Here's an article with emails and documents released via FOIA which makes the whole incident sound a bit less dramatic:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39913/multiple-destroy...

(I guess "drone swarm" instead of "UFO swarm" isn't clickbaity enough)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that all the data about these "UFO"'s:

1. is conspicuously low quality, grainy 2. presents inconsistent imagery of the phenomenon 3. originates from sensor equipment most laymen are unfamiliar with and thus unable to know if they've been spoofed 4. presented in the context of clickbaity commentary

It's funny that you make this claim on a post with clear video of radar data: it's like the post already pre-emptively corrected you, but you said it anyway.

But yes in general I agree with you pm 1. I think the "grainy footage" status quo is an embarrassing debacle.

It always ends up being something completely explainable, like birds, planes, floating balloons, imaging artifacts, out-of-focus stars, what have you. Forgive me for not suspending my disbelief this time when every previous time disbelief has ended up winning the day.

It's well known that you can get all sorts of problematic radar artifacts that don't end up being real objects. Hell, the world was almost ended over some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...

Crying out for help to be convinced. It's a sad sounding existence you related in that comment. Without hope. Defeated. ;p ;) xx

1997 phoenix lights, Italy 1960s Friendship case, Belgian UFO wave, Mexico City mass sighting...it doesn't "always turn out to be something explainable" at all

Radar displays will display whatever the underlying circuitry produces. Faulty circuitry will produce erroneous displays.

Faulty does not necessarily mean "broken", it could simply be that the software which is being run has many bugs and produces echoes on the display which are just not existent in reality.

As far as I can see it, if the UFOs are not secret new aircraft, then they are non-existent artifacts in the inadequate electronics.

That's a possibility and a fair point, but only if these data were not independently confirmed by other sensors, like night vision footage, iPhones, FLIR targeting pod footage, and pilots. You can't say it's faulty sensors if you get the same signal across multiple unrelated systems.

I'm not saying you're saying this specifically, but some people do, and that's crazy, it's a conspiracy theory to invoke the idea that all sensors failed at the same time in the same way, include hallucinating humans, it's very much reaching for a crazy explanation just to deny evidence or preserve a belief system challenged by that evidence.

it's a thermal vision scan; inherently grainy

Debunking by Thunderf00t:

https://youtu.be/Th4VlqQyVr4

(There are currently at least three threads that ultimately refer to the same video)

While I'm a skeptic, this isn't much of a debunking video.

He's using analysis of a FLIR video to debunk the David Fravor story while incorrectly attributing it as a video taken by Fravor's plane (which it's not, and doesn't take a lot of research to discover this).

I mean if you're going to the effort of debunking UFO videos, at least try and appear to be more credible than the people screaming "ALIENS!!"

Also on first watch this does not appear to relate to the parent story?

Yes, you are right, it was meant as a reaction to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy4xWZ9IkXo

Because that was also a recent video with Jeremy Corbell, I incorrectly assumed that all references were to the same video.

Please don't post unrelated video, or show contempt for something before investigation. The link you posted came out on May 8, the radar footage was released on May 27. Your link does not refer to this radar footage, so it's not a debunking ;p ;) xx

"Unrelated"... literally talking about the same guy who posted this to twitter and saying how wrong he is. Yeah its related. "UFO" just means unidentified. Normally cause the cameras not in focus.

It is unrelated, not it's not "related". The video above is talking about nightvision footage. The twitter thread about Radar data. First, nothing showed "how wrong he is", as the claimed "debunking" that it was an out of focus plane is not very smart, because a plane doesn't just sit there and hover. Please don't believe this crazy "Thunderfoot / Mick West" stuff without some critical reflection on it first. Second, even if the debunking had showed "how wrong he was", so what? The footage does not originate from nor belong to that guy. He's completely unrelated to it. He's just a release vector. Even if you want to see him as someone you don't think has credibility, that cannot alter the credibility of the nightvision footage that's confirmed by the Pentagon.

I think the most interesting mystery about UFOs is how for decades the government tried to discourage reporting about them, to the point that pilots who saw things they could not explain would avoid reporting them because it might damage their careers, but in the last few years that has turned around and now the government wants reports.

The best explanation I can think of for that is that what people were seeing in the past decades was something the government was involved in and wanted to keep secret (stealth aircraft experiments, for example). Occasionally there would be a slip up and the public would see. By discouraging reports and trying to foster an environment where people who talked about their sightings would be seen as crackpots, the government hoped that people wouldn't be able to combine data sufficiently to learn too much.

So what changed? Let's suppose it is some kind of new aircraft. My guess is that someone else is now secretly testing similar aircraft, and the government does not know who. So now they want reports so they can try to figure out who it is.

Or they know exactly who…and it’s them. What better way to convey to your adversaries—now we have something that can fool our own well trained military.

Why else would you all of a sudden about face a denial policy that has been around for 70+ years if not for disinformation purposes?

Oh my, here we go again: conflating aliens with "huh?"

Show the damn aliens (or their robotic emissaries) or keep the triangle-chinned, bulbous head stickers stuck to VW vans.

I bet someone is having a good laugh trolling the US military or trolling the public.

Actually no one is saying it's aliens here.

But I think that people bringing up what you say is an interesting phenomenon. People conflating this with aliens and saying (as if reflexively / reacting to themselves / their own denial / compulsively expressing their own denial ) saying "Oh god here we go again. This doesn't mean it's aliens." when there were no aliens in the title or article mentioned.

It's like they are commenting / expressing out part of a conversation that is going on in their heads and yet cluelessly assuming that's going to be really relevant to anyone else, and funny thing is they have this reaction and say it out, as if they are imagining someone is saying it's aliens, all while calling other people crackpot or nuts, but the true crackpot is the one who is talking about this conversation that is happening in their head as if it's really happening, and throwing that comment into the thread as if something in the thread prompted it (when there was nothing there) when it was their own imagination the whole time.

maybe that's why these people (the highly or even delusionally imaginative, there's a big difference between the two) are so sensitive to and derisive of this stuff, because they know of themselves, that these very incorrect imaginings are the afflictions that have plagued them). it's kind of sad to see, especially how they are crazy but they come here calling others crazy, it's sad, it hurts people and their own karma, and it's sad to see them so crazy and not realize it ;p ;) x ;pp xxx

Jeremy Corbell, to me, doesn't seem very credible, and yet he keeps putting out these "leaks" and the Pentagon keep confirming that the videos are genuine, which surely just validates and encourages his behaviour?

I'm confused as to what the motives are here. (Ie. why the Pentagon choose to comment on these "leaks" when presumably they could just not).

If the pentagon did not comment, I suspect Mr. Corbell would also see this as confirmation that he is on to something big.

I don’t really understand that logic

UFO != Alien or even Foreign power high tech.

UFO just means an Object, that was Flying, that is currently Unidentified.