Talk:All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office

Congressional Requirement to Investigate Unreported UAP Programs & Rubio/Gillibrand Comments on “Firsthand” Whistleblowers

This addresses one of AARO's core congressionally-mandated investigative missions and quotes AARO's director, as well as key senators who established AARO. Why was it deleted, LuckyLouie?

The 2023 National Defense Authorization Act directs AARO to investigate "any [UAP-related] program or activity that was protected by restricted access that has not been explicitly and clearly reported to Congress." In a November 2024 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand asked Kosloski how AARO will gain the trust of "individuals claiming firsthand knowledge of unreported UAP programs." Kosloski responded, "We have met with several of their interlocutors and a couple of firsthand witnesses, and we are making great progress, and those firsthand witnesses that we have talked to do feel comfortable coming back to us." In a June 2023 interview, then-vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Marco Rubio stated that individuals with "very high clearances and high positions within our government" claiming "firsthand knowledge" of unreported UAP programs have spoken to the Intelligence Committee. According to Rubio, the individuals are "fearful of ever commenting because they think it's punishable by death."

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NRO Constellation (talk • contribs) May 27, 2025

Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, it's not like the internet or social media or investigative reporting where one digs through records and puts them together to prove a case they want to prove. We can only summarize what WP:RS say about a subject with WP:WEIGHT appropriate to the amount and quality of coverage it has received. Editors don't just select bits and pieces they like from WP:PRIMARY interviews and transcripts, they rely on WP:SECONDARY reliable sources to indicate if something is notable and has been discussed in a journalistic context, rather than a WP:SENSATIONAL one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Would the Harvard National Security Journal suffice as a reliable secondary source?

https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Guthrie_16_Harvard_Natl_Security_J_1.pdf NRO Constellation (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Surely we can do better than an author who sat on the board of a UAP disclosure group with some of the people the article talks about. Not very independent, is it? MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Quote-mining the Guthrie article for alarmist tidbits is not appropriate, and him not being a WP:FRIND source complicates matters even further. The secondary sources that mention his article only note that it's a recent legal research paper dealing with the UAP aspect of defense policy, nothing about aliens, anomalies, unknowable phenomenon, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

This is all quite remarkable. Is The Guardian's Science section a reliable secondary source?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/jan/14/what-happens-if-we-have-been-visited-by-aliens-lied-to-ufos-uaps-grusch-congress NRO Constellation (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably as much as any other opinion article, but context is important. It isn't clear what we would use that source for here since it has only a one-line mention of the topic of this article. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

How is an article explicitly filed under "Science" considered an "opinion" article?

A few sections are directly relevant to Congress tasking AARO to investigate unreported UAP programs and activities (2023 NDAA), e.g.,:

"It also proposed that: 'The federal government shall exercise ‘eminent domain’ over any and all recovered technologies of unknown origin and biological evidence of non-human intelligence that may be controlled by private persons or entities in the interest of the public good.'"

"In other words, the US government could commandeer any supposed artefacts held by private citizens or companies, and was then under a duty to disclose them to the public. In parallel, the act also called for the secretary of state to 'contact any foreign government that may hold material relevant to unidentified anomalous phenomena, technologies of unknown origin, or non-human intelligence and seek disclosure of such material.'"

How about Nature, which is directly relevant to AARO's mandate to investigate (see "Current AARO Investigations" section) unreported UAP programs or activities (2023 NDAA):

"Significantly, one of the most prominent politicians in the U.S., who has rarely commented on the UAP topic, presented an extensive and assertive amendment to the most recent NDAA for public consideration. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—who is the current Senate Majority Leader, has a reputation for cautious calculation, and is a close collaborator on legislation with the Biden White House—announced the “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2023” (UAP Disclosure Act of 2023, 2023). With atypical bipartisanship on this issue yet again, Senators Todd Young (R-IN), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), all of whom hold prominent committee roles regarding intelligence and armed forces, supported co-sponsor Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) (Congressional Record - Senate, 2023)."

"The proposed legislation featured more than 20 mentions each of technologies of 'unknown origin' and 'non-human intelligence,' including specific definitions for these terms.

