I never called RAF any names. I was speaking of people in general not specifics.
I still stand that there are many ignorant people that scoff at UFOs. Being ignorant is not a bad thing; we are ignorant about one thing or another.

4 years ago I was a scoffer and I was very ignorant. There I called myself a name now I will have to put myself on the ignore list

I really did not have any interest in UFOs until I met a few people that worked behind the scenes back in the 50s. I did me own reading and found there was much more to them than I had thought. It took me a awhile to accept that they all might not be a bunch of bunk.

No one particular story made me change my thinking. It was the total amount of information plus knowing a few trusted people (that I consider credible). Also I found some explanations to be fabricated on purpose.
ie. Temp inversions were used as explanations for radar returns directly overhead. The people that made these explanations are smart enough to know that can't be true yet they used it anyway. Ok maybe they were incompetent but it looks to be more of something that the average public or media person would buy vs someone with a physics background.

There are just too many of these out in left field explanations used over the years. It does not mean what was seen was alien but it does tell me that someone is trying to tone down a sighting. It could be they were too embarrassed to admit that they could not identify it, and rather than admit that they make up a explanation that will pass 95% of the population.

I apologize to the non ignorant, people here that have read all the available information and still say there is just nothing to it. Its a hard step to take and one can always fall back on "When it lands in my backyard I will believe"

I'm usually like that but the more research I did I found it increasingly difficult to ignore the picture that was being painted. I found it disturbing and still do. Once you start to think it may be possible then you begin to wonder what they want who they are etc.

I would like to some government support on this. The Condon panel was terribly flawed, as its final analysis did not match its own data. It’s over 1000 pages so not too many bothered to read it.