What I find frustrating is that the committee members state that out 800 cases in their database, only 2%~5% of them show "truly anomalous" properties, that the

What I find frustrating is that the committee members state that out 800 cases in their database, only 2%~5% of them show "truly anomalous" properties, that they only have a limited number of sightings with high-quality data, and yet instead of showing that, they only show examples of low-quality data with no "anomalous properties". We all understand that the vast amount of the examples they have will be misidentified jets or balloons, it is only to be expected, but that is of no interest to the audience. If there are high-quality observations of anomalous objects, that is what should be showcased, even if they remain unidentified.