1) These videos are of a set with the ones acquired by the New York Times in May.
2) The explanation nobody's talking about is mundane.
“there are so many other possibilities — bugs in the code for the imaging and display systems, atmospheric effects and reflections, neurological overload from multiple inputs during high-speed flight.”
So here's the thing.
The pilots began noticing the objects after their 1980s-era radar was upgraded to a more advanced system. As one fighter jet after another got the new radar, pilots began picking up the objects, but ignoring what they thought were false radar tracks.
“People have seen strange stuff in military aircraft for decades,” Lieutenant Graves said. “We’re doing this very complex mission, to go from 30,000 feet, diving down. It would be a pretty big deal to have something up there.”
But he said the objects persisted, showing up at 30,000 feet, 20,000 feet, even sea level. They could accelerate, slow down and then hit hypersonic speeds.
Lieutenant Accoin said he interacted twice with the objects. The first time, after picking up the object on his radar, he set his plane to merge with it, flying 1,000 feet below it. He said he should have been able to see it with his helmet camera, but could not, even though his radar told him it was there.
A few days later, Lieutenant Accoin said a training missile on his jet locked on the object and his infrared camera picked it up as well. “I knew I had it, I knew it was not a false hit,” he said. But still, “I could not pick it up visually.”
Read that again:
“I knew I had it, I knew it was not a false hit,” he said. But still, “I could not pick it up visually.”
We're talking about new radar and new cameras and new FLIR pods that are all networked together. More than that, different airborne components are linked to different AWACS and ship-based systems so that you're now talking about a sensor suite, not a sensor. And all these sensors are "seeing things" that people are not. And what they're looking like is not planes. And they're behaving not like aircraft, they're behaving like glitches.
The Navy does not want you to know that their airborne sensor suite occasionally interpolates incompatible data into “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.” The Navy does not want to discuss the fact that if its computers see multiple disparate events it will collate them into one impossible visual signature on a sensor camera. The Navy does not want anyone backwards-engineering the limitations of their networked technology.
The Navy is bending over backwards to not say "unidentified flying object." Because they aren't flying, they aren't objects. They're aerial, and they're phenomena, and they're "unexplained" not "unidentified" because they know goddamn well they're sensor glitches.