They say they were. We only have their statements about where they were and what they saw, and Klass's investigation revealed that some of those statements can't be trusted. Klass send his analysis to the Army Agency for Aviation Safety whose deputy commander, Col. Samuel P. Kalagian replied: “I thought your analysis was accomplished in a sound, logical manner.” Subsequently, Kalagian requested permission to reprint highlights of the analysis in the agency’s safety publication, The Army Flier. So somebody doesn't agree with you that Klass was biased. But wait a minute! You always say we ought to assume that people don't have agendas and don't make stuff up unless there is proof to the contrary, right? So, where's your evidence that Klass had "an agenda" on this case? According to what you preach, we should accept that Klass was upright and honest throughout, unless something shows that was not the case. Why do you have these double standards - one for your "witnesses" and one for the "skeptics"? You are very certain about everything. A meteor can only be a blinding white flash. No other possiblities. How do you know this? Is this like where you claimed that the planet Venus can only ever look like a bright white light? Over and over again, you make assumptions before you even start to investigate the possibilities. And all your assumptions point consistently in only one direction: this or that can only be an alien spacecraft (or other "paranormal" manifestation). Let's face it, you are hopelessly biased. Presumably he could read the airspeed indicator. And yet, he gets the speed wrong in his recollection. And if he got the speed of the helicopter was wrong, then why on earth should we trust his estimate of the speed of the UFO?