3 ms·
They're listing possibilities. Planes are one possibility, just as balloons, birds, and everything else they listed. Planes have been with high confidence attri
by krferriter 5y ago
They're listing possibilities. Planes are one possibility, just as balloons, birds, and everything else they listed. Planes have been with high confidence attributed to multiple civilian recorded videos posted online (not in this dataset). Planes are a legitimate, high likelihood possibility for some of the reports. It has to be included on any list of possibilities used in investigating them.
- ineedasername 5y agoI misunderstand what you mean by Planes have been with high confidence attributed to multiple civilian recorded videos posted online 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.
- raverbashing 5y agoThe Air Force knows how to identify other planes. It's not hard (for them). Radar and flight plans give little margin of doubt.