AARO 2024 Annual Report on UAP

[Harabeck]

AARO's new report was released today. No Full Disclosure, but I thought it was quite interesting.

From the executive summary:

This report covers unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) reports from
May 1, 2023 to June 1, 2024 and all UAP reports from any previous time periods that were not
included in an earlier report. The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) received 757
UAP reports during this period; 485 of these reports featured UAP incidents that occurred during
the reporting period. The remaining 272 reports featured UAP incidents that occurred between
2021 and 2022 but were not reported to AARO until this reporting period and consequently were
not included in previous annual UAP reports.

AARO resolved 118 cases during the reporting period, all of which resolved to prosaic
objects such as various types of balloons, birds, and unmanned aerial systems (UAS). As of May
31, 2024, AARO has an additional 174 cases queued for closure, pending a final review and
Director's approval. As of the publishing date of this report, all 174 cases have been finalized as
resolved to prosaic objects including balloons, birds, UAS, satellites, and aircraft. Many other
cases remain unresolved and AARO continues collection and analysis on that body of cases. It is
important to underscore that, to date, AARO has discovered no evidence of extraterrestrial
beings, activity, or technology.

None of the reports AARO received during the reporting period indicated that observers
suffered any adverse health effects.

U.S. military aircrews provided two reports that identified flight safety concerns, and
three reports described pilots being trailed or shadowed by UAP. To date, AARO has no
indication or confirmation that these activities are attributable to foreign adversaries. AARO
continues to coordinate with the Intelligence Community (IC) to identify whether these activities
may be the result of foreign adversarial activities.

(emphasis mine)

They go on to discuss trends in reported morphologies, altitudes and geographic distribution noting that past trends are continuing.

On page 10 they have this section:

D. Notable Trends Regarding Prosaic Objects

AARO increasingly receives cases that it is able to resolve to the Starlink satellite
constellation. For example, a commercial pilot reported white flashing lights in the night sky.
The pilot did not report an altitude or speed, and no data or imagery was recorded. AARO
assessed that this sighting of flashing lights correlated with a Starlink satellite launch from Cape
Canaveral, Florida, the same evening about one hour prior to the sighting. This sighting
occurred in the known orbital path of the satellites. AARO is investigating if other unresolved
cases may be attributed to the expansion of the Starlink and other mega-constellations in low
earth orbit.

In many other cases, birds are commonly misidentified as UAP due to sensor artifacts
resulting from compression and pixilation that often renders the object as an amorphous blob or
orb. Electro-optical/infrared sensor glare can also cause distorted pixilation of the object's true
shape. Moreover, full-motion video (FMV) analysis, consistent with other confirmed examples
of birds in flight, commonly display birds as "flickering" objects. This phenomena captured by
FMV is indicative of flapping wings.

On page 14 they share a diagram of a sensor package they're hoping to start deploying, which I think is pretty cool:

 

[john.phil]

Adapted from pages 5 to 8 of the report. Most objects identified were balloons, and most reported were lights and "orbs/sphere/round":

They mentioned increased reporting of Starlink satellites, and birds among the identified cases. Interestingly, they use the term "infrared sensor glare" (page 10).

AARO increasingly receives cases that it is able to resolve to the Starlink satellite constellation. (...)

In many other cases, birds are commonly misidentified as UAP due to sensor artifacts resulting from compression and pixilation that often renders the object as an amorphous blob or orb. Electro-optical/infrared sensor glare can also cause distorted pixilation of the object's true shape. Moreover, full-motion video (FMV) analysis, consistent with other confirmed examples of birds in flight, commonly display birds as flickering" objects. This phenomena captured by FMV is indicative of flapping wings.

 

[Ann K]

@Harabeck

several sensing modalities to detect, track, characterize and
identify UAP in areas of interest.

Since sightings take place randomly in both time and place, I think the devil would be in that "areas of interest" detail.