"Schumer, noting the interest Americans hold in the topic, said that “with that curiosity comes the risk for confusion, misinformation, and mistrust especially if the government isn’t prepared to be transparent. The United States government has gathered a great deal of information about UAPs over many decades but has refused to share it with the American people. That is wrong and additionally breeds mistrust. We have also been notified by multiple credible sources that information on UAPs has also been withheld from Congress, which if true is a violation of laws….'

"Sen. Rounds agreed with these sentiments. In his remarks, he offered regrets that their amendment had been diminished, especially aspects such as the 'government-wide review board composed of expert citizens, presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed, to control the process of reviewing the records and recommending to the President what records should be released immediately or postponed, and a requirement as a transparency measure for the government to obtain any recovered UAP material or biological remains that may have been provided to private entities in the past and thereby hidden from Congress and the American people' (Schumer on UAPs, 2023; Senate Democrats, 2023). The public has still not seen whatever it is that inspires senators to say such things in prepared remarks in front of live microphones.

"Further, the NDAA included many new limitations on applications of funding in intelligence, defense, and their contractors. This included 'security' for 'Government or contractor personnel with a primary, secondary, or contingency mission of capturing, recovering, and securing unidentified anomalous phenomena craft or pieces and components of such craft,' 'analyzing such craft, or pieces or components thereof' to study materials, manufacture, origin, performance, 'managing and providing security for protecting activities and information relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena from disclosure or compromise,' 'actions relating to reverse engineering or replicating unidentified anomalous phenomena technology or performance,' and the 'development of propulsion' that is new from UAP studies (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, 2023)."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03351-4

Again, all specifically related to the "Current AARO Investigations" section of the page. NRO Constellation (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, we're definitely not going to paste in several paragraphs of quotations that don't directly mention the topic of this article. You've been having two main issues with your proposed edits - one is that your sources are often unreliable. The second is that you are trying to quote mine to build in implications that are not directly stated in the sources. This is an instance of the second problem. MrOllie (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

How about New York Magazine?

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/07/chuck-schumers-ufo-bill-is-not-messing-around-about-aliens.html

So, we have The Guardian, Nature, and New York Magazine, all of which have rich source material that is directly relevant to AARO's mission to investigate unreported UAP programs.

And if citing the Congressional Record and direct quotes from the then-vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee (and current Secretary of State) are "unreliable," then I think we've lost the plot. NRO Constellation (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to think that following WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:FRINGE is losing the plot, but Wikipedia will do so anyway. MrOllie (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, we have The Guardian, Nature, and New York Magazine, all of which have rich source material that is directly relevant to AARO's mission to investigate unreported UAP programs.

The fact that a bipartisan group of key defense- and intelligence-focused members of the U.S. Senate appears convinced that UAP information and materials have been withheld from the public - as no shortage of reliable sources demonstrate - is non-trivial and certainly deserves some mention on Wikipedia.

Is there a reason why this information would not be included in the "Current AARO Investigations" section (or in another section or, frankly, the "Unidentified flying object" page) for completeness and neutrality? NRO Constellation (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Yes, see above. I decline to repeat myself any further. MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see above. The Guardian, Nature, and New York Magazine are *secondary* sources.

Once again, the fact that a bipartisan group of key defense- and intelligence-focused members of the U.S. Senate appears convinced that UAP information and materials have been withheld from the public - as no shortage of reliable sources demonstrate - is non-trivial and certainly deserves some mention on Wikipedia.

On what basis is this information being censored? NRO Constellation (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

No one is saying The Guardian, Nature, New York Magazine, Congressional Record are unreliable. We are saying you can't stitch bits of sources together to fit a narrative you want Wikipedia to emphasize (I'm guessing something to do with unverified rumors of a secret government program). - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Nothing is being "stitched" together. The Guardian, Nature, and New York Magazine all make it quite clear that a bipartisan group of key defense- and intelligence-focused members of the U.S. Senate appears convinced that UAP information and materials have been withheld from the public.

Certainly that is notable and worthy of inclusion (neutrality, completeness, etc.). On what basis is this information being censored? NRO Constellation (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

No one is trying to censor anything here. a bipartisan group...appears convinced that UAP information and materials have been withheld from the public <--- That is already covered (albeit less sensationally than you phrase it) at 2022 United States Congress hearings on UFOs. There may have been more recent hearings but WP:NOTNEWS, note that Wikipedia generally lags behind the curve in evolving topics, preferring to wait for secondary sources to put it in encyclopedic context. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect. That 2022 hearing had nothing to do with the allegations that UAP-related information and materials have been withheld from the public.

