“We were able to identify one reported UAP with high confidence”

What makes you thing they haven’t identified 70 more just as an example, but with LOW - MEDIUM Confidence and they could also believe these are balloons, just as an example again.

The report doesn’t say we’ve identified 1 so no more can be balloons or something else that they believe, it literally leaves the door open for absolutely anything including a plane which could come under “sensory error” or “observational misconceptions”

“According to Elizondo” - According being the MAIN word, he also claims the report rules out US secret tech or foreign tech he’s wrong about that, he’s human anyway he can be wrong about anything.

“Surely had at their disposal” - just an assumption, 80 have multiple sensor observations that leaves the remaining 64 to be as little as just one eye witnesses account per incident.

It isn’t “extremely unlikely” because they literally left everything on the table it’s just as likely as anything else, they didn’t rule out anything at all, I’m not sure why people can’t seem to grasp that or don’t want to.

Just because they didn’t say planes it doesn’t mean it rules it out, they didn’t say aliens as well by that logic so aliens are ruled out as well. You could argue that they could both fit in the “other” category.

My point is nothing at all was “debunked” nothing at all was ruled out literally anything is on the table account to the report which is disappointing but anyone saying otherwise is just trying to for their own narrative for what ever reasons