The Department of Defense Launches the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office Website

[Amathia]

The All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office finally launched its new website:

https://www.aaro.mil/

I thought it might be useful to have a thread specifically dedicated to the website and the information publicly available there. They have a Powerpoint link titled "UAP Reporting Trends" I thought would be worth sharing for discussion:

 

[Ann K]

I hope they stress the importance of reporting time, place, and direction, all of them as precisely as possible, to allow comparison between the sighting and known flights or events. Otherwise their "size, altitude, and velocity" things are simply "unknown, unknown, and unknown".

 

[Cogg84]

I hope they stress the importance of reporting time, place, and direction, all of them as precisely as possible, to allow comparison between the sighting and known flights or events. Otherwise their "size, altitude, and velocity" things are simply "unknown, unknown, and unknown".

I read a news article yesterday about this. In it they said that they were only going to post or release “resolved” cases. I mean what’s the point of that? If these cases are determined to be solved why go to the trouble of making this website?

 

[Ann K]

I read a news article yesterday about this. In it they said that they were only going to post or release “resolved” cases. I mean what’s the point of that? If these cases are determined to be solved why go to the trouble of making this website?

Publicity? Aimed at the people who still call things a UFO even after they've been identified?

 

[JMartJr]

If these cases are determined to be solved why go to the trouble of making this website?

It is conceivable that they might help weed out some resolved cases from the folklore, or prevent others from being added. Whether that happens in the event we will have to wait and see.

I'd be interested to hear from the technologically gifted among us -- how does the "radio signature" of 1-3 and 8-12 GHz compare with what would be expected from conventional aircraft? How about the intermittent X-band radar radar at 8-12 Ghz?

 

[Rationalman]

I hope they stress the importance of reporting time, place, and direction, all of them as precisely as possible, to allow comparison between the sighting and known flights or events. Otherwise their "size, altitude, and velocity" things are simply "unknown, unknown, and unknown".

There were video's of resolved cases posted and they do indeed utilize known flight traffic and time for the area.

 

[Rationalman]

I read a news article yesterday about this. In it they said that they were only going to post or release “resolved” cases. I mean what’s the point of that? If these cases are determined to be solved why go to the trouble of making this website?

There are videos provided of resolved and unresolved cases on the site.

 

[Amathia]

Interesting that they list the FLIR, GIMBAL, and GOFAST videos as still unresolved.

 

[taurusclover21]

Interesting that they list the FLIR, GIMBAL, and GOFAST videos as still unresolved.

I thought the same.

 

[Angatar]

Are they resolved? For example, I can understand the GIMBAL video showing a flare, but whatever was causing that flare is still unknown, right? It doesn't seem unreasonable to call them unresolved.

 

[Mendel]

Are they resolved? For example, I can understand the GIMBAL video showing a flare, but whatever was causing that flare is still unknown, right? It doesn't seem unreasonable to call them unresolved.

It should be clear that they're not anomalous.
And resolving anomalies is AARO's job.

 

[JMartJr]

And resolving anomalies is AARO's job.

Putting the "poster children" of the UFO movement that supports the existence of your office might not be politically wise.

 

[Amathia]

Description of FLIR Video:

Forward Looking Infrared Radar - Video of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 jet crew’s encounter with an unexplained anomalous phenomena (UAP).

Content from External Source

Description of GIMBAL Video:

Video of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 jet crew’s encounter with an unexplained anomalous phenomena (UAP).

Content from External Source

Description of GOFAST Video:

Video of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 jet crew’s encounter with an unexplained anomalous phenomena (UAP).

Content from External Source

Description of Mosul Orb Video:

This clip was taken by an MQ-9 in the Middle East, and while AARO assesses the object in the clip is not exhibiting anomalous behavior, the object remains unidentified.

Content from External Source

Probably not something worth reading too much into, but at least kind of interesting that the first three videos are described as encounters "with an unexplained anomalous phenomena" whereas the Mosul Orb is described as an unidentified sphere, though not one displaying any anomalous behavior.

