Two separate ideas on the Tic Tac object.
Mick West on what it might have been ,and Lex Fridman discusses with Fravor what he has to say in response.
I looked at the so called de bunker and this is what I saw.
FLIR
His whole argument on the Flir video is based on an assumption of looking where the object is not.
He makes a guess at the radar range as being small and that it was a plane way off in the distance.
Well a cursory google search shows the basic radar that we can google has a range of about 350km
And that is what we can google. Given the speed of modern military craft even that iis not far for an incoming missile so common sense suggests the ability to detect at a greater range,
en.wikipedia.org
So this part in my opinion is based on an uneducated assumption.
It has no basis on the evidence at hand.
GIMBAL
He is calling into question the military's understanding of their own equipment, we have trained military people saying one thing, and an unknown skeptic calling foul.
Lets see if he does understand what he is looking at, and put him in a room with Fravor.
All his arguments are based on his own opinions.
He has not backed up any of them, nor has he had it checked by folks who know.
I am pretty good at photoshop, just becasue I can fake a picture of an event does not mean the event did not happen, only that my picture is fake. Likewise, just becasue he can find an alternate ( and unproven ) simulation of the gimbal does not make it a valid.
Go Fast,
Seriously?
His math is based on his understanding of the readouts, is he correct?
Again put him in a room with a Top Gun Instructor and let him push his case. Win that and I will give worth to his ideas.
Until then I will put my money on a trained pilot and his peers, over a debunker like this nit wit.
And he seriously argues it is a loose balloon, or a pelican :)
Come on, your not seriously saying a trained pilot saw a balloon and mistook it for a plane?
He ignores completely credibility of the pilot and insult them with a ballooon argument? What next, It was swamp gas?
Summation
In my opinion it is full of assumptions and rubbish arguments sculpted to fit his opinion.
He suggests people are constructing some kind of reality that makes sense of what happened.
That is exactly what he is doing with his so called debunking.
The difference is he is some lazy arse armchair de bunker fitting a clearly unsubstantiated, hotch poch explanation to a set of events as reported by the worlds most highly trained military personnel,
He brings assumptions and clearly no evidence into the mix.
If I were to take his arguments, and keep the structure intact, but make it look like he is supporting ET,
the skeptics would tear it to shreds.