Show me this isn't what the report is effectively saying, and that I'm just reading into it.
You are now drawing a false equivalence between (1) wild inductive reasoning sloppily attached to poor evidence which the Metabunk exists to check by dissecting the evidence and exploring more parsimonious mundane hypotheses, and (2) disciplined deductive reasoning from a short USG report, as well as from other evidence provided and explored on this thread, under the basic and sensible assumption that the report is mostly truthful.
Such deductive reasoning is not evident in your original post. You're giving a quote from the report, then your interpretation of it, but no deductive reasoning that connects one to the other. That reasoning that you've effectively been asking us to challenge ("show me") was all in your mind, and therefore your claim was outwardly unsupported.
By "anecdotal" is meant "reported by observers" as opposed to physical records such as sensor data.
First, that's an unusual usuage of that word. Merriam-Webster defines it as "based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"
. An "incident" can't be said to be "based on reports"; an incident doesn't "consist of reports"; the incident = the occurence = the UAP is what is being reported.
is a factual claim relying only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner. " (Wikipedia). It seems like UAPTF has established a systematic reporting process within the NAVY to collect UAP reports, and thus thereports it has as a result of that process are no longer anecdotal. You can use statistical analysis on them meaningfully.
"Anecdotal" further signifies that the reports are not backed up by data, but you yourself write that there's sensor data for some of these reports; this means that not all of the 18 incidents have only anecdotal reports as evidence; your claim contradicts itself.
The few physical records mentioned in the report under the section "And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology" concern UAP appearing to demonstrate "signature management" and "acceleration", as well as "military aircraft systems" processing "radio frequency energy".
And these are exactly those 18 incidents you're referring to. So it's possible that all of them are associated with physical records, making none of them anecdotal?
By "loosely associated" is meant, among other things, the imprecise language in the report whereby some radio frequency anomalies in aircraft systems were "associated with UAP sightings". The peculiarity of the observation could be easily highlighted by specifying, if indeed true, that these anomalies directly corresponded with eyewitness sightings of seemingly unusual flight characteristics. Unless of course these two observations did not directly correspond. I vote for the latter, but did not include it into my conclusion since it is conjecture.
What you seem to be saying here is that your use of the word "loosely" is unsupported by deductive reasoning and the result of conjecture on your part?
It is fair to assume that the 3 leaked NAVY videos were accompanied by reports from the pilots. I would not term association of that data to those reports "loose".
I asked, what is a "sensor signature"? [underline
The appearance of electromagnetic (EM) effects on sensors. This could be anything ranging from normal sensor readings on real objects to the appearance of false objects on sensors and EM interference of sensors. In the case of real objects, we witness the proper intended functioning of the sensor. In the case of false objects, we could be witnessing electromagnetic deception or EM interference. Unintended or intended EM interference could also result in erratic sensor readings and sensor malfunction.
, as used by defense scientists
and the military
, is the appearance
of objects to infrared sensors
." (Wikipedia) You are intermingling the object or phenomenon that is having an effect on the sensors with the effect itself, and you have no basis for calling the underlying cause "electromagnetic".
Secondly, you have no basis for claiming that the available data is restricted to "appearance
"; in fact, you seem to agree with the notion that the data the UAPTF hold also shows "acceleration", which pertains the movement of an object and not its motion.
To clarify, for radar data,
-- "radar signature" is whether there is a "blip" and how strong it is (appearance
-- radar observation also contains information where that blip is, and a sequence of radar observations implies a speed and a course (not appearance
, not the signature of the object)
Note that the object under radar observation does not need to emit any electromagnetic radiation itself.
You wrote, "The 18 incidents ... are ... associated with "a small amount" of sensor signatures."
I asked, "how you know the amount. You answer, "18 incidents were mentioned in the report." I was asking about the amount of "sensor signatures", not the amount of incidents. Is this answer saying that you believe that all 18 incidents are associated with sensor data?
What you have actually written in your claim is that the amount of sensor data is "small" in relation to the 18 incidents.
UAPTF is calling the data pertaining to these 18 cases "small" in relation to its full body of reports and data: they say these 18 cases are "a small number of cases", by implication compared to the overall number of cases that are the subject of this report: "The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management."
The report also says, "The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management."
This leaves open the possibility that they may also hold large amounts of other data that does not appear to show UAP doing anything unusual, and that the data they have on accelerating/signature managing UAPs is small with respect to that. Which seems reasonable, as there's only small number of incidents with such data.
Nowhere in the report is "small" used in context to the amount of data associated with a single event, or this group of events, so there is no basis for you to claim that the available data is a "small amount" with regard to these 18 incidents.
As an example, if the UAPTF had radar tracks or IR footage associated with 30 out of 120 (?) incidents, you'd be justifed to say that they only have a small amount of sensor data; but if this included full radar tracks and IR footage for all of these 18 unusual events, you'd not say there was only a small amount of data supporting these 18 events, as these 18 events would have to be considered well-documented.
I don't think what you claim the report is "effectively saying" accurately reflects what the report is actually saying. You're reading into it.