Extraordinary claims were made for what the three original videos show.
It was claimed Flir1/Nimitz captured sudden accelerations -- on analysis, it does not capture evidence of noticeable acceleration at all, rather the image jumps as zoom levels change, then the target appears to move out of frame when the camera stops tracking it. The claim is debunked.
It was claimed that GoFast captured an object moving at incredible speeds, zipping along low over the ocean -- on analysis, it does not, rather the target is at a high altitude and seems to move in one direction against the background as the plane moves in the other direction. The claim is debunked. (And the argument that "well maybe the range data is wrong" is not convincing counter-argument. The data is the data we have, and "maybe it is wrong" leaves "and maybe it was right" on the table until somebody can prove it is wrong. There is no need to assume fantastic speeds to explain what is shown in the video.)
It was claimed that Gimbal shows a flying object that undergoes a strange rotation -- on analysis, it does not, rather the rotation of the target corresponds to the rotation of the gimbal mount of the atflir system that recorded the video. The rotation happens at the time of camera rotation, and in the direction that would be expected as the software holds the image horizon in place. The claim is debunked.
So I voted that all three have been debunked. Though I do not know absolutely what any of the three targets were, I am satisfied that the claims made about them have been shown to be unsupported by the what is actually in the videos.
The idea here, as I understand it, is that MetaBunk exists to debunk specific claims made, not to positively identify every mysterious something too far away to tell what it is which gets posted. It is tempting to debunk a claim made about a video by saying "Well, we can show it was a plane, and planes cannot do what is claimed, so it cannot have done that." And in cases where it can be reasonably proven that the object was in fact a plane, that is an effective debunk! But positive identification is not the ONLY way to debunk a claim.
Look at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/white-flying-object-over-us-navy-base-in-japan-july-2021.11898/
There is no real specific claim made to be debunked, the implicit claim is, I guess, "This looks unusual." The only real debunk possible is "No, it does not really look unusual, there is nothing there that is not consistent with a piece of windblown trash, or a drone, or a bird, or..." any number of other things. It is unlikely that it will ever be possible to identify exactly what the white spec moving across the screen was. But it has been adequately debunked to my satisfaction -- it does not show evidence of anything unusual happening.
Could any of the targets in the Navy vids have been something mysterious -- aliens, super tech belonging to this or that government, interdimensional somethings intruding into our dimension, angels, demons? Maybe. Assuming any of those exist, it is impossible to prove that any of the three is not something from that sort of category. Even if more video showed up that showed "American Airlines" painted on the side of the Flir1 target, it could still be claimed that the government or the aliens or whoever did that to hide the truth. To me, that is unlikely to the point of ridiculousness, but technically possible. But what MetaBunk can do, and has done well, is look into whether claims that might support such an interpretation are in fact supported by the vids. We (well, you, I just watched with interest) have done that with these vids -- they might possibly show something weird, there is just no reason to think that they do.
That's my $0.02, your mileage may vary. And apologies for the wordiness -- you shoulda seen it before I edited it down!