Today's NASA UAP/UFO Report Reads Like Very Lazy Work

In a post on one of my two other blog sites (sites you can read here and here), I complained about the scrambled reasoning and lazy-sounding efforts that astronomers produce when they write about UFOs.  I wrote this:

"It seems that when mainstream scientists other than parapsychologists write about the paranormal, they usually give us their laziest efforts, failing to be diligent in either scholarship or logic. It's as if their rule was: when writing about the paranormal, just 'phone it in.' "

Today NASA released a long-awaited report on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, which is a new name for phenomena such as UFOs.  Written by a panel that included five astronomers and someone called a "telescope scientist," we have a report that reads like a very lazy effort, a "phone it in" job.  It's the kind of report we might expect from a panel dominated by astronomers, who tend to give us their laziest efforts when dealing with UFOs and anomalous mysterious phenomena. 

The report makes no attempt to classify sightings of UFOs or UAPs. It tells us nothing about the speed or altitude or colors or shape of UFO/UAP sightings in general. The only UFO sighting the report attempts to analyze in detail is the "Go-Fast" UFO. The report attempts to use trigonometry and speculative assumptions to persuade us that the "Go-Fast" UFO was not moving very fast.  

No other UFO or UAP sightings are discussed in detail. Other than just mentioning one mysterious orb photographed, the report makes no mention of any of the mysterious orbs that were mentioned in the August hearing before the US Congress, dramatic and hard-to-explain references I summarize in my post here. The authors write as if they had no interest in analyzing UFO/UAP characteristics and patterns.  The authors fill up their report with lots of "we could do this and that in the future" talk. 

This is the kind of "give us no insight" effort we might expect from some panel that included no scholars of the paranormal.  Reading like a mere "going through the motions" affair, the report reads just exactly like what we might expect if the authors had no interest in the topic of unidentified sky phenomena, and felt like they couldn't be bothered to study it in a serious and thorough manner.  

Postscript: A Daily Mail story says "The climate scientist who helped supply the DailyMail.com with the ERA5 wind data described NASA's explanation of the GOFAST video as 'low-effort' and 'not rigorous.' "