Magical Realist:
Possible but unlikely to be built for the reasons I already gave.
See? That wasn't so hard.
I will be encouraging you to try for honesty a little more consistently from this point forward.
FYI: I'm not much inclined to communicate with a moderator who threatens to ban me if I don't answer their questions.
It's your choice who you communicate with. However, I won't have you dishonestly trying to dodge issues, like a troll. You've already got away with that sort of behaviour far too often.
Oh and it's 11:15 pm in Portland Oregon right now. Do I have your permission to go to bed now?
Don't be cute. You were reading this very thread just after I posted. It would have taken you about 30 seconds to construct an honest reply. You should have posted an honest reply in the first place, instead of having to be asked by several people.
Because AARO director Sean Kirkpatrick says these metallic spheres are typical examples of the same kind of uaps they see all over the world. Apparently after examining hundreds of these cases, he believes they are all the same kind of thing with the same cause.
Several people have already questioned this new claim of yours, about what Kirkpatrick believes.
Please cite a source that supports your claim, or retract it. I expect you to do this when you next post to this thread. If you do not, I will be forced to conclude that you haven't mended your ways, and are - unfortunately - still acting like a troll.
Honesty please, Magical Realist. Is that too much to ask of you?
It's like seeing a meteorite fall from the sky and knowing it to be caused by the same thing that causes other meteorites--falling rocks or space debris.
There's so much wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start. I'm going to skip it for now.
Do you seriously think he believes that all these metallic spheres they see "all over the world" have different causes?
It doesn't matter what we think. It is
your claim that "he believes they are all the same kind of thing with the same cause".
Is that claim based on something he said or wrote? Or is it just something you imagine he might believe? If it's the latter, don't pretend you know what he believes. That's dishonest.
What would be the logic in that?
The logic of similar-looking things having potentially many different causes has been explained to you over and over again on this forum for more than 10 years.
Why can't
you play devil's advocate and tell
us what we would say about the "logic in that"?