Well, you've done the work of applying your hypothesis to the model, but we're seeing lots of discrepancies that need to be accounted for, in order for your hypothesis to stand. All the questions people have been asking you are related to information in your hypothesis that makes assumptions not borne out by the evidence, or else flatly contradicts the evidence.
Right now it appears that you're cherry picking bits and pieces of the testimony that support the idea of an unidentified aircraft and just discarding the rest, and you're also inventing stuff that is neither in the hypothesis nor supported by known facts.
Remember what I said about "
Occam's Razor"?
- Eliminating hypotheses that don't fit the model, that contradict the evidence, or that require assumptions unsubstantiated by evidence (a.k.a. "Occam's Razor").
If your hypothesis doesn't fit the model, contradicts the evidence, and/or requires assumptions unsubstantiated by evidence, then you've got to cut out the parts that don't jibe with the evidence, then rework the hypothesis.
Sometimes you might keep on trying, but eventually find it's simply impossible to make that specific hypothesis fit the model and the evidence. In cases like that it's often best to recognize that the hypothesis is probably just wrong, and maybe it's time to investigate another approach to a solution.
That's why I said that a good investigator shouldn't really care whether the sighting is explained by a super-rare experimental bomber jet, an as-yet-unknown spy plane, a missile test launch, a weirdly-shaped cloud. The only thing the honest investigator should care about is following the proper procedure, and making damn sure that whatever conclusion lines up with all the verifiable evidence.
Another thing the investigator must keep in mind is to be as conservative as possible with one's assumptions, because the more unusual/extraordinary the conclusion, the more definitive evidence it will require to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you're alleging it's a spy plane, then you need to provide objective evidence that such a spy plane existed in the first place, with the described appearance. You also need something much more objective than just eyewitness reports. A spy plane flying low enough to be spotted by observers on the ground, just a few miles from a major metropolis during the height of the Cold War would be highly unusual, as most spy planes of that period tended to operate at extremely high altitudes. Any unauthorized plane flying that close to a major metropolis and an AFB where missile testing was conducted would also have been picked up on many radar covering the area, and would have undoubtedly caused the USAF to scramble its own fighters to intercept. It would have been a major incident indeed, well documented with volumes of paperwork. How do you account for the lack of response from the USAF air defense forces?
Remember ECREE? That's where it fits in here. If you're going to say something like, "it was a rare experimental aircraft," "it was a spy plane," or "OMG - sea witch!" then the first thing you're going to be expected to show is some damn conclusive, objective evidence. If you cannot reliably provide that evidence, then you must breathe a deep sigh and admit to yourself that your hypothesis is unsupported and therefore most likely wrong.
