It can't be that something boring and routine got spotlighted and debunked as anything interesting. Everything that seems important to me MUST be important, and if it doesn't appear important, it's probably because THEY are hiding something about it. Not because someone found a pattern in something that was not a pattern and made a bad assumption.
Do I have that correct?
And to be clear, you're the one who says that I'm not researching. How did I find such an obvious clue as a tail number in a video like that before you said anything? In your own source?
My initial analysis was done without a tail number because the video was too dark. I wasn't even aware there was a video with a tail number, and you were. You could always have proven who owned this thing just with a quick search.
Did you not see the tail number and realize that you can just look that up to see who owns the plane? Did you not watch the video? Or did you not make the connection about the importance of this evidence until I pointed it out after doing your own research?
One of us dug deeper into that source than the other, and all you posted was the link. At this point, you trying to mock me about the depth of my investigation feels like you trying to save face for downvoting me and then posting a resource to both me and the OP that you thought was going to counter me, but actually just proved my theory.
The underserved superiority you've demonstrated to me since the beginning needs to be reigned in, man. It's never panning out, and research doesn't need to be an intelligence contest.
Uh...
Alright. Sure.
It can't be that something boring and routine got spotlighted and debunked as anything interesting. Everything that seems important to me MUST be important, and if it doesn't appear important, it's probably because THEY are hiding something about it. Not because someone found a pattern in something that was not a pattern and made a bad assumption.
Do I have that correct?
And to be clear, you're the one who says that I'm not researching. How did I find such an obvious clue as a tail number in a video like that before you said anything? In your own source?
My initial analysis was done without a tail number because the video was too dark. I wasn't even aware there was a video with a tail number, and you were. You could always have proven who owned this thing just with a quick search.
Did you not see the tail number and realize that you can just look that up to see who owns the plane? Did you not watch the video? Or did you not make the connection about the importance of this evidence until I pointed it out after doing your own research?
One of us dug deeper into that source than the other, and all you posted was the link. At this point, you trying to mock me about the depth of my investigation feels like you trying to save face for downvoting me and then posting a resource to both me and the OP that you thought was going to counter me, but actually just proved my theory.
The underserved superiority you've demonstrated to me since the beginning needs to be reigned in, man. It's never panning out, and research doesn't need to be an intelligence contest.