Talk:All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1: 3 months

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

GREMLIN

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to have a standalone article on GREMLIN, a paragraph or two about it here, or, nothing at all? Anyway, just throwing this out there. (See, for more: [1], [2]. [3], [4]). Chetsford (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would add a couple of lines about it at this article. The stories are several months old, give GREMLIN a cursory mention but are mostly padded out with filler about AARO and its mission (interestingly highlighting it's lack of alien findings). So WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone article at this time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Chetsford (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marik von Rennenkampff sources

[5] Given the bias of the writer of these sources, I am not confident that these sources as used represent a fair and unbiased presentation of the reactions of these interviewees and their supposed credulity towards something like the extraterrestrial UFO hypothesis. The chosen quotes to me look very much like cherrypicking by von Rennenkampff, and I see no other sources which identified these comments (taken, in my estimation, very much out-of-context) as worthy of highlighting. I excised them, but would like discussion of this here. jps (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There are unreported UFO retrieval and reverse engineering programs," he insisted." Not a WP:FRIND source apparently. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This "UFO Journalist" cannot be considered reliable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed x 3. His only significant writing seems to be in The Hill in which he's (apparently) been pitching his own op-eds. Chetsford (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked from AARO?

Leaked Military UFO Video Sparks Debate—What’s Really Flying Over Our Skies?. By Ashley Morgan. June 19, 2025. -snips- As Corbell pointed out, “You do not see plumes of heat coming off this disc-shaped object.” Typically, traditional aircraft, whether jet-powered or propeller-driven, leave behind clear heat signatures due to the use of engines. However, this UFO appears to lack any visible means of propulsion. ... . As Corbell explained, “This was captured on a thermal sensor – it should have detected heat if any traditional propulsion was present. ... Corbell and Knapp have estimated the object to be between 200 and 400 meters in diameter, though the exact size is still under debate. “There’s depth of field. There’s relative distance. ... The UAP can be seen shifting direction rapidly while weaving through clouds, a behavior that is unlike anything conventional aircraft would perform.

More info:

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Kindly stop wasting people's time with unreliable sources like 'dailygalaxy', the daily mail, and youtube. MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not forbidden as a source. Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp are well-known researchers. Whether you like them or not. Multiple sources are reporting this. Eventually, some non-verboten sources will be found by others. I can never remember the ever-changing list of forbidden sources.

Do all military UAP/UFO reports go to AARO? What other known places do military UAP/UFO reports go to?

NBC News is a reliable source on Youtube:

Disc-shaped UAP caught on camera by the military in 2020. On official NBC News Youtube channel on June 19, 2025 about the same leaked military UFO video. "Journalist and filmmaker Jeremy Corbell sits down to discuss footage he is sharing publicly of the military following a disc-shaped UAP flying somewhere above the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2020."

--Timeshifter (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NBC News is not the same as the self-published youtube junk you opened the thread with. It is, however, still an interview with an unreliable source. MrOllie (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Jeremy Corbell: Corbell co-hosts the UFO-focused "Weaponized" podcast^[1] alongside fellow UFOlogist and journalist George Knapp.^[2]

References

^ https://www.weaponizedpodcast.com/
^ Menon, Vinay (2023-05-23). "New research, and startling footage, shows why it's time for academics to let UFOs buzz the Ivory Tower". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2024-02-26.

It may not be acceptable as a secondary source on Wikipedia, but it is a primary source. And it is not junk. I think your comment saying it is junk is just a distraction from good discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew it wasn't acceptable, why did you post it here? MrOllie (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are acceptable in some cases in articles. So it is a good start in looking for secondary sources. And when a secondary source like NBC News is found that mentions the podcast, Jeremy Corbell, and George Knapp (well-known UAP/UFO researchers), then it is even more acceptable to also add the primary source to see directly what they said. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:DUE comes into play if Gadi Schwartz's vlog is the only secondary source source reporting on it. The Toronto Star article appears to be an opinion column in the entertainment section. I'd humbly suggest entertainment op-eds may not be RS for topics like aerospace engineering and plasma physics. Chetsford (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a reference from the Jeremy Corbell article about the existence of the podcast. Not about this latest leaked military UFO video. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is AARO investigating? UFOs or UAP?

We have three government sources that address that:

1. The AARO webpage itself https://www.aaro.mil/ "Our team of experts is leading the U.S. government’s efforts to address Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)"

2. Statements from NASA, e.g. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/update-nasa-shares-uap-independent-study-report-names-director/ "In response to a recommendation by an independent study team for NASA to play a more prominent role in understanding Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), the agency announced Thursday it is appointing a director of UAP research."

3. The U.S. Congress https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-government-must-be-more-transparent-about-uaps/ https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/restoring-public-trust-through-uap-transparency-and-whistleblower-protection/

Yes, these are primary sources. But the USG has indicated a clear decision: it prefers UAP to UFO, for two reasons: 1. That more accurately describes what is being investigated. 2. To avoid the stigmatization associated with the term UFO.

I respectfully suggest Wikipedia follow the government's lead on this matter, especially in an article on AARO itself. Should we not let the investigators themselves describe what they are investigating? KHarbaugh (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UFO as been the common term since 1950, most people don't know UAP. We introduce the term in the lede, but Airborne UAPs are best render as UFOs in RSes. Feoffer (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead using the term UFO is fine. The encyclopedia incorporates a world view and doesn't defer to the government of one country to define terms for universal concepts. - LuckyLouie (talk)

I should add that the article body includes numerous uses of the term UAP where content is specific to descriptions provided by the organization. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"DefenseScoop" writes

"UAP — or the modern term for UFOs"

https://defensescoop.com/2025/12/10/uap-ufo-military-intercepts-north-america-fy-2026-ndaa/

The argument for using UFO rather than UAP is getting more and more tenuous. KHarbaugh (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For DefenseScoop's December 2022 explanation of the UFO -> UAP name change, see

https://defensescoop.com/2022/12/19/pentagon-changes-uap-terminology-as-it-looks-to-investigate-unexplainable-sightings-across-all-domains/

This article also includes a brief history of the predecessors to AARO, and some information about the birth of AARO.KHarbaugh (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.weaponizedpodcast.com/

[2] Menon, Vinay (2023-05-23). "New research, and startling footage, shows why it's time for academics to let UFOs buzz the Ivory Tower". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2024-02-26.

[1]

[2]