Do they think the other three videos do demonstrate anomalous behavior as well as some kind of unidentified object? As @Angatar mentions, they could have easily just described it as "video of an unidentified object causing a flare."

At any rate, probably a bad idea to read too deeply into the exact descriptions of each video looking for clues.

 

[Mendel]

"video of an unidentified object causing a flare."

video of glare covering a temporarily non-attributed (non-anomalous) object

 

[cptreynolds]

Forward Looking Infrared Radar - Video of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 jet crew’s encounter with an unexplained anomalous phenomena (UAP).

Content from External Source

Urgh. Couldn't they at least have used the form "phenonemon" if it's a single one (yes I know that's not the main point, but I hate it if people who are supposed to do work on which other stuff depends show a lack of attention to detail and/or lack of precision).

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

So to cover resolved vs unresolved here, I think it's important to keep in mind some other terms and processes they have.
First, you have characterizations, these preliminarily assign a possibility category based off the observables and data about the incident. These characterizations are then taken and go through an analytical process, which leads to their final categorization.
A case which has gone through the full cycle and is no longer "open", would be resolved. This would presumably also include the cases in which the analytical teams have decided the object is unidentifiable, although some of those could get put in cold storage.

 

[DavidB66]

I recall that the first report on UAP's mentioned that one UAP had been identified as a large deflating balloon. Has anyone found this description for any of the cases on the new website?

Edit: apologies, I didn't realise that at the moment the site only covers a handful of cases from 'official' UAP videos. But among these I did notice an entry for 'Western US Objects', which states (in the full version):

In a public meeting of NASA’s Independent Study Team on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) on May 31, 2023, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, director of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), shared a video depicting three unidentified objects recorded on infrared video in 2021 from a military range in the western United States. Analysis of the full motion video, combined with commercial flight data in the region, led AARO to assess that the objects were three separate commercial aircraft flying at a great distance from the infrared sensor. The radar tracks for commercial aircraft aligned with the objects, which were only seen as small dots due to their significant distance from the sensor.

Apart from noting that there appear at times to be four moving objects visible, not three, this is interesting as confirming that military infrared sensors sometimes detect aircraft flying 'at a great distance'. They seem to be moving rather fast for commercial airliners at a distance, but the video may well be speeded up (or originally filmed at a low rate of frames per second), as suggested by the speed at which the cloud forms are changing. (If the camera is moving there might also be a parallax effect, but the phrase 'recorded...from a military range' may imply that it was static on the ground.) I don't think there is enough info to estimate the actual distance of the planes, but as there is so little available footage of FLIR video of very distant objects it may still be of some use.

 

[PublicStranger]

I'd offer to redesign their website for $500. It's like travelling back in time to the 2004 tic tac incident.

 

[Mendel]

I'd offer to redesign their website for $500. It's like travelling back in time to the 2004 tic tac incident.

If it doesn't have cookies and dozens of trackers, that's a good thing.

 

[Stryer]

video of glare covering a temporarily non-attributed (non-anomalous) object

In fairness I think that they're referring to the cases, not just the video. I would like AARO to specify exactly how they arrived at the conclusion of anomalous, what data they had access to and their methodology.

 

[Stryer]

The website is pretty standard for a government website, I'd venture as far to say it's better than most. They do need a lot more information on their methods and data sources.

 

[Kyle McDonald]

One of the presentations on this new site claims that AARO is running "UAP Object Recovery" and "UAP Exploitation" programs. This presentation is listed at the bottom of the page, under "About Us" as "AARO Mission Overview". Can anyone provide more clarification on this?

