L'AARO admet-il des preuves “non-empiriques” d'extraterrestres ?

Les deux conclusions-clés de l'AARO, telles que presentées en haut de la synthèse de son rapport, indiquent :

L'AARO n'a trouvé aucune preuve que any USG investigation, academic-sponsored research, or official review panel has confirmed that any sighting of a UAP represented extraterrestrial technology.

…

AARO has found no empirical evidence for claims that the USG and private companies have been reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology.

(AAROR Exec Summary p. 7, underlining added.)

If there is not a blanket AARO denial saying “no evidence” of extraterrestrial UAP sightings, but only a more limited, qualified denial stating “no empirical evidence” (physical evidence) of reverse-engineering extraterrestrial tech, then what non-empirical evidence does AARO have? Empirical means physical evidence and reality of objects and events, not human records of such, which records are presumably non-empirical evidence.

Is this an innocent ambiguity or an inadvertent admission that AARO has non-empirical evidence, such as documentary records or witness testimony, of reverse-engineering efforts on recovered extraterrestrial technology?

Interestingly, AARO claims to have “conducted approximately 30 interviews” of “approximately 30 people” s1pp. 6, 11, and quite specifically As of dimanche 17 septembre 2023, AARO interviewed approximately 30 individuals who claimed knowledge of hidden government extraterrestrial technology and evidence s2AAROR, p. 28. Don’t they know exactly how many people they interviewed, was it 30 or not?

AARO is quick to stress that It is important to note that none of the interviewees had firsthand knowledge of these programs s3p. 9.

But this seems to be contradicted later when AARO explains that Priority is given to those interviewees who claimed first-hand knowledge… Interviewees relaying second or third-hand knowledge are lower in priority, but AARO has and will continue to schedule interviews with them, nonetheless. s4AAROR, p. 28 AARO thus makes it seem they are reluctant to “continue to schedule interviews” with “secondhand or thirdhand” witnesses because they are so occupied with high-priority firsthand witnesses.