“I dealt overwhelmingly in primary sources.”
Then you should have known that the latest posting was not reliable or valid primary source material.
Not at all.
Merely that an idiotic definition is being applied.
The post was written by someone experiencing the incident. Can’t get more primary sourced than that.
. . . unless one wants to have the primary sources flying the UFO or the F-16’S ETC.
Ain’t naysayers lovely. They are so habitually dependable . . . will NEVER admit a truth until it lands in their lap and castrates them. So cute.
For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:PRIMARY.
Primary source[1][2] is a term used in a number of disciplines. In historiography, a primary source (also called original source) is a document, recording or other source of information(paper, picture,....etc) that was created at the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which often cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources.[3]