The Senate Majority Leader and two former presidential candidates (one of which is now the Secretary of State), among other senators, would not sponsor 64 pages of legislation alleging that a secret "legacy program" has surreptitously retrieved craft of "non-human" origin and "biological evidence of non-human intelligence" on a whim.

(Note: "Non-human intelligence" is defined and mentioned two dozen times in the bipartisan Schumer-Rounds legislation which, again, is directly relevant to AARO's mission to investigate unreported UAP programs.)

Schumer: "The United States government has gathered a great deal of information about UAPs over many decades but has refused to share it with the American people. That is wrong and additionally breeds mistrust. We have also been notified by multiple credible sources that information on UAPs has also been withheld from Congress, which if true is a violation of laws..."

This is all covered in reliable secondary sources (e.g., The Guardian, Nature, New York Magazine).

See also: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf NRO Constellation (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

UAP-related information and materials have been withheld from the public OK, the article you're looking for is Disclosure movement. Bear in mind that WP:FRINGE applies there as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

This relates directly to AARO's congressionally-directed mission.

Congress established AARO, in part, to investigate allegations of unreported UAP programs. There is virtually no mention of this on the page - and zero mention of the "why" behind it. The page is incomplete and biased (neutrality) because of such omissions.

Once again, there is reliable, credible secondary sourcing (e.g., The Guardian, Nature, New York Magazine) that sheds significant light on this important element the office's investigative mandate.

Why is a core element of the office's mission not given appropriate weight and context? NRO Constellation (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Break

Is this the text you want to include? If so, the sources you cited are WP:PRIMARY and I explained why we can't cherry-pick the tidbits you like from the YouTube interview and raw transcripts of Congressional sessions. You may interpret The Guardian, Nature, New York Magazine, etc. as supporting your proposed text additions, but they don't appear to directly cite the quotations from those primary sources, and other editors on this page aren't in agreement with you either. Editorial consensus is needed here because WP:NOTEVERYTHING, i.e. just because something is verifiable it isn't automatically required to be included in an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I would be happy to adjust the proposed text, citing only those three secondary sources (i.e., The Guardian, Nature, and New York Magazine), to more accurately and completely describe AARO's congressional-directed investigative mission and provide appropriate context. NRO Constellation (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

How's this to clarify AARO's congressionally-mandated investigative mandate, as well as the "why" behind it?

In addition to analyzing UAP incidents, the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act requires AARO to investigate "any [UAP-related] program or activity that was protected by restricted access that has not been explicitly and clearly reported to Congress." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Mike Rounds have introduced legislation alleging that a government “legacy program” has retrieved “technologies of unknown origin” and “biological evidence of non-human intelligence.” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and former vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee (and current Secretary of State) Marco Rubio, who led the congressional effort to establish AARO, co-sponsored the Schumer-Rounds legislation.

References

NRO Constellation (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm a completely neutral and disinterested party when it comes to the topic of UFOs, so I have no opinion as to the larger discussion. That said, I did want to weigh-in on two of the three sources proposed.

• Per WP:UFONATION we can't use NewsNation to source any UFO or UFO-adjacent content.
• The Harvard National Security Journal is an undergraduate, student-run journal. Under WP:SCHOLARSHIP, when dealing with theses, we generally only permit PhD theses that resulted in a degree. HNSJ articles are not theses, of course, but extrapolating SCHOLARSHIP standards regarding theses (written by persons with at least a master's degree and reviewed/approved by a committee of persons with a terminal degree) we would not find HNSJ articles to be WP:RS (written by persons with less than a bachelor's degree and reviewed/approved by other persons with less than bachelor's degree).

Anyway, as a neutral and disinterested party on the topic of UFOs, that's my only comment for now. Chetsford (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comment. Would appreciate your thoughts on this proposed addition to the page, which clarifies AARO's congressionally-mandated investigative mission, as well as the "why" behind it:

In addition to analyzing UAP incidents, the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act requires AARO to investigate "any [UAP-related] program or activity that was protected by restricted access that has not been explicitly and clearly reported to Congress." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Mike Rounds have introduced legislation alleging that a government “legacy program” has retrieved “technologies of unknown origin” and “biological evidence of non-human intelligence.” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and former vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee (and current Secretary of State) Marco Rubio, who led the congressional effort to establish AARO, co-sponsored the Schumer-Rounds legislation.

