What concerns me is that the people releasing and analysing these videos are not from the government. The videos were leaked initially, and were never analyzed by any government agency afterwards (at least not in public). The only thing the government did was acknowledge these were 'genuine UAP's' without any accompanying analysis or explanation. Recently Kirkpatrick told that the sensor data in Gofast indicated a low speed of the UAP but that's it.
Why leave the public in the dark like this? It leads to all kinds of speculations.
That's assuming one or more of the following five things:
(1) That the DoD has managed to
fully explain to itself all low-information-zone (LIZ) UAP footage in its own possession;
(2) That the relevant threat assessment by proper DoD intelligence (ISR,
not UAPTF et al) of the UAP featured in these videos hadn't already yielded
a reasonable assurance as to the low threat and likely prosaic explanation of the UAP in these videos way before any Elizondo or Grusch got a hold of them to make an unnecessarily big deal out of them;
(3) That given 2, the DoD proper (excluding any politically imposed fringe entity such as the UAPTF/AARO) is
interested in
fully explaining these UAP videos;
(4) That given 3, the DoD would deem it unrisky to analyze publicly all aspects of footage potentially featuring classified technologies and programs (
@jarlrmai beat me to it); and
(5) That given the absence of 1, the DoD would like the public to know how ignorant they are about the specifics of some of their own LIZ footage (since, while ignorance surrounding LIZ affects even the greatest sensors, admitting such ignorance can be abused by adversaries and betray capability limitations).
I think it's important to highlight that there's roughly two kinds of 'explanation' of phenomena. The type 2 explanation below which certain lobby groups and others in the general public, as well as fringe individuals even within the government (such as Grusch) seek is somewhat different from the type 1 explanations the DoD, under its legal mandate, is primarily interested in and satisfied with.
(1) Explanations of phenomena to the extent of providing reasonable assurance for mitigating or eliminating a security risk (military, law enforcement, security services, surveillance, intelligence). Under these type 1 explanations, "identification" has a very specific meaning, referring to the process of determining with
reasonable assurance the
nature, the
level of hostility and the
target of
each individual object as well as the
potential damage it can cause
.
(2) Explanations of phenomena to attain high confidence as to what exactly it is (science, quality journalism, rigorous academic or even amateur knowledge pursuits).
Under type 1 explanations the purpose of "identifying" a UAP is to
describe a specific object in terms of the threat it poses. Under type 2 explanations the purpose of "identifying" a UAP is to
understand the phenomenon -- a task which may require far
more detail, as well as other
types of detail irrelevant to the DoD, about the object. In other words, depending on the context, a different (whilst related) question is asked about the UAP that calls for a different kind of 'identification'.
A LIZ object may be satisfactorily roughly "identified" within context 1 (a plane, a drone) while remaining properly "unidentified" within contexts 1 and 2 (which exact plane? which exact drone?). An object may even be "unidentified" in both contexts while resolving the specific question of non-extraordinary flight patterns. Several possible and known phenomena may explain unusual flight patterns (i.e. 'unusual' at a cursory glance) which can be satisfactorily demonstrated not to be physics-defying, and thereby effectively demystifying the UAP. In other words, a UAP can be satisfactorily explained as non-extraordinary without the need to identify it in either context 1 or 2.
A detailed "identification" under context 1 (especially in the military) which is difficult to satisfy with regard to LIZ objects, comprises the exact
type,
role, configuration and
origin of the sighted capability coupled with its flight path and overall behaviour in a threatening or non-threatening manner. For example:
Type: McDonnell Douglas F-15E
Role: Air-to-ground
Configuration: Weapons-carrying with 4 Sidewinders, 2 AMRAAMs, and
x,
y and
z air-to-ground weapons
Origin: Country
X
Flight Path and Behaviour: On a descent at location
p, weapons
z and
y hot, towards a column of 8 main battle tanks at location
q.
This level of detail is obviously a tall order to satisfy with fuzzy splotches and whizzing pixels which, without supporting data, are doomed to remain "unidentified" even for the military. On the other hand, sometimes an object may be justifiably deemed a threat even when it's not properly identified (but perhaps vaguely "characterized") whilst spotted during an active military engagement and exhibiting threatening behaviours within the proximity of critical assets.
It is perfectly possible to reach reasonable confidence on the generic type and character of a phenomenon (a bird, a plane, a plastic bag, a drone) without exactly "identifying" the object in terms of its specifics (model, make, unit, mileage, species, subspecies, age, life cycle phase, gender, product number, barcode, pick your particular).
I do agree, however, that for improved communication with the general public it would make sense for defence spokespersons to clarify this terminological confusion by stating something to the following effect:
"Unidentified", in the military context, does not mean the DoD does not entertain a likely prosaic explanation for unidentified UAP footage. Neither does our limited public disclosure imply an absence of likely prosaic explanations. We have reasonable assurance of prosaic explanations regarding all such footage.
P.S. Due to point 5 in the beginning of the post, even this type of a public clarification by the DoD, however, may be regarded as revealing too much to the adversaries as to what types of LIZ the DoD is incapable of analyzing in detail. It would also destroy the smokescreen of 'aliens' which may sometimes serve the DoD interests in keeping certain classified technologies safely wrapped under a veil of mystery.
In conclusion, I would just continue to shut up about everything if I was the DoD whilst knowing full well my total silence would only further embolden conspiracy theories.