 

[NorCal Dave]

The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) received 757
UAP reports during this period; 485 of these reports featured UAP incidents that occurred during
the reporting period.

AARO resolved 118 cases during the reporting period, all of which resolved to prosaic
objects such as various types of balloons, birds, and unmanned aerial systems (UAS). As of May
31, 2024, AARO has an additional 174 cases queued for closure, pending a final review and
Director's approval.

Assuming the 174 cases get approved as prosaic, that still leaves us with 465 Alien sightings. That's a lot of Aliens.

 

[MapperGuy]

On page 14 they share a diagram of a sensor package they're hoping to start deploying, which I think is pretty cool:

This is how you look for UFO's. Not a single camera pointed up at the sky that can't tell the difference between a moth two feet from the camera and a flying saucer the size of an aircraft carrier 100,000 feet from the camera. Multiple sensors at different locations all viewing the same chunk of the sky. Stereo. Collecting and storing data continuously to avoid gaps in collection.

Avi Loeb's Project Galileo comes close, but it puts all of it's various sensors in a tight cluster and, it seems at the moment, doesn't have multiple sites viewing the same chunk of sky. But he is on the right track.

 

[Mick West]

Avi Loeb's Project Galileo comes close, but it puts all of it's various sensors in a tight cluster and, it seems at the moment, doesn't have multiple sites viewing the same chunk of sky. But he is on the right track.

I told him years ago that triangulation was the most important thing.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Assuming the 174 cases get approved as prosaic, that still leaves us with 465 Alien sightings. That's a lot of Aliens.

I wonder how many of those remaining ones are old FAA cases they inherited and have to sift through. "Of the 757 reports 392 were from the FAA, which consisted of all of the FAA's UAP reports since 2021." (p. 5)

 

[MonkeeSage]

These are what I am actually concerned about rather than space entities.

p. 10

AARO received a total of 18 reports from the Administrator for Nuclear Security and
Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding incidents near U.S. nuclear
infrastructure, weapons, and launch sites. The Administrator for Nuclear Security and Chairman
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission categorized all of these incidents as UAS.

• Ten of the reported UAS flew over protected areas for a duration less than five minutes.
Two instances involved longer flight times of 53 minutes and 1 hour and 57 minutes
respectively. Flight duration is unknown for the remaining six cases.

• Sixteen cases involved only one UAS, while the remaining two cases each reported two
UAS involved in the event. In one instance, the UAS entered and departed the protected
area twice.

• On-site security observed UAS in at least half of the UAS cases. On August 3, 2023, the
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant security recovered a crashed UAS that was given to
Berrien County, Michigan, local law enforcement (LLE). AARO has no further
information about the crashed UAS.

• During October 10-15, 2023, USPER BWXT (formerly known as USPER Babcock and
Wilson Nuclear Energy) Fuel Cycle Facility in Lynchburg, Virginia, observed UAS
flyovers for six consecutive nights. Only one UAS system was spotted in each
occurrence, and there is no data on estimated flight duration for each occurrence.

 

[MonkeeSage]

p. 14

AARO S&T has published a number of educational reports identifying key artifacts that arise from sensors (to include parallax effect and Starlink flaring) producing performance characteristics of phenomena seeming to exceed state-of-the-art capabilities leading observers to perceive and report these sensor artifacts as anomalous phenomena.

I thought those sounded interesting. I was able to find a parallax one at https://www.aaro.mil/Resources/

https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/Information Papers/AARO_Effect_of_Forced_Perspective_and_Parallax_View_on_UAP_Observations_2024.pdf?ver=WTwJtQaCvC3BkRlBJCGLzg==

Perhaps the others were not published publicly or I just missed them on the website.

 

[Eburacum]

Electro-optical/infrared sensor glare can also cause distorted pixilation of the object's true shape.

It's true then. Infrared sensor glare does exist.

 

[Mendel]

These are what I am actually concerned about rather than space entities.