References

NRO Constellation (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, this seems stilted. I did a quick spot-check of a few articles on other government agencies, all of which are much larger than AARO, which I think has like four employees (Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Chemical Safety Board, Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and can't find any other instances in which we make a point to mention sponsors of agency authorizing legislation, even though it's almost always sourceable While I'm observant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this also seems like an extremely clunky insertion and WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Also, per MOS:RELTIME we shouldn't use words like "current" or "currently". Chetsford (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Mike Rounds have introduced legislation alleging that a government “legacy program” has retrieved “technologies of unknown origin” and “biological evidence of non-human intelligence.” The legislation "alleges" this? I think that might be a rather novel interpretation. AFAIK the proposal called for transparency on all data, including possible alien stuff - IF that data exists. You made it sound like the Senators are convinced alien data exists and is being withheld (a fringe conspiracy theory in itself). Also, I believe this legislation died, so documenting this aspect of it isn't relevant to this article. Maybe the UFO conspiracy theories article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see, a much watered-down version was passed: “Under the bill that was passed, the National Archives will also gather information about "technologies of unknown origin and nonhuman intelligence,” the bill states...The executive branch has up to 25 years within a record's creation to make it public. And even then, the president can determine that any records must remain classified for national security.” Kind of a damp squib. National Archives tasked to gather information. Not required to be publicly available for 25 years. Schumer et al disappointed all of their bill didn’t get passed (BTW, comments of this kind from legislators are completely unremarkable). All in all, none of this can possibly be interpreted as "secret ET stuff exists". Most importantly, reliable sources don’t seem to be tying it to AARO, so no impact requiring WP:WEIGHT in this article. And it’s already encyclopedically covered at National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2023,National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2024#Unidentified_flying_objects_(UFOs) and National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2024#Original_proposals. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

AARO's congressionally-mandated mission is to investigate the existence of unreported UAP programs (2023 NDAA).

Schumer: "The United States government has gathered a great deal of information about UAPs over many decades but has refused to share it with the American people. That is wrong and additionally it breeds mistrust. We have also been notified by multiple credible sources that information on UAPs has also been withheld from Congress, which if true is a violation of laws requiring full notification to the legislative branch." (Also quoted in Nature and New York Magazine, both secondary sources.)

From the Schumer-Rounds legislation, co-sponsored by the senators who established AARO:

"Legacy program": All "endeavors to collect, exploit, or reverse engineer technologies of unknown origin or examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence."

Also: "The Federal Government shall exercise eminent domain over any and all recovered technologies of unknown origin and biological evidence of non-human intelligence that may be controlled by private persons or entities."

Schumer and Rounds have introduced the legislation two years in a row. The Senate approved it unanimously both times. Schumer and Rounds have vowed to pass the full legislation. (Schumer: "I want to assure the American people, Senator Rounds and I will keep working to change the status quo," and "We'll keep working to get this done.")

Again, this is all outlined in the secondary sources already cited - Nature, The Guardian, and New York Magazine (X2) - and is directly relevant to AARO's congressionally-mandated mission to investigate unreported UAP programs.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03351-4

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/jan/14/what-happens-if-we-have-been-visited-by-aliens-lied-to-ufos-uaps-grusch-congress

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/07/chuck-schumers-ufo-bill-is-not-messing-around-about-aliens.html

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-second-term-ufo.html

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/majority-leader-schumer-and-republican-senator-mike-rounds-floor-colloquy-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-provisions-in-the-ndaa-and-future-legislation-on-uaps

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf NRO Constellation (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

"Schumer and Rounds have introduced the legislation two years in a row. The Senate approved it unanimously both times." It's possible I'm missing something but I don't entirely understand this. The bill tracker doesn't show Schumer as a sponsor. It also shows that it was an amendment and the only vote was on the full NDAA -- not the standalone amendment -- which pass 87-13. [1] But maybe I'm missing something. Chetsford (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

On July 14, 2023, Schumer introduced the UAP Disclosure Act as an amendment to the 2024 NDAA. Please see press release here: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-rounds-introduce-new-legislation-to-declassify-government-records-related-to-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-and-ufos_modeled-after-jfk-assassination-records-collection-act--as-an-amendment-to-ndaa

The Senate passed the Disclosure Act unanimously: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr2670/BILLS-118hr2670eas.pdf

However, the House removed several key provisions in conference committee.

