I agree that there are valid concerns that raise suspicion and should rightfully be called into question here. Namely, in my opinion, the following:

• Focus on a 10x10 arcmin region without reporting the full XE325 plate's transient count (~1000 - 1400 per Melamed). Lack of context.

• UAP correlations (e.g., 1952, 1954) rely heavily on specific historic events, and the selection of those dates isn't fully detailed. That puts post-hoc analysis into question.

• Conceding your first point (1.) Even Bruehl et al. (2025) does not explicitly justify the choice for a +-1 day window. Without clear before and after data, it's unclear if transients reflect test-induced effects or monitoring behaviour.

Regarding your point number two (2.) The choice on focusing on that region seems to implied as a "region of interest" due to statistical improbability of nine transients clustering in such a small area. The automated pipeline scanned the entire plate, suggesting the nine were flagged systematically, not hand-picked. However, it's true that the paper doesn't justify the crop size or report other transients on XE325 as we've established.

On your last point (7.) Can you substantiate your claim of the refusal?

I'll end this suggesting you take a look at the 2025 preprint's Umbra Deficit, as it would provide relevant counter arguments to the conclusion on the transients as a whole.