"UAP Object Recovery: Leads UAP recovery planning and execution, in close collaboration with AARO S&T Group. Advises Commands on the secure and safe handling, storage, transport, and transfer of UAP Objects and Material, for AARO S&T exploitation." (Page 6)

"UAP Exploitation: Directs exploitation of recovered enigmatic technologies, leveraging cross-sector partnerships and the latest developments in theoretical and applied physics, engineering. Leads structured recording, synthesis, and sharing of signature and material analyses for data consistency across operational, analytic, and research partnerships." (Page 8)

Additionally, the sub-heading for this poster reads "multi-function operations detecting, tracking, mitigating, & recovering UAP across domains" and is also described under their "operations" section on the "Mission, Vision and Functions" (Page 4) (presumably recovery is one of their "functions" since it isn't listed under "mission" or "vision").

The document filename says "DOPSR Reviewed July 2023" and yet on July 27, Sean Kirkpatrick, director of AARO stated in response to claims by David Grusch: "AARO has yet to find any credible evidence to support the allegations of any reverse engineering program for non-human technology."

Does this just mean that AARO is responsible for recovery of technologies known to be human, but unattributed? Because that was my initial suspicion, but the very first thing this presentation says on Page 2 is "UAP ≠ unattributed balloon activity; key emphases on 'anomalous' factors", and that "anomalous" refers to "phenomena that demonstrate apparent capabilities or material that exceed known performance envelopes." (Also, I would expect a different organization to handle retrieval and exploitation of downed spy balloons.)

So is this just a matter of terms, with Kirkpatrick saying "we don't call this stuff 'non-human', we call it 'enigmatic'"?

Or is this best understood as more aspirational, and AARO is saying they would like to help orchestrate recovery and exploitation of UAP if that possibility ever arose?

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

One of the presentations on this new site claims that AARO is running "UAP Object Recovery" and "UAP Exploitation" programs. This presentation is listed at the bottom of the page, under "About Us" as "AARO Mission Overview". Can anyone provide more clarification on this?

"UAP Object Recovery: Leads UAP recovery planning and execution, in close collaboration with AARO S&T Group. Advises Commands on the secure and safe handling, storage, transport, and transfer of UAP Objects and Material, for AARO S&T exploitation." (Page 6)

"UAP Exploitation: Directs exploitation of recovered enigmatic technologies, leveraging cross-sector partnerships and the latest developments in theoretical and applied physics, engineering. Leads structured recording, synthesis, and sharing of signature and material analyses for data consistency across operational, analytic, and research partnerships." (Page 8)

Additionally, the sub-heading for this poster reads "multi-function operations detecting, tracking, mitigating, & recovering UAP across domains" and is also described under their "operations" section on the "Mission, Vision and Functions" (Page 4) (presumably recovery is one of their "functions" since it isn't listed under "mission" or "vision").

The document filename says "DOPSR Reviewed July 2023" and yet on July 27, Sean Kirkpatrick, director of AARO stated in response to claims by David Grusch: "AARO has yet to find any credible evidence to support the allegations of any reverse engineering program for non-human technology."

Does this just mean that AARO is responsible for recovery of technologies known to be human, but unattributed? Because that was my initial suspicion, but the very first thing this presentation says on Page 2 is "UAP ≠ unattributed balloon activity; key emphases on 'anomalous' factors", and that "anomalous" refers to "phenomena that demonstrate apparent capabilities or material that exceed known performance envelopes." (Also, I would expect a different organization to handle retrieval and exploitation of downed spy balloons.)

So is this just a matter of terms, with Kirkpatrick saying "we don't call this stuff 'non-human', we call it 'enigmatic'"?

Or is this best understood as more aspirational, and AARO is saying they would like to help orchestrate recovery and exploitation of UAP if that possibility ever arose?