Schumer and Rounds then reintroduced the full UAP Disclosure Act, word-for-word, on July 11, 2024 (https://www.congress.gov/118/crec/2024/07/11/170/115/CREC-2024-07-11-pt1-PgS4943.pdf) but, once again, the House removed key portions in conference committee.

As noted above, Schumer and Rounds have vowed to pass the legislation.

Once again, this is directly relevant to AARO's congressionally-mandated mission to investigate the existence of unreported UAP programs.

The fact that the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate (along with several high-profile senators and the current Secretary of State) sponsored/vowed to pass legislation alleging the existence of a government "legacy program" that is in possession of "technologies of unknown origin" ("technology that lacks prosaic attribution or known means of human manufacture") and "biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence" is particularly notable and has been covered extensively in reliable secondary sources - Nature, The Guardian, and New York Magazine (x2). NRO Constellation (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

"The Senate passed the Disclosure Act unanimously: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr2670/BILLS-118hr2670eas.pdf" Your source doesn't establish that. The source is the full text of the NDAA, not the UDA amendment to it. Aside from the fact it doesn't show the vote total ("unanimously") it's also a little deceptive to say the Senate "passed" the UDA "unanimously" when that was 64 pages in a 2,330 page bill. The NDAA (of which the UDA was a small sub-section) was passed by unanimous consent which merely means that no one objected to it and is qualitatively different than saying it passed unanimously.

"On July 14, 2023, Schumer introduced the UAP Disclosure Act as an amendment to the 2024 NDAA. Please see press release here: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-rounds-introduce-new-legislation-to-declassify-government-records-related-to-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-and-ufos_modeled-after-jfk-assassination-records-collection-act--as-an-amendment-to-ndaa" This source doesn't say Schumer introduced it. It says he was "leading" it.

"Once again, this is directly relevant" Seems like excess detail. We should omit, IMO. Chetsford (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The source is the "Engrossed" NDAA, which is what the Senate passed and sent to the House.

Per Rounds, "on a bipartisan basis, [the UAP Disclosure Act] came through the Senate with flying colors." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd-vzdZ5pMg

Sen. Gillibrand, who led the congressional effort to establish AARO, sponsored this (separate) legislation, which is specific to the unreported programs that AARO is supposed to investigate (this was also passed by the Senate, see "Engrossed" bill), as part of the 2024 Intelligence Authorization Act:

"No amount authorized to be appropriated or appropriated by this act or any other act may be obligated or expended, directly or indirectly, in part or in whole, for, on, in relation to, or in support of activities involving [UAP] protected under any form of special access or restricted access limitations” that have not been “formally, officially, explicitly, and specifically described, explained, and justified” to the AARO director, and congressional leadership, including “any activities relating to the following”:

"Recruiting, employing, training, equipping, and operations of, and providing security for, government or contractor personnel with a primary, secondary, or contingency mission of capturing, recovering, and securing unidentified anomalous phenomena craft or pieces and components of such craft.

"Analyzing such craft or pieces or components thereof, including for the purpose of determining properties, material composition, method of manufacture, origin, characteristics, usage and application, performance, operational modalities, or reverse engineering of such craft or component technology.

"Managing and providing security for protecting activities and information relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena from disclosure or compromise.

"Actions relating to reverse engineering or replicating unidentified anomalous phenomena technology or performance based on analysis of materials or sensor and observational information associated with unidentified anomalous phenomena.

"The development of propulsion technology, or aerospace craft that uses propulsion technology, systems, or subsystems, that is based on or derived from or inspired by inspection, analysis, or reverse engineering of recovered unidentified anomalous phenomena craft or materials.

"Any aerospace craft that uses propulsion technology other than chemical propellants, solar power, or electric ion thrust."

