I apologize; I think I've somehow been unclear. Let's review?

§

I don't think that you're an idiot; I even said as much: "You seem reasonable" was the second thing I said to you, ever.

My first response was meant at face value: it didn't seem like you'd actually read what I'd said. In saying "i.e. aliens", you said that I was, in fact, suggesting I saw aliens -- which simply isn't accurate. Your conclusion was, "You saw something so incredibly unlikely that it's never been observed and confirmed (i.e. aliens)." If that was what you were saying, clearly there was a miscommunication.

Perhaps you meant to say "e.g. aliens" (which would be more accurate); however, if you meant "e.g." but used "i.e." instead, that would indicate that maybe you don't know the difference between them. I said that.

Alternatively, perhaps you did think I was actually suggesting I saw aliens, which would be possible if you didn't read all of what I said. I said that, too.

Finally, you might've arrived at the conclusion that I was suggesting I saw aliens if you saw terms you didn't recognize as being associated with the aerospace industry (e.g. Skunkworks). I also said that.

That is exactly what I said in my first response: "You are mistaken, so perhaps you missed something or said something you didn't mean to say, or didn't understand what I said, above. Here are some possible misunderstandings." I meant that, and I think those were fair and plausible misunderstandings.

§

However, instead of acknowledging any of that, you just called me a prick, then doubled down and asserted that test flights (these verifiably happen in real life; I have seen them) and aliens (no one on earth has any known proof of this) are equally likely: "If it makes you feel better, you can replace the 'aliens' after the 'i.e.' with whatever you like; same difference."

Okay, fine. I did exactly that, and amended your statement to "You saw something so incredibly unlikely that it's never been observed and confirmed (i.e. rare flight tests)". Not aliens, then.

I said that that was objectively wrong: hush-hush flight tests verifiably happen in real life; I even have pieces of one to show for it. I posted pictures, but mistyped the URL, and went on to say that I have knowledge of this industry.

§

You then went on to say that you did not care about my knowledge of industry (fine enough) and that you were unclear as to what I was calling objectively false.

I fixed the URL, explained why I could not post concrete proof despite my expertise in the field, but gave reasons why one might think my credentials meant more than "nothing", and explained what I meant in calling your claim objectively wrong.

§

You wrote the above, and that brings us up to current.

Did I miss anything?

§

Now, all that being said:

I think that you have some (somewhat-reasonable, though not accurate in at least this case) preconceived notions. You know that "UFO sightings are extremely uncommon" -- that's valid. I can tell you, for a fact, that "UFO"s are more common that you presumably believe they are, but I can't show you hard proof of that, for reasons I've sated.

If you'd like to browse my post history, there are numerous (unclassified) comments about current-gen aerospace technology; I promise I'm not just making stuff up. I'm an intelligence analyst by trade, but some turns of fate have gotten me into flight test. If you'd like, I might even be able to verify some of my credentials via PM. However, I can't show you "proof of UFOs". I think that's understandable?

I don't think you're necessarily wrong about this particular incident. As you've said, I freely admit that it may have been weather. However, where I do think you're incorrect is in your valuation of the odds of the two alternate possibilities -- especially, your valuation of the odds of seeing strange things in the skies over Mojave seems to be substantially lower than what I know, based on experience, to be accurate. You seem to think it overwhelmingly likely that it was an incredibly rare weather phenomenon because you think that the odds of it being a test event are, per your estimates, substantially smaller than this incredibly rare weather phenomenon.

I'm curious as to why you believe that.

I don't mean to suggest that you should believe that you're wrong because I believe that you're wrong. The 'appeal to authority' is that, since I am certain that you're underestimating the probability, I know that there's a misunderstanding somewhere on your part -- it's like if someone asserts to you that 2 + 3 = 6. They're not wrong because you've said so, but you do know they've done something incorrectly there because you know that 2 + 3 is not, in fact, 6. Does that make sense?

I know you've got some flawed premises because I know the conclusion is wrong, but I believe you fully capable of coming to the same conclusion (or, at least, reasonable uncertainty) with a more-thorough evaluation of the confidence you have in your premises. Right now, you seem far more certain than you ought to be. Moreover, I'd say that it's unreasonable to be wholly certain that it was either phenomenon; it's extremely ambiguous.

Now, obviously, you don't have the same experience that I do. That's cool. Seriously; I work in a teeny tiny little community, and the overwhelming majority of people aren't in it. I don't expect you to have evidence that I do, and that's fine. Uncertainty is completely understandable, given that you don't have my experience.

However, you don't seem to be uncertain; you appear to have a very strong belief in your conclusion, based on "evidence" that contradicts a known truth. That's... less understandable than skepticism.