This would be referencing legitimate efforts to recover and exploit objects which are, in reflection of the term UAP, unidentified. It's important to remember that for actual intelligence analysis here, there is a difference between characterizations and identifications. If you have a drone, but you can't tell who operated it, where it was launched from, and you can't trace back some of the technology in it, you have an unidentified object still. The analytical processes and terminology used here are not going to pair well with the public since a lot of it is entirely foregone and not thought of.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Does this just mean that AARO is responsible for recovery of technologies known to be human, but unattributed? Because that was my initial suspicion, but the very first thing this presentation says on Page 2 is "UAP ≠ unattributed balloon activity; key emphases on 'anomalous' factors", and that "anomalous" refers to "phenomena that demonstrate apparent capabilities or material that exceed known performance envelopes." (Also, I would expect a different organization to handle retrieval and exploitation of downed spy balloons.)

Perhaps relevant that all of the graphics in the document seem to show UAVs?

 

[Kyle McDonald]

This would be referencing legitimate efforts to recover and exploit objects which are, in reflection of the term UAP, unidentified. It's important to remember that for actual intelligence analysis here, there is a difference between characterizations and identifications. If you have a drone, but you can't tell who operated it, where it was launched from, and you can't trace back some of the technology in it, you have an unidentified object still. The analytical processes and terminology used here are not going to pair well with the public since a lot of it is entirely foregone and not thought of.

What I am hearing is that you believe "UAP recovery" actually refers to, for example, the US recovering crashed Chinese drones. And that when we don't know exactly where the craft took off from, or who manufactured specific chips inside, that it's fair to call it a "unidentified anomalous phenomena" and "enigmatic"—rather than "a Chinese drone", or in the worst case, "unattributed aircraft".

I agree with you that there will be a discrepancy in the terms the public and the military use to discuss unidentified craft. But I have a hard time interpreting this document the way you do.

Here are some more specific questions to help untangle this:

1. What is the meaning of "enigmatic" in this context? Is this a synonym for the term "non-human" used by Congress, or is it referring to something else? I looked for other uses of the word "enigmatic" on .mil websites and the only similar references I could find are describing astronomical observations of radio sources (1999, 2023). I'm not sure why AARO wouldn't just say "uncharacterized" or "unattributed" if that's what they mean.

2. Is AARO responsible for recovery and exploitation of all unidentified and uncharacterized craft? Is there any evidence for this? The Chinese spy balloon had the US Navy and Coast Guard tasked with hunting down the leftovers. Do we have any evidence that AARO supervised this mission?

3. Along the lines of the Chinese spy balloon: are there any other known examples of conventional crashed or downed aircraft, like drones and balloons, that have been recovered?

4. Assuming this text refers to conventional aircraft like drones and balloons—who had these responsibilities before AARO was founded in 2022, and is there an overview somewhere explaining how AARO took over their responsibilities?

5. If AARO is recovering conventional aircraft likes drones and balloons—why don't they just say that? Why do they, instead, make a big deal about how they are not simply talking about unattributed balloons, and specifically that they are interested in "capabilities or material that exceed known performance envelopes"? Is this just a lack of clarity in their mission, and they are getting the reportedly "enigmatic" and extraordinary high-performance characteristics of UAPs confused with the conventional and ordinary performance characteristics of the craft they are tasked with recovering?

6. If AARO's operations are primarily focused on unattributed craft (e.g. Chinese drones) why do they also emphasize the significance of "Reporting on UAP activity in foreign territory or operating areas", "Consequence of such moderate-to high, potentially leading to adversarial misattribution of UAP to the United States", and indicate their desire to work with "Allies and strategic competitors" linking to a news article from 1994 where Chinese scientists called for a joint UFO research program? This all seems to indicate that they aren't talking about US or foreign craft, and are open to working with allies as well as countries like China to solve something that is a broader mystery.

 

[MonkeeSage]

3. Along the lines of the Chinese spy balloon: are there any other known examples of conventional crashed or downed aircraft, like drones and balloons, that have been recovered?

We would not know about such operations without a leak such as happened with the recovery of Soviet K-129 submarine under Project Azorian.

