This article came out and is basically a summary of Mick West's views on the recent hearing ang UFOs generally:
Great Expectations: UFOs in Congress | Skeptical Inquirer
Mick, and many other skeptics and scientists, must, as a rule, only rely on repeatedly testable evidence and all hypotheses must be proven to be accepted as fact. That is the reason science is able to move forward and has revolutionized our understanding of the universe and changed our lives. And it should continue to do so. However, when there is a court case, physical evidence is very valuable if it can be obtained, but often it can't be, especially if the perpetrator is especially clever. So, just relying only on physical evidence to irrefutably prove an alien or other presence here on Earth could be a long time coming; drones and other aircraft can be shot down, especially if they had 70+ years to do it. But they can't shoot them down or they would know what they are and not be bothering everyone with all of this. Or they have shot one down or obtained one or pieces of one, and will not reveal it, focusing on the current pressure from the UAPs and making the same noises they did years ago, to keep stalling. From a national security standpoint, it makes perfect sense as a strategy to maintain some illusion of control when you don't know what the heck is going on. Even better, to release the worst, blurriest, evidence and even debunkable videos --that would be the best strategy in the circumstances.
We have a case with a mountain of circumstantial evidence; this evidence spans many decades and extends at least back into the 19th century. Much of the evidence is mutually reinforcing; the same devices with the same characteristics encountered at different periods and places all around the world, Australia too! There are sightings with hundreds of witnesses, and extended observations of objects lasting for many days, observed through telescopes, binoculars, and theodolites where they could be clearly observed for periods of time. Witness testimony obtained in ways like this is high quality and more reliable. This isn't the same as a person who was mugged or raped trying to pick someone out of a lineup....
At White Sands during missile tests, 15 separate observation posts watched UFOs tracking missiles. Back at the beginning of the 19th century, Orville Wright was even asked if he was responsible for the devices being observed! (He said "no" and knew of no one who was making them).
Later encountered in WWII as the "Silver Balls" and all of the later waves. When the UFOs flew bacck and forth over the capitol back in the day, they were simultaneously seen and tracked by radar.
And here we are today! Same thing happening all over again.
If I was a good attorney, I would use the photos if they served my case, but I would also look at the past history of the perpetrator --other "crimes" they had committed, and help it to build my case. Interviewing witnesses is a large part of many cases. If I was a poor attorney, I would ignore all past testimony about the perpetrator (allowing it to bite me in the ass during the trial), I would ignore all witnesses as unreliable, regardless of the circumstances or how many of them were present at past perpetrator "crimes". I would instead only focus on a few blurry photos that were released by the other side, ignoring all other evidence, including the accounts of the witnesses who took those photos, and move into trial! Which attorney would
you hire??