See: "An amendment by Senator Gillibrand [who established AARO], and cosponsored by Senators Cornyn, Rubio, and Rounds, [all members of the Senate Intelligence Committee] to prohibit funds from being used for activities involving unidentified anomalous phenomena protected under any form of special access or restricted access limitations that have not been briefed to appropriate congressional committees, congressional leadership, and the Director of AARO."

https://www.congress.gov/118/crpt/srpt59/CRPT-118srpt59.pdf

How does the AARO WP page account for the fact that investigating unreported UAP programs is (a) a core mission of AARO and that (b) the senator (Gillibrand) who led the establishment of AARO, along with other high-profile senators (e.g., Schumer, Rubio, Rounds) believe that a secret government "legacy program" has retrieved UAP and "biological evidence of non-human intelligence"? (As noted in multiple reliable secondary sources, such as Nature, The Guardian, and New York Magazine)

This secondary source directly links the language above to AARO:

https://defensescoop.com/2023/06/27/senates-intelligence-authorization-bill-questions-reverse-engineering-of-government-recovered-uaps/ NRO Constellation (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The engrossed NDAA doesn't include any vote totals, it's legislative text. It is not, therefore, a source for the statement that the UDA (or NDAA) passed "unanimously". Your second source is a video of a NewsNation segment. Per WP:UFONATION, we don't use NewsNation when it comes to UFOs or UFO-adjacent topics. It's as if it doesn't even exist. Chetsford (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Beyond the UAP Disclosure Act (covered by multiple reputable secondary sources, as above), Sen. Gillibrand, who led the congressional effort to establish AARO, sponsored this (separate) legislation, which is specific to the unreported programs that AARO is required by law to investigate (this was also passed by the Senate, see "Engrossed" bill), as part of the 2024 Intelligence Authorization Act:

"No amount authorized to be appropriated or appropriated by this act or any other act may be obligated or expended, directly or indirectly, in part or in whole, for, on, in relation to, or in support of activities involving [UAP] protected under any form of special access or restricted access limitations” that have not been “formally, officially, explicitly, and specifically described, explained, and justified” to the AARO director, and congressional leadership, including “any activities relating to the following”:

"Recruiting, employing, training, equipping, and operations of, and providing security for, government or contractor personnel with a primary, secondary, or contingency mission of capturing, recovering, and securing unidentified anomalous phenomena craft or pieces and components of such craft.

"Analyzing such craft or pieces or components thereof, including for the purpose of determining properties, material composition, method of manufacture, origin, characteristics, usage and application, performance, operational modalities, or reverse engineering of such craft or component technology.

"Managing and providing security for protecting activities and information relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena from disclosure or compromise.

"Actions relating to reverse engineering or replicating unidentified anomalous phenomena technology or performance based on analysis of materials or sensor and observational information associated with unidentified anomalous phenomena.

"The development of propulsion technology, or aerospace craft that uses propulsion technology, systems, or subsystems, that is based on or derived from or inspired by inspection, analysis, or reverse engineering of recovered unidentified anomalous phenomena craft or materials.

"Any aerospace craft that uses propulsion technology other than chemical propellants, solar power, or electric ion thrust."

"Any person currently or formerly under contract with the Federal Government that has in their possession material or information provided by or derived from the Federal Government

relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena that formerly or currently is protected by any form of special access or restricted access shall:

"(A) not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, notify the [AARO] Director of such possession; and

"(B) not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, make available to the [AARO] Director for assessment, analysis, and inspection:

"(i) all such material and information; and

"(ii) a comprehensive list of all non-earth origin or exotic unidentified anomalous phenomena material."

See: "An amendment by Senator Gillibrand [who established AARO], and cosponsored by Senators Cornyn, Rubio, and Rounds, [all members of the Senate Intelligence Committee] to prohibit funds from being used for activities involving unidentified anomalous phenomena protected under any form of special access or restricted access limitations that have not been briefed to appropriate congressional committees, congressional leadership, and the Director of AARO."

https://www.congress.gov/118/crpt/srpt59/CRPT-118srpt59.pdf

How does the AARO WP page account for the fact that investigating unreported UAP programs is (a) a core mission of AARO and that (b) the senator (Gillibrand) who led the establishment of AARO, along with other high-profile senators (e.g., Schumer, Rubio, Rounds) believe that a secret government "legacy program" has retrieved UAP and "biological evidence of non-human intelligence"? (As noted in multiple reliable secondary sources, such as Nature, The Guardian, and New York Magazine)

This secondary source directly links the