Article:

Project Azorian (also called "Jennifer" by the press after its Top Secret Security Compartment)[1] was a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) project to recover the sunken Soviet submarine K-129 from the Pacific Ocean floor in 1974 using the purpose-built ship Hughes Glomar Explorer.[2][3] The 1968 sinking of K-129 occurred approximately 1,600 miles (2,600 km) northwest of Hawaii.[4] Project Azorian was one of the most complex, expensive, and secretive intelligence operations of the Cold War at a cost of about $800 million, or $4.7 billion today.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian

We do have a more recent example where it was a US-operated UAV recovered by another country though.

Article:

On 5 December 2011, an American Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) was captured by Iranian forces near the city of Kashmar in northeastern Iran. The Iranian government announced that the UAV was brought down by its cyberwarfare unit which commandeered the aircraft and safely landed it, after initial reports from Western news sources disputedly claimed that it had been "shot down".[1] The United States government initially denied the claims but later President Obama acknowledged that the downed aircraft was a US drone.[2][3] Iran filed a complaint to the UN over the airspace violation. Obama asked Iran to return the drone. Iran is said to have produced drones based on the captured RQ-170 including the Shahed 171 Simorgh and Shahed Saegheh.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident

These same UAV have allegedly recently flown sorties in Crimea according to leaked documents, and have been discussed in the context of recovery and exploitation by other countries.

Article:

American RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drones may have conducted at least nine sorties since September 2022 to gather intelligence on Russian forces occupying Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula and other areas in the Black Sea region, according to a leaked U.S. military document. [...]

A need for Secretary of Defense-level authorization would certainly make sense with regard to RQ-170 flights over the Black Sea given the possible risks of losing sensitive assets in the region where they might then be recovered by the Russians. Authorities in Russia have claimed to have retrieved sensitive equipment from the Reaper that came down in the region in March, though the U.S. military has repeatedly insisted that the threats to operational security from this loss are limited.

The War Zone has previously reported on risk assessment processes related to the deployment of Sentinels, specifically, based on information from declassified records obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. One of those drones was infamously already captured after coming down in Iran in 2011. Russia and China were all but certain to have been able to intimately examine the near-totally intact RQ-170.

Source: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/rq-170-sentinel-stealth-drones-may-have-flown-sorties-off-crimea

And there are some recent events with Iranian Saegheh UAVs,

Article:

On 1 October 2018, the IRGC Aerospace Force used ballistic missiles and drones, supposedly including Saegheh UAVs, to attack targets in the Abu Kamal region, in Eastern Syria.[15] Although Iran had first shown the Saegheh with four Sadid-1 missiles slung under the body, in this incident they released video they said showed a Saegheh UAV releasing a single Sadid-1 bomb from its internal bomb bays.[16]

Israel shot down a Saegheh during the February 2018 Israel–Syria incident. The Times of Israel reported that the UAV's design was largely based on the captured RQ-170; IAF Brigadier General Tomer Bar said that the drone was quite advanced and imitated western technology.[17]

In July 2022, the United States claimed that Russian officials had travelled to Iran to 'examine' drones, including several labelled on satellite images as Shahed-191. At least one of these aircraft was pictured in flight near Kashan airfield. The report stated that the aircraft appeared to be 'attack-capable'.[18]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_Saegheh

 

[Mendel]

Or is this best understood as more aspirational, and AARO is saying they would like to help orchestrate recovery and exploitation of UAP if that possibility ever arose?

Probably. It reflects the legislation that describes AARO's functions.

Article:

50 U.S. Code § 3373 - Establishment of All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office

...

(c)DutiesThe duties of the Office shall include the following:

(1) Developing procedures to synchronize and standardize the collection, reporting, and analysis of incidents

....

rapid response to, and support for, the conduct of field investigations of incidents involving unidentified anomalous phenomena.

....

