That is quite revealing in my book. Those are no conventionally powered "drones".
You have to explain why so many people err in the same way, if you want to claim those reports to be counter-factual.
He shows a video of one of those "round" (rather spherical) objects. While not going at Mach 2 in that instance, it's clearly real and air-borne.
And no, it's neither clearly "real" nor "air-borne". What gets recorded on instruments, including video, is an imperfect reflection of what's happening, and to think that because something has been recorded means it's real is not accurate.
Your "It's not clearly real or airborne" is interesting. Technically, you are correct, but it's a remarkably absurd stretch here.
The level-headed approach would clearly be, to assume it was real and attain better data.
Why are these videos always so grainy, out of focus, and otherwise unclear? Perhaps when clear and unambiguous video is captured there is no mystery…
These objects exist in a domain of low observability due to common limitations of our sensor technology. Additionally, you assume them to be entirely passive and observed by uniform chance alone. Which presumably should lead to them turning up in somebody's living room. That is nonsense of course.
These "objects" do not exist simply because recorded measurements could be explained by their existence. Without also providing a way to fit the existence of these objects into reproducible, falsifiable explanations that globally conform to all other theories of physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc., what you have is nothing more than a wild claim.
In other words, "extraordinary" is a euphemism for lazy pseudoscience. Do the work before making the claim.
I said, you assume the observation to be real. That does not say you already knew what it was.