature. But all we see about the object is the lens flare. Hence, none of the apparent rotations and jerks are those of the object, but come from the movement of the camera system itself. Please feel free to re-watch.