Why? Are you afraid a drone could crash into a nuclear site and cause a disaster? Or do you think drone overflights reveal more information about these stationary objects than satellites already do?

There's no evidence these overflights were nefarious.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Why? Are you afraid a drone could crash into a nuclear site and cause a disaster? Or do you think drone overflights reveal more information about these stationary objects than satellites already do?

There's no evidence these overflights were nefarious.

I just don't like people flying drones around US military assets, whether they are civilian or a foreign nation. I'm not overly concerned about it, but those are the cases I want AARO looking at and passing on intel about to Congress, rather than debunking balloons and birds are alien spaceships (though I realize they have to do both).

 

[Mendel]

I just don't like people flying drones around US military assets, whether they are civilian or a foreign nation

1. Nuclear power plants are not military assets.
2. The law doesn't like it either, but that doesn't mean the airspace violations are actual threats.

 

[Eburacum]

Some, many, or most drone reports near military or power installations are false alarms, misidentified conventional planes, kites, balloons satellites, and celestial objects. For instance the Rendlesham events, and probably Malmstrom and most of the events in Hastings' and Salas' catalog.

However, since the proliferation of cheap, sophisticated drones in the 21st century, it is likely that at least some of these sightings are caused by actual drones. In some cases these drones were sent up to look for other, probably mythical drones. Good luck trying to sort out the ones which are innocuous from the ones sent up with malicious intent, if any of that category do exist.

 

[Ann K]

I think kids (of any age) sending drones over a nuclear facility are just the high-tech version of dropping one's trash in front of a "no littering" sign, and are generally benign nuisances rather than real dangers. "You shouldn't do it" means "Let's do it" to those stuck in perennial adolescence.

 

[JMartJr]

However, since the threat from Aliens is essentially zero, the very minor threat from drones overflying places they have no business being is a more serious threat and deserves more attention. That might be a tiny bit of attention, which is greater than a teeny tiny weensy minuscule really-quite-small bit of attention...

 

[Eburacum]

Don't underestimate the serious nature of drone warfare- in a few years or decades, nearly all warfare will be drone warfare of some sort or another.

 

[FatPhil]

Don't underestimate the serious nature of drone warfare- in a few years or decades, nearly all warfare will be drone warfare of some sort or another.

However, it's the "warfare" part of that that is the dangerous thing.

 

[DavidB66]

I think kids (of any age) sending drones over a nuclear facility are just the high-tech version of dropping one's trash in front of a "no littering" sign, and are generally benign nuisances rather than real dangers. "You shouldn't do it" means "Let's do it" to those stuck in perennial adolescence.

A slightly kinder interpretation is that they are using drones to look at interesting things instead of boring things. One of the few 'UAPs' I have seen in my lifetime was around last Christmas (when people are getting drones as gifts). I was out getting some evening shopping, and it was already dark. I noticed what was fairly obviously a drone flying up a hillside near me, but it seemed to be going surprisingly high. At the top of the hill there is a TV transmitter about 600 feet tall. The drone kept going higher and higher until it seemed level with the top of the transmitter, then actually appeared to be circling the top, where all the dishes and other gubbins are located. And then - it disappeared! I don't know what happened to it. Did it crash into something? Did it get fried by radio waves from the transmitter? Did the operator just lose control? Did it go through a wormhole in space-time? Whatever the reason, I guess that the owner was excited to try it out on the most interesting object in the neighbourhood.

 

[jdog]

A slightly kinder interpretation is that they are using drones to look at interesting things instead of boring things. One of the few 'UAPs' I have seen in my lifetime was around last Christmas (when people are getting drones as gifts). I was out getting some evening shopping, and it was already dark. I noticed what was fairly obviously a drone flying up a hillside near me, but it seemed to be going surprisingly high. At the top of the hill there is a TV transmitter about 600 feet tall. The drone kept going higher and higher until it seemed level with the top of the transmitter, then actually appeared to be circling the top, where all the dishes and other gubbins are located. And then - it disappeared! I don't know what happened to it. Did it crash into something? Did it get fried by radio waves from the transmitter? Did the operator just lose control? Did it go through a wormhole in space-time? Whatever the reason, I guess that the owner was excited to try it out on the most interesting object in the neighbourhood.

