CONVENTIONAL EXPLANATIONS CONSIDEREDTESTED FIRST
CHECKSatellite flares, satellite trains, and reflected sunlight from satellite structures, especially Starlink: sightings 35, 37, 1055, 695, 1072, 1079, 1193, 1199, 1242, 1281, 1287, 1333.Conventional
CHECKOther orbital objects and space debris, including Qianfan SpaceSail satellites and the METEOSAT-7 rocket body: sightings 32, 33, 36.Conventional
CHECKLaunch-stage or deorbiting effects associated with Falcon 9 and Starlink activity: sightings 1320, 1330, 1331.Conventional
CHECKBalloons, including Mylar, novelty, LED, pilot, weather, and recreational balloons: sightings 123, 269, 897, 1074, 1309, 1328, 222, 266, 483, 654, 671, 673, 689, 691.Conventional
CHECKAircraft or helicopters, including aircraft approaching an airport or flying at high altitude: sightings 49, 252, 503, 730, 753, 764.Conventional
CHECKAstronomical objects, including the Moon, Jupiter and its satellites, stars, and Vega: sightings 1028, 139, 279, 1193.Conventional
CHECKSky lanterns or groups of lanterns: sightings 649, 676, 737.Conventional
WHAT REMAINS UNKNOWNUNRESOLVED
?The packet does not define a standardized rule for counting a case as fully resolved versus partially explained.Unknown
?The packet does not establish a complete statistical sampling frame, so the observed category proportions cannot be generalized to all AlienBox cases or all UAP reports.Unknown
?For many cases, the underlying photographs, videos, radar records, or technical worksheets are summarized rather than supplied in full.Unknown
?Some reported objects were assigned a likely object class while their origin remained unknown.Unknown
?The packet does not establish whether any unresolved case represents a novel technology, a non-human object, or merely insufficient information.Unknown
?The Le Mans photographs did not establish whether an aircraft was present, and the proposed LED-balloon explanation was not supported by wind direction: sighting 644.Unknown
?The Laragne-Monteglin investigation did not validate aircraft, helicopter, ultralight, drone, or atmospheric-scintillation hypotheses: sighting 1226.Unknown
?The Crozon report remained unexplained after examined hypotheses failed to account satisfactorily for the claimed behavior: sighting 705.Unknown
?The Villers-lès-Luxeuil case remained strange after aircraft-related hypotheses were examined; the reports were not fully independent and no imagery was available: sighting 710.Unknown
?The Évreux radar event lacked the radar recording and independent radar confirmation, leaving a false echo possible: sighting 620.Unknown
?The Coulommiers visual and radar reports remained unresolved, and the reported radar correlation was treated cautiously: sighting 238.Unknown
?Several partially explained balloon cases identify the likely object type but not its source or exact behavior: sightings 123, 483, 654, 671, 673, 737.Unknown