I’m deeply conflicted about this episode actually: on one hand, Susan is a compelling and engaging conversationalist, but on the other hand, I found the logical foundation for many of her positions to be fraught with errors, which I described in detail in this thread:
Reframing the Debate: A Path Forward or Backward?
Perhaps the most frustrating part of this interview was this: she’s had three quite close multiple-witness sightings of solid structured craft, but somehow she’s changed her mind about it, and now she questions if they were solid tangible craft after all. And her reasons for this change in perspective made no sense to me.
And as I pointed out in the new thread about the “Reframing the Debate” perspective, I think that her assertion that the “physical craft interpretation” is merely a hypothesis that can’t be verified without studying one of these things in the lab, is not defensible – we’ve explained all kinds of atmospheric and celestial observations (black holes, for example) without studying one in the lab. And we have radar returns and physical trace evidence - both of which comprise valid scientific evidence (I daresay "proof") in favor of the solid physical craft interpretation. And the truth is, it doesn’t matter how far away an object is – on the lab bench, or 5 billion light-years away. What matters is having the right technical apparatus to collect precision observational data about the object of study. Which is why projects like Chris’ portable ufo observatory are so crucial – that’s the only way to advance our understanding of this phenomenon (or phenomena, as the case may be). “New ideas” are fun and interesting to discuss, but they don’t resolve observational mysteries – only scientific data and analysis can do that. Which is one of the primary reasons that I object to the entire premise of “reframing the debate” – it’s not about asking the right and/or different questions; it’s about making precise and varied scientific observations of an event at the time it’s happening… and until we do that, our wheels will be spinning in the mud forever, no matter how many alternative ideas/explanations/hypotheses we come up with.