Démêler les statistiques obscures de l'AARO révèle un quasi-doublement annuel du total des PAN inexpliqués (de 143 à 314 jusqu'à près de 600 rapports cumulatifs au total) !

Comme mentionné ci-avant, le groupe de travail sur les PANs qui a précédé l'AARO’s avait un total de 143 cas de PANs inexpliqués en mars 2021. This was more than doubled to a cumulative total of 314 unexplained in the first AARO Annual Report as of août 2022. Now it appears that the number may nearly double again to about 600 unexplained in 2024 (voir tableau ci-dessous). Unfortunately, due to a lack of clarity or transparency, we are forced to analyze and disentangle AARO’s obfuscated UAP statistics in order to deduce this.

Interestingly, the October 2023 AARO “Consolidated Annual Report” (or “AARO Cons” for short) to Congress on UAP, makes the Blue Book-style prediction that:

Based on the ability to resolve cases to date, with an increase in the quality of data secured, the unidentified and purported anomalous nature of most UAP will likely resolve to ordinary phenomena and significantly reduce the amount of UAP case submissions [i.e., apparently discourage making of UAP reports].

But each year or so, the total cumulative number of unidentified anomalous UAP reports increased from 143 to 314 to 600. That suggests that each year or so the added new reports with supposedly better “quality of data” were more unexplainable not more resolved with the better data. A later obscure statement in the AARO Cons report admits that AARO has not been able to explain away its UAP case backlog (the excuse being a lack of data, but perhaps really a lack of investigation?) hence the new cases with better data are not helping AARO, they’re still highly unexplainable (AARO Cons., Oct. 2023, p. 8).

Once again, history repeats itself. During Project Blue Book the Air Force repeatedly suggested that the primary problem in identifying and explaining UAP was lack of quality data, when often the reverse was true. When Blue Book sorted UAP cases into categories based on the quality of data, its ability to find conventional explanations steadily decreased as the quality of the witnesses and data increased s1see table below from data in Blue Book Special Report 14.

Because there is no mention in the 2024 AARO report of even its alleged current 2024 caseload of 1,200 UAP cases – a number shared by AARO Acting Director Tim Phillips with CNN on mercredi 6 – the next most recent stats with any kind of hint at an explained/unexplained breakdown we can find are in the previous AARO Annual Reports: the octobre 2023 AARO Report and the belated l'année d'avant Annual UAP Report to Congress of janvier 2023 (a confusing array of dates and reports).

The janvier 2023 report gives the breakdown of only the new cases, with the numbers if one adds them up, 195-to-171 explained-to-unexplained or 53-47% (of the new, not of the total caseload), calling it more than half, language that subsequent AARO reports have blurred into the more vague single word “majority.” Both the octobre 2023 and l'année suivante AARO reports thus have similar language stating that an apparently bare “majority” of the UAP reports were explained, and some of the remaining “anomalous.”

Then the 2024 AARO report in effect adopts the bare “majority” language as the current UAP status, implying a roughly 51-49% type breakdown (possibly even the same 53-47% ratio as the previous new cases, in view of the vagueness). By implication, AARO seems to broadly apply the older reports’ fuzzy breakdown to the final UAP 2024 situational wrap-up in this current 2024 AARO report. AARO thus admits in subdued non-numerical language the surprising fact that nearly half of its UAP caseload is still unexplained today or does not “have an ordinary explanation” – thus seeming to undermine its position s2AAROR pp. 25-26; similar statement in AARO Cons., Oct 2023, p. 8. It would be helpful in the future if AARO would clarify the data and present the actual numbers.

Presumably, the current 2024 numbers are close to this implied 51-49% split of Explained-Unexplained, or AARO would have said differently and given us the exact figures in the AARO report. (The AARO official website does not help, it gives UAP Reporting Trends from cases 1996 to lundi 20, including percentages of shapes (“morphology”) of UAP but for some reason gives no numbers of total cases or percentages of cases resolved or explained – much more important numbers insofar as rating AARO’s mission performance and assessing the level of UAP activity being encountered by DoD and the IC.)

In any case, if applied to the current UAP total then there may be close to 600 Unexplained in the 1,200 UAP reports total in mars 2024 (and this does not account for AARO sweeping away Insufficient Data cases as if fully explained as Blue Book¬ did in the past, which might push the 600 Unexplained still higher depending on the definition of Insufficient Data being applied consistently). If so, then this represents almost a doubling of the 314 unexplained cases from August 2022 (a figure AARO also omits). And that 314 unexplained was a more-than doubling from the previous 143 unexplained.

If the stats were much better than this from AARO’s viewpoint, they would likely have said so. AARO had plenty of room – and months of time remaining before the report was due to Congress – to provide explicit numbers in its historical report.

Why are we forced to resort to guessing games on nuances of AARO’s language? Why doesn’t AARO release the statistics openly and transparently?

In still another revealing statistical admission worded in non-numerical language, AARO admits, as mentioned above, that A small percentage of cases have potentially anomalous characteristics or concerning characteristics. AAROR p. 26

What exactly is that “small percentage” numerically, what exactly do they mean by “small” and are they understating and minimizing it in various ways? What is a “concerning” characteristic? A national security threat? A danger to air safety?

Is this “small percentage” the same category for which AARO then-Director Kirkpatrick gave CNN some UAP stats in October 2023 not found in the formal AARO Cons Annual Report just then released? Kirkpatrick said that 2-4% of the cases are truly anomalous and require further investigation (he had also previously given that same ambiguous figure to the media). Why the uncertainty of 2% or 4%? That is a double-factor uncertainty. Is there a “moderately” anomalous category below “truly anomalous” at AARO and what percentage of Unexplained or Total UAP cases might fall into that category?

The AARO 2022 Annual Report uses an interesting new term, unknown morphologies (= unknown shapes?), and says such interesting signatures are found only in a very small percentage of cases – as if stressing the “very small” number makes it better, as in old Air Force Project Blue Book debunker fashion that it was just a little ways to go to be completely explained away (AARO Jan 2023, p.8). How can a shape be “unknown”? Either one sees a shape or not.

It all adds up to a profound mystery that AARO seems to be deliberately obscuring if not obfuscating.