(1)Designation

The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall designate one or more line organizations that will be primarily responsible for scientific, technical, and operational analysis of data gathered by field investigations conducted pursuant to subsection (d) and data from other sources, including with respect to the testing of materials, medical studies, and development of theoretical models, to better understand and explain unidentified anomalous phenomena.

....

(2) provide the foundation for potential future investments to replicate or otherwise better understand any such advanced characteristics and performance.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3373

It also establishes a "need to know" for AARO to be read in on such programs if they already exist.

Note also the the new bill provides for materials in civilian hands to be given to AARO, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-disclosure-act-of-2023-proposed-u-s-legislation.13058/ .

 

[Kyle McDonald]

These same UAV have allegedly recently flown sorties in Crimea according to leaked documents, and have been discussed in the context of recovery and exploitation by other countries.

Great historical reference points!

I have trouble imagining how or why Iran might have called the RQ-170 by any of the terms here (unidentified, anomalous, enigmatic, unattributed, uncharacterized, etc.) or why the US would have ever used these terms for the K-129. Indeed, the RQ-170 could not have been taken down by Iranian hackers unless they already knew the system intimately. And the US would not have attempted to retrieve the K-129 unless they already had a clear idea of what they expected to find (this included cryptological documents, a nuclear missile, etc). Another interesting lesson is that when a recovered craft is relatively advanced, a nation may reverse engineer and duplicate the craft (like the Shahed 171).

If we assume that AARO has already been involved in UAP recovery, but those UAP are simply unattributed drones, this all brings us to a working theory of this document:

1. AARO is responsible for detecting, tracking, and recovering unidentified anomalous phenomena "that demonstrate apparent capabilities or material that exceed known performance envelopes"... except the "detecting and tracking" include the "exceptional performance" criteria, while the "recovery" does not.
2. AARO took over this responsibility from other organizations that have handled it in the past (like the CIA for Azorian)... even though their establishment memos made no indication of this (from Hicks, from Moultrie) and the law limits their field investigations to UAP specifically.
3. AARO is only ever observing conventional craft like balloons and drones. Even though AARO reiterates its focus on the "anomalous" in opposition to the "known", and specifically rules out unattributed balloons as anomalous. Even though when they do mention drones, like in the 2022 Annual Report, they use phrases like "unidentified aerial phenomena or drones of unknown origin" to clearly distinguish UAP from drones. Even though half of their reported morphologies are "orb, round, sphere".
4. AARO or their predecessors have retrieved advanced craft from other nations that are so advanced we cannot simply call them "drones"... except we have not reverse engineered and duplicated them.

This idea that AARO is operating recovery of foreign craft that is temporarily unattributed—it's honestly a lot to keep together, and it seems to go against everything else AARO says about the UAPs they are focused on.

On the other hand, the idea that they are just trying to be prepared—

Probably. It reflects the legislation that describes AARO's functions.

I agree. Without invoking non-human technology, this is also my best guess for what is happening here: AARO does not have a mandate to recover conventional craft like drones and spy balloons. And what they are sharing in these slides is just a friendlier version of what was written in 50 U.S. Code § 3373.

The pragmatic take on this is just, well of course they should be prepared for a field investigation/recovery as the organization with the mandate to study this stuff.

The conspiracist may see this as the government slowly building out a public face for what have previously been secret programs, as a hedge against the truly unexpected.

 

[Mendel]

The conspiracist may see this as the government slowly building out a public face for what have previously been secret programs, as a hedge against the truly unexpected.

Congress established AARO to gather UAP-related information from all across the armed forces and intelligence agencies, and to report it to Congress. It's supposed to be a way to require these alleged "secret programs" to share what they have.

And Sean Kirkpatrick says there's nothing, so...

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

What I am hearing is that you believe "UAP recovery" actually refers to, for example, the US recovering crashed Chinese drones. And that when we don't know exactly where the craft took off from, or who manufactured specific chips inside, that it's fair to call it a "unidentified anomalous phenomena" and "enigmatic"—rather than "a Chinese drone", or in the worst case, "unattributed aircraft".

