AARO does not have a 100% confidence in its report, so why release it? And other questions.

According to the Key Findings section of the report, “AARO has moderate confidence in this assessment due to the limited data provided.”

So my questions are:

(a) If you do not at least have a high degree of confidence in your findings, why would you release a report and title it a “Case Resolution” in bold font? What AARO provided is simply a conjecture based on limited data (and, as I will discuss below, in spite of full analysis of some of the important aspects surrounding the Eglin base UAP e.g. disabled radar and other objects that appeared with the main UFO).

(b) Why was the data limited? I thought Kirkpatrick once said that they have all the clearances they need to get all the data they need to assess.

(c) According to the report: “The pilot reported that upon closing to within 4,000 feet of the object, the radar on the aircraft malfunctioned and remained disabled for the remainder of the training exercise. Post-mission review determined that a circuit breaker had tripped; technicians reported that the same circuit breaker on this particular aircraft had tripped three times in the prior months*,* but technicians could not conclusively diagnose the cause of the fault for this incident*.* Based on the previous tripping of this circuit, AARO assesses the malfunction likely was not caused by or associated with the object.” Is this normal practice of the Pentagon with its trillian dollar budget to let pilots fly with defective military jets? And on what basis could the technicians not “conclusively diagnose the cause of the fault”? Doesn’t the aircraft have a self-diagnosis system? This is arguably the most important section in the report, given that disabling radars is a common phenomena with UAPs, yet it was written almost as an afterthought.

(d) “There was no EO/IR data for the other three reported objects initially observed on radar; therefore, AARO could not analyze those reported objects.” – These objects were all part of the UAP phenomena being observed. Accordingly, failure to analyze them fully and property affects the validity of the findings because, again, another important aspect was sidelined from the overall assessment. This renders this only a partial assessment of the Eglin UFO.

(e) “AARO conducted extensive testing using one of these balloons and found it could replicate some aspects of the pilot’s account.” – If AARO could not replicate ALL the aspects of the Eglin UAP, then this goes back to the main question. Why release a report based on partial findings and assessment?

AARO’s report implies that AARO is very probably a continuation of Project Blue Book and Hynek’s traditions.