Given how many years now that people have been shooting and posting video of, well, everything, including wildfires where drone-flying interferes with firefighting, I also wouldn't dismiss what people are willing to do for Internet points, like shoot and post drone video of "forbidden" sites.

Former national guardsman Jack Teixeira just got sentenced to 15 years for posting classified information to a private Discord server, apparently to impress a relatively small group of followers.

I'm just glad I'm immune to such blandishments and can only hope you upvote my modesty.

 

[FastIndy]

I just don't like people flying drones around US military assets, whether they are civilian or a foreign nation. I'm not overly concerned about it, but those are the cases I want AARO looking at and passing on intel about to Congress, rather than debunking balloons and birds are alien spaceships (though I realize they have to do both).

NRC thoughts on that topic:

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-drone-pwr-plant-security.html

The increasing availability and popularity of commercial unmanned aerial systems, or drones, have resulted in numerous reports of sightings over critical infrastructure facilities, such as nuclear power plants. While these sightings often make headlines, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission believes there are no risk-significant vulnerabilities at nuclear power plants that could be exploited by adversarial use of currently available commercial drones.
...
The technical analysis concluded that U.S. nuclear power plants do not have any risk-significant vulnerabilities that could by exploited by adversaries using commercially available drones to result in radiological sabotage, theft or diversion of special nuclear material (essentially the reactor fuel). In addition, the study concluded that any information an adversary could glean from overhead surveillance using drones is already accounted for in the NRC's design-basis threat, which assumes adversaries have insider information about the plant and its operations.

Interestingly, it may explain why the NRC dumped the UAS sightings in AARO's lap - it's possible that they don't really care that much.

 

[MonkeeSage]

1. Nuclear power plants are not military assets.
2. The law doesn't like it either, but that doesn't mean the airspace violations are actual threats.

The incidents were "near U.S. nuclear infrastructure, weapons, and launch sites." The latter two categories are what I was referring to as military assets. Also non-nuke related stuff like the Langley drones and other similar events. My concern is that in the best case they are potentially disruptive to training and a potential flight danger, or in the worst case potential intel or physical threats (even if the probability is very low for those). I want AARO focusing on those cases instead of checking FAA backlogs to figure out some pilot saw Sirius.

 

[Eburacum]

We have a thread on the Langley reports;
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/langley-afb-video-on-reddit-twitter-kite.13394/page-2

It seems likely that at least some of the reports were caused by a kite-flying enthusiast with an LED illuminated kite. It appears that this enthusiast was actually flying within restricted space, assuming he is telling the truth.

But this makes it difficult to know whether Gen. Kelly is correct when he says they saw a 20 ft long drone flying at 100mph+.

 

[flarkey]

On at least one occasion his kite broke loose and drifted to somewhere he cant go.

 

[Harabeck]

The GREMLIN sensor package mentioned in the report has been deployed to a test site already.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transc...a-roundtable-on-the-fy24-consolidated-annual/

Q: Thanks. Thank you so much for doing this. I'm Brandi Vincent with Defense Scoop. One question on the report and then a follow-up. It noted that the next step for Gremlin, the Gremlin capability, is conducting a 90-day pattern of life collection at a national security site. Where is that going to be? How did you pick that location? And what ultimately are you guys trying to accomplish with that?


DR. KOSLOSKI: So it's currently deployed. We'd rather not say exactly where it is because we want it to be an unbiased test and don't want to invite folks to come and do flyovers and test against the system. We chose that specific location because of the environment. We expect there to be a lot of variety in the types of things that we're going to see. And there had been UAP reports in that general area.