I agree with you that there will be a discrepancy in the terms the public and the military use to discuss unidentified craft. But I have a hard time interpreting this document the way you do.

Here are some more specific questions to help untangle this:

1. What is the meaning of "enigmatic" in this context? Is this a synonym for the term "non-human" used by Congress, or is it referring to something else? I looked for other uses of the word "enigmatic" on .mil websites and the only similar references I could find are describing astronomical observations of radio sources (1999, 2023). I'm not sure why AARO wouldn't just say "uncharacterized" or "unattributed" if that's what they mean.

2. Is AARO responsible for recovery and exploitation of all unidentified and uncharacterized craft? Is there any evidence for this? The Chinese spy balloon had the US Navy and Coast Guard tasked with hunting down the leftovers. Do we have any evidence that AARO supervised this mission?

3. Along the lines of the Chinese spy balloon: are there any other known examples of conventional crashed or downed aircraft, like drones and balloons, that have been recovered?

4. Assuming this text refers to conventional aircraft like drones and balloons—who had these responsibilities before AARO was founded in 2022, and is there an overview somewhere explaining how AARO took over their responsibilities?

5. If AARO is recovering conventional aircraft likes drones and balloons—why don't they just say that? Why do they, instead, make a big deal about how they are not simply talking about unattributed balloons, and specifically that they are interested in "capabilities or material that exceed known performance envelopes"? Is this just a lack of clarity in their mission, and they are getting the reportedly "enigmatic" and extraordinary high-performance characteristics of UAPs confused with the conventional and ordinary performance characteristics of the craft they are tasked with recovering?

6. If AARO's operations are primarily focused on unattributed craft (e.g. Chinese drones) why do they also emphasize the significance of "Reporting on UAP activity in foreign territory or operating areas", "Consequence of such moderate-to high, potentially leading to adversarial misattribution of UAP to the United States", and indicate their desire to work with "Allies and strategic competitors" linking to a news article from 1994 where Chinese scientists called for a joint UFO research program? This all seems to indicate that they aren't talking about US or foreign craft, and are open to working with allies as well as countries like China to solve something that is a broader mystery.

1. Is a question probably best answered by why every body of the government has niche functional areas chalk full of terminology no one in the public would use that way. There could be a specific reason for it but we don't know. With that said, it is very common to find fluff words or new words added in for a bunch of reasons, like if you add "New Generation" to something that already exists, you can have a field day presenting it to someone.

2. Yes but an issue here is that you're framing it from an identification of something unidentified. If it's unidentified, it's not a Chinese balloon, it's unidentified. It might be characterized as a balloon, but if it's a Chinese balloon, you have made an identification, thus, it's no longer unidentified. AARO would not be recovering or exploiting things which have already been characterized or identified, they would be recovering and exploiting things that are unidentified. There was no reason for AARO to be involved with the balloon incident, considering it had both been characterized and identified by the time of the recovery.

3. Yeah plenty, some other folks provided examples. Outright recoveries are less common, but exploitation and acquisitions absolutely are.

4. There is no singular grouping responsible for recovering, acquiring, and/or exploiting foreign adversarial technology. It would be spread across a bunch of different government functions.

5. There is nothing indicating they are going for conventional platforms like drones and balloons. I think what is happening here is the term "unidentified" here is not being taken as used by the actor using it. When I referenced the balloon example in my comment, I meant it as an example of something which *could* be "prosaic", but not enough information exist to be considered identified through the analysis process they use.

6. Because if it's, lets say an adversarial intelligence collection platform, being able to assess its activity and possible use in other locations can present you with more data that could be used to formulate countermeasures. For example, let's say its a piece of tech that follows a consistent pattern with how it moves and the locations it moves too. Knowing this entirely, without any gap, can allow you to implement countermeasures against possible collection or threats from that craft, being able to intimately time when and where it will move over whatever you're protecting.