Crafts that our government has stated are not our technology, that are capable of outperforming our current aircraft/war machines, such as the F/A-18F Superhornets in the Nimitz Event.

That should be concerning to people if that air superiority exists in the hands of a possible adversary. There is also the aerospace safety hazard posed by UAP that affects both commercial and military aircraft, where there have been many reported cases of near-misses.

The Pentagon’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was mandated to produce a report on UAP, and stated in their report that:

Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation. … UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security. Safety concerns primarily center on aviators contending with an increasingly cluttered air domain. UAP would also represent a national security challenge if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology. [11]

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." [11]

Not only has the US government confirmed that UAP exist, they have acknowledged that they pose a serious safety risk to our pilots; both commercial and domestic.

Nah, I don’t have a problem with my wording. You’re just jumping to all sorts of conclusions. I’m not responsible for other people’s ignorance and unwillingness to challenge their beliefs.

My argument is logically sound and I don’t feel it comes off like the mad scrolls of some Q-anon nut job whatsoever. I think your hang-up and useless criticism here is just a reflection of your emotional maturity level and propensity for emotional reasoning. I presented factual information with logical reasoning. You’re emotionally reasoning here.

If someone is unwilling to even open a lemmy post link and instead writes it off without any consideration, that’s just a reflection of their own ignorance and unwillingness to challenge their beliefs.

I don’t feel the need to tiptoe around the facts, and there’s always going to be people unwilling to consider the information. I’ve already done a hell of a lot, compiling all of that information and that write-up. But I’ll be sure to remember that you don’t like the way the information makes you feel next time.

Eh, shit happens even to top guns flying our latest tech. Consider the implications of the existence of life outside Earth tho. How would the public react?