They need to list each of those 18 key cases they referenced, as well as what their current state of knowledge about each is. One incident they say they already know for certain was just a balloon, but they don't say which incident it was. Maybe this is just a preliminary document, but if so, or if they think this is sufficient, it's not sufficient and we do need a deeper report. The longer this drags on the more wild stories some people in the public and press will spin to justify their belief that a lot, or even most, of the UFO sightings are really aliens visiting Earth.
Worth noting that those 18 key cases came from a pool of 144 cases meeting the criteria "witnessed firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems we considered to be reliable", which came from a larger (size unspecified) pool of less reliable reports. They also point out that the reports disproportionately come from the area immediately surrounding US military testing/training facilities.
Is that because the observers are disproportionately likely to be near US military testing/training facilities?
A significant number of the reports come from the immediate visible vicinity of San Clemente Island off the coast kind of in between San Diego and Los Angeles. San Clemente Island and San Nicolas Island next to it is the site of a US Navy base with multiple runways used to test drones and other aircraft and run training exercises from companies on the mainland. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrup Grumman all have extensive engineering facilities both in Los Angeles and San Diego. In fact in the 2004 "Nimitz incident" the carrier was undertaking a training exercise next to San Clemente when the objects were reported to have appeared on the radar display and when they sent out the fighter planes which reportedly saw an object and got it on infrared camera.
> The UAPTF has indicated that additional funding for research and development could further the future study of the topics laid out in this report.
I would be more interested in a BEA style analysis of each incident. But at least it lays down some possible causes:
- Airborne Clutter
- Natural Atmospheric Phenomena
- USG or Industry Developmental Programs
- Foreign Adversary Systems
- Other
We know ever recorded flight path of every aircraft. If it is plane-like and isn't one if those planes and we don't know precisely what or whose plane it is, there are two categories in the list that are the most likely explanations.
-USG or Industry Developmental Programs
- Foreign Adversary SystemsWe know every recorded flight path, sure, but it would hardly be surprising for some ordinary plane flights not to be recorded (e.g. of small planes with a malfunctioning transponder).
If a small plane without a functioning transponder was detected on radar, without visual or flight path information, it would be a UAP, since it would be unidentified. If someone then sees the plane, or the pilot later says "that was me", it would cease to be a UAP and be put in the "normal plane" category. I.e. "normal plane" should be one of the possible causes of UAP.
1) Still often file a flight path in advance, and must do so if they are using instruments to fly, which is anytime they are flying at night, reduced vision, or even mildly poor weather. Even those who choose not to file will still have their takeoff/landing activity recording in flight logs.
2) If the transponder fails they will still be in radio contact. They are required to radio control, and will be proactively contacted by control as well, and then be tagged on radar.
3) If both radio & transponder are not functioning, it is a serious enough incident to require an incident report afterward as it will require an emergency landing performed with significant risk & without coordination of control.
In all of the above circumstances there will be easy data available to identify the aircraft.
At best, your argument says there are circumstances where a normal plane will-- very briefly during flight-- be a UAP as control attempts to regain coms or land the plane safely. They will never make it to the point of needing to be accounted for in a National Intelligence report on UFO's and their possible causes.
Frequently these take place around military test/training sites though, which may quite likely have things in flight which are not on pre-registered paths or transmitting location data while in flight, because it's classified even above the need-to-know of just your standard radar technicians or fighter pilots. On top of that, human error is a possibility and things can be lost track of or end up in places not originally intended.
The report released today leaves the door open to all of this, so people asserting that the DoD has conclusively said that the objects reported to the UAP task force exhibit movements impossible to explain by known human technology are simply mistaken.
It sounds like you're saying that civilians have videos of planes but the people taking the video don't know what they are. Is that what you mean? If so, the people taking the video may not know what it is, but that doesn't mean US Military & Intelligence agencies don't know.
In general though, you seem to be faulting a report whose explicit scope was an assessment only of UAP reports originating from Military or intelligence community sources. It was not an examination of every civilian report & video of something they can't identify.
Balloons, birds etc fall into various categories, yes. Planes on the other hand will be identifiable by by military & intelligence agencies. They don't need a special category because we have the data necessary to identify them. Meaning if we can't identify them, they aren't a normal plane, so we don't need to include that in a list of possibilities.
Note: there are more people in the US who believe in the literal existence of Angels and Ghosts than UFOs.