>Are they alien technology? No.

How do you know? Every time in history we thought we were "the center" it turned out to be wrong.

- Have you even read the report?
- Are you aware what the conclusion of the french report was (COMETA)?
- Are you aware of what the conclusion and recommendations of the united kingdoms report was (Condign)?
- Are you aware of that the there are 700 cases in project blue book that are unidentified, ironically it's the cases with the most data, that couldn't be debunked no matter how hard they tried, which was the last time the pentagon did the exercise AND that the conclusion was the same as it is this time "nothing to see here".
- How many witnesses have you interviewed?
- How many cases have you researched?
- How many times have you searched through all new paper articles or gone to public archives to validate or invalidate a case?
- Etc

Here is an analysis of the report:

https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

In the link above, I forgot to mention an error that they made in the report:

They claim Kenneth Arnold described them as sourcer shaped, but that's not true, he described them as pie-pan or disk shaped. He described the way they moved as sourcers skipping across water.

They forget to mention the Washington fly over in June 1952, where the spokesman from the air force said that it was real and not fictitious. And they forgot to mention that we now have astronomical pictures of anomalies in the sky, from exactly the two weekends where the Washington fly overs occurred.

And on and on it goes.

DoD/AARO's report claiming no evidence of ET is a lie

This week a historical report about the UFO phenomena was released by AARO. It is surprising that the report contains no scientific evidence of any kind. Here are some of the blatant faults and omissions in the report:

- At the press briefing after presenting the report to a select group of journalists, all of whom only reported the conclusions of the report, Phillips said the AARO was never denied access to any facility. But AARO doesn't have Title 50 authority so that couldn't have looked into every facility nor into the private facilities of contractors - according to the whistleblowers, the ones supposed to house the alleged materials (Lockheed Martin, Grumman, et al.)

- A week before the report was released Kirkpatrick claimed that no whistleblowers had come to them. The report claims whistleblowers came to them.

- It doesn't detail the data from which it draws it's conclusions.

- It doesn't establish a bar for what it considers evidence. The report says nothing meets this standard without defining a standard.

- It claims that only approximately 2% of reports are unresolved, and that if more data is acquired, they will be resolved. Notice that the more data they had on cases in Project Bluebook, the large the percentage of unresolved cases were. Of the cases with the best data 35% remained unresolved and unidentified. Back then, the conclusion was also "Nothing to see here. Move along.", even though it today, even after rigorous debunking, still contains 700 unresolved cases.

- The Nimitz incident is not mentioned. It was front page news, radar operators and Top Gunn pilots gave testimony, and it was seen by people and tracked on several radars, infrared and film.

- It claims that the "Project Sourcer" was started in 1946, but the term flying sourcer was first coined in 1947 by the press, after the sighting of multiple objects by the pilot Kenneth Arnold on June 24, 1947. And AARO also gets the date of the Kenneth Arnold sighting wrong. They claims it's June 23.

- It uses the wrong name Roger Friend of former head of Project Bluebook. His name is Robert Friend. And he recommended that an organization independent of the Pentagon be created, to scientifically study the phenomena, which the report of course does not mention.

- It contradicts the USAF's own 1990's Roswell Report, which claimed there was a coverup made to keep Project Mogul secret.

- It lists the Vought V-173 Flying Pancake as a potential source of UFO reports. While it probably caused a few reports of disc shaped objects when tested between 1942 & 1947, it wasn’t being flown around the US nor abroad. And it was a noisy propeller plane that couldn't fly very fast.

- It claims that all the whistle blowers that came to AARO are crazy or deluded, and that the aerospace executives and military leaders are truthful when they claim there is nothing to see here. Note that if the executives are involved in a SAP (secret access project), they are by law obligated to lie about it. Also note that this contradicts the DOD IG, who said that the claims of Grush that testified under oath that we have materials and bodies, and supplied the names of 40+ whistleblowers like himself, is credible and urgent.

- The third source it cites is a Fandom page. Go figure!

- It claims that the former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was from New Mexico; he is from Nevada.

- Rep. Eric Burlison, when asked if he trusted DoD/AARO's latest report: "I don't. They weren't transparent with us in a SCIF."

- The report claims to be a historical report, yet it contains no mention of any of the best cases (like Teheran 1976, Belgium Wave 1989, JAL-1628 1986, etc) nor of any of the best most credible researchers (James Fox, David Marler, Stanton Friedman, etc).

So what is the purpose of the report? Why was only the conclusion of the report sited by the journalists that was invited to the press release conference? How could nobody see the flaws that I just pointed out? How can someone create such a piece of error filled non-scientific and frankly non-historical report after having been studying it for a year, and then having the audacity to call it a historical report?