And we're trying to build a baseline. So, right now, we have this geographic bias where we are getting reports near the national security sites. But we also have a bias from pilots and other security personnel. So we want to have a better understanding of what normal looks like near those national security sites. And then eventually we'll be expanding our baseline investigations to other areas in the U.S. to look at what normal looks like away from national security sites.

(emphasis mine)

I hope we get to see data collected by it. I'd be very interested in what such a system collects as a baseline.

 

[Rum]

Should we expect publication of the AARO reports on each of the 3 incidents discussed at the hearing? If so, their UAP Case Resolution Reports page doesn't seem to have been updated to include them yet.

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

I told him years ago that triangulation was the most important thing.

IIRC, Loeb specifically said in an interview around 2022 that the plan was always to get one of these monitoring stations dialed on hardware and software, fine tuned and proofed, then fully functional, and then deploy out copies to achieve exactly this. Starting first, I believe, directly in the Harvard, Boston and Cambridge areas. They apparently have one completed and tuned unit, including code issues, and I think he stated somewhere just in the past few weeks they are already building more of the stations. Stick them all over the area at whatever is the required separation by distance between stations to make it work.

I recall seeing one write up somewhere that got into the supporting logistics too that have to be ironed out. You need rooftops with 24x7 access for involved stakeholders, guaranteed power up there, and other factors. Which means contracting and budget outlay over time for that and getting building owners to go along as well.

But they're working on academia and donation budgets, and it's converting commodity tools/appliances/photography equipment into a hybrid bespoke solution, so that is presumably why it's taken so long to get right.

 

[MonkeeSage]

where can i read about this? i thought loab had not published yet

 

[Eburacum]

I told him years ago that triangulation was the most important thing.

IIRC, Loeb specifically said in an interview around 2022 that the plan was always to get one of these monitoring stations dialed on hardware and software, fine tuned and proofed, then fully functional, and then deploy out copies to achieve exactly this.

Each individual monitoring station should also be capable of triangulation by itself; if each station has two cameras separated by a few metres, then nearby objects such as insects and birds can be identified and eliminated. This should also establish a range to relatively small UAPs, up to a few hundred metres away (depending on the separation between cameras).

If Travis Taylor (for instance) used stereoscopic cameras, then a lot of the 'orbs' he reports would probably be identifiable as birds, flies or spiders.

 

[MapperGuy]

where can i read about this? i thought loab had not published yet

Project Galileo

One of the advantages of Loeb's association with academia is that they have professionally maintained websites where press releases and publication notices are posted regularly. To keep the university administrators and donors happy and informed where their money is going.

For example there is a notice of a donation to fund another Project Galileo observatory in southwestern Pennsylvania. (April 2024)

 

[MapperGuy]

Each individual monitoring station should also be capable of triangulation by itself; if each station has two cameras separated by a few metres, then nearby objects such as insects and birds can be identified and eliminated. This should also establish a range to relatively small UAPs, up to a few hundred metres away (depending on the separation between cameras).

If Travis Taylor (for instance) used stereoscopic cameras, then a lot of the 'orbs' he reports would probably be identifiable as birds, flies or spiders.

Loeb's baseline observatory is very comprehensive, everything from cameras to radio receivers to microphones. But this drives up the cost considerably. For debunking purposes nearby duplication of some, but not all, of the various sensors would be quite valuable. Several sub-observatories, a few kilometers away, equipt only with EO and IR cameras would allow for quick identification of aircraft, balloons and birds and their flight characteristics (speed, altitude, etc).

 

[Ann K]

Loeb's baseline observatory is very comprehensive, everything from cameras to radio receivers to microphones. But this drives up the cost considerably. For debunking purposes nearby duplication of some, but not all, of the various sensors would be quite valuable. Several sub-observatories, a few kilometers away, equipt only with EO and IR cameras would allow for quick identification of aircraft, balloons and birds and their flight characteristics (speed, altitude, etc).

My guess is that setting up one or two such expensive stations would be the end of the experiment, after they've spent time identifying nothing but birds, balloons, aircraft, and the occasional bug on a lens. That's especially true if the media breathlessly report a mysterious object that turns out to be a sparrow or a party balloon.

Unfortunately it's always going to be tempting to the die-hard UFOlogists to say "We need BETTER detection methods", but the money supply is not self-renewing for a fruitless experiment.

 

[Mendel]

My guess is that setting up one or two such expensive stations would be the end of the experiment, after they've spent time identifying nothing but birds, balloons, aircraft, and the occasional bug on a lens. That's especially true if the media breathlessly report a mysterious object that turns out to be a sparrow or a party balloon.

Unfortunately it's always going to be tempting to the die-hard UFOlogists to say "We need BETTER detection methods", but the money supply is not self-renewing for a fruitless experiment.

but AARO can pivot their research into Ai battlefield monitoring systems because they're working inside the DoD

 

[JMartJr]

Unfortunately it's always going to be tempting to the die-hard UFOlogists to say "We need BETTER detection methods", but the money supply is not self-renewing for a fruitless experiment.

Add to that -- the LIZ will still exist, no matter how much money is spent on better/more sensors, so there will still be the "TFAs"* that, as far as I can tell at this point, make up something close to 100% of the non-hoax UFOs now. It is already well established that anything close enough to allow for collecting sufficient data turns out to be mundane -- is there really that much need to demonstrate this again? Especially when there will always be enough LIZ TFAs left over for the UFO Promoters to point to and say "THAT's one of the "Real UFOs, see, it can't be identified as anything so, you know, aliens."

*"Too Far Away"

 

[Eburacum]

For debunking purposes nearby duplication of some, but not all, of the various sensors would be quite valuable. Several sub-observatories, a few kilometers away, equipt only with EO and IR cameras would allow for quick identification of aircraft, balloons and birds and their flight characteristics (speed, altitude, etc).

I've always recommended stereoscopic cameras to eliminate insects, birds and bats, and dust motes. This could eliminate a lot of false data. One place this would be useful would be on the ISS; alien enthusiasts are constantly misidentifying nearby ice particles as distant spacecraft. Loeb is an alien enthusiast; he may be just as enthusiastic when it comes to misidentifying moths and thistledown.

 

[Mike F]

I am interested in learning about the AARO's interactions with witnesses. I would appreciate it if somebody in this forum could point me to any sources specifying what protections the AARO offers to witnesses. I would also be interested in looking at whatever statements AARO may have made about the number of witnesses it has interviewed. Thank you.

 

[Mendel]

I am interested in learning about the AARO's interactions with witnesses. I would appreciate it if somebody in this forum could point me to any sources specifying what protections the AARO offers to witnesses.

Please review https://www.aaro.mil/Submit-A-Report/ .
It may also be useful to contact AARO directly.

I would also be interested in looking at whatever statements AARO may have made about the number of witnesses it has interviewed. Thank you.

I would expect that you can find a number in the AARO Historical Report Vol. I, but it's obviously outdated.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aaros-historical-uap-report-volume-1.13375/

Note also page 36.

 

[Mike F]

Please review https://www.aaro.mil/Submit-A-Report/ .
It may also be useful to contact AARO directly.

I would expect that you can find a number in the AARO Historical Report Vol. I, but it's obviously outdated.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aaros-historical-uap-report-volume-1.13375/
View attachment 73468
Note also page 36.

Thank you very much

 

[FastIndy]

but AARO can pivot their research into Ai battlefield monitoring systems because they're working inside the DoD

Obviously there is always a better mousetrap, but Anduril has been selling their Lattice system to the US government for years, for that exact reason. Automated classification of objects using a grid of sensors.

https://www.anduril.com/article/anduril-launches-extended-range-sentry-tower-xrst/