Why ignore the Navy's official videos? Why lump that in with obvious nonsense?
The interview is long but the whole thing is worth a listen. I challenge anyone to listen to the whole thing and then deny something odd was happening in the Pacific.
Let's say we believe with confidence that this debunking is correct and that these videos show a bird or balloon or some explainable phenomena.
The next step is to look at the eyewitness testimony and reports from the people involved in this case - several Navy fighter pilots including a commanding officer of a squadron of aircraft onboard the Nimitz - and decide if we think the likely outcome is that they 1) did see radio signatures of these 'birds or balloons' moving at speeds beyond what is possible according to our understanding of physics, 2) were they collectively deluded or mistaken or misled by software bug across multiple technologies (radar including the AEGIS radar of an American aircraft carrier fleet), or 3) were they all lying.
I don't think any of the debunking address the possibilities of these witness testimonies, only the video that we do have. Which sort of makes sense in that we only _can_ address the physical evidence that is in front of us as members of the public, but shouldn't we at least acknowledge it seems somewhat unlikely that several members of the Navy with thousands of hours of training onboard both fighter jets and also in the radar rooms of Destroyers all collectively believed they were seeing physically impossible maneuvers by multiple targets, or that these tracking systems are that unreliable, or that they all collectively decided to lie about these videos and make up a story? Dismissing a video as showing a bird or balloon subject to parallax is great, but those explanations fall down if we choose to believe the report that they had radar tracking these objects at impossible velocities.
Perhaps the lying is the most logical possibility if this is a planned piece of government disinformation / muddying of the waters around technology or UFO/UAPs for some strategic reason, but let's at least discuss the topic before saying 'it was a bird or balloon, slam dunk, case-closed'.
It seems to me that all this is an elaborate disinformation campaign of some kind, possibly to encourage near-peers from blowing research money on junk or cover some other program like UFOs did for the B-2 or F-117, or the project is either impractical enough or close enough to practical use to justify lifting the veil of secrecy somewhat. It hides in a quantum state of maybe, much like many of the things Ben Rich, former skunkworks director may or may not have said about how advanced their tech was.
[1]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31798/the-secretive-in...
[2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33859/blasting-the-air...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One of the transcripts was something akin to "you won't believe it, but it's back over there" - there's no claim by the radio operator that they "saw" a track move at speed X, it could just as well be taken as "it was here, and then it was back there". Unless the object was squawking an IFF or transponder code, how would they know it's the exact same object?
Since we don't have that evidence - guy claims before he could even lock up the E2C tapes a pair from the USAF appear on a Naval Carrier (like teleported or what?) to take them.
All the worlds most advanced collection systems, optical and radar and all we have are fuzzy videos no better than a bigfoot video. The only decent video is debunked by someone actually doing the math.
My point is that debunking the video is pretty pointless and the video really is almost a side note compared to the real judgment call one has to make which is whether a verbal anecdote about sensor data from a US Navy squadron commander on an aircraft with millions of dollars of sensor R&D working with radar operators in a fleet that is worth billions deserves more weight than the verbal anecdote of an Iowa farmer who saw a light moving in the sky.
If you're only interested in hard data and hard evidence then the entire thing is almost pointless as any UFO videos could just be doctored anyway.
The story is they came in by helicopter.