To be clear, they stated that “these are not US military drones”, and that they have no evidence that they are from a foreign entity or adversary, which is very different from what I interpreted you as saying.
This is what the military does when they are testing classified military technology. “It’s not ours. It’s not the enemy’s. It’s not a threat. Nothing to see here.”
You'd hope they'd have sensors and analysis capable of forming some conclusions, such as tracing the drones to a origin point, or classifying based on signature, etc.
They've haven't provided much and there's a lot of questions unanswered, but they've said unequivocally what they think the origin is not.
"at this time we have no evidence that these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary...these are not US military drones"
What do you make of that?
"at this time we have no evidence that these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary...these are not US military drones"
The linked video starts at the relevant timestamp.
This statement logically means that:
* The Pentagon assessed (determined) that X is true
* Where X is defined as "The drones do not originate in the US or any other nation"
That is different than the statement:
* The Pentagon has stated that (a) X is false, and (b) they have no evidence that Y is true.
* Where X is defined as "The drones are US military assets"
* Where Y is defined as "The drones originate from and/or are assets of a foreign nation or adversary."
"at this time we have no evidence that these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary...these are not US military drones"
What's your thoughts?
That is different than the statement:
* The Pentagon has stated that (a) X is true, and (b) they have no evidence that Y is true.
* Where X is defined as "These are not US military drones"
* Where Y is defined as "these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary"
I think we can apply some Gaussian blur and assume the statement is an approximate fit to the meaning by remembering that: this was a statement provided by a human in real time, ad libbing in response to a press question. They didn't spend hours drafting it to elucidate all possible logical connections and deftly conceal the unstated meaning by crafting some inference puzzle. Hahaha! :)
Communication between people is successful miscommunication. It's not an API - remember that, engineer! :)
My assumption is these are US military drones.
The wording, imo, is intentionally very vague.
but uhh, the most standard thing is that its some weather balloon put up by an undergrad student who isnt aware of the relevant regulations theyre supposed to be following and whod really prefer to ask forgiveness than permission