> "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation."
> "Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings."
The "multiple sensors" part is important. Anything that has video or radar returns from multiple points is much more interesting than a single-point view. Most illusions break down when observed from multiple widely separated points, like several warships operating together.
This is the reminder after they explained millions of identified objects or sensor artifacts. In theory a non trivial fraction of these may be sensor errors for example, but so far they haven’t been identified as such. Ditto for clouds, balloons, drones, aircraft, missiles, falling space debris, etc etc.
IIRC its Night Vision Device. Essentially night vision cameras have triangle shaped iris which causes triangle shaped lens flare - hence the triangles in the footage.
> they won't release it to the general public for "security reasons"
This is pretty clearly non-scare quotey security reasons territory. We are unsure if what’s on the scope is an adversary’s. Publishing a detailed quantification of how little we know and in what form would be a self goal.
Ok, you detected what exactly? At which frequencies? Power? BW? Does it look like something (unmodulated signal? Modulated? How?)? Do you have a recording of it?
Considering that they were not directly in contact with the object, it is 100% necessarily true, so the statement is entirely meaningless without specifics like the ones you request.
The RF emissions acknowledged here are something I'd never heard of before. Stating the obvious; even though this report is completely vague on that front (and all others), the fact that this was mentioned means that there was likely an RF abnormality in a few event reports. It's not really logical to assume they are talking about something trivial that a plastic bag would 'produce'. But yea - agreed, this is missing so much info.
> "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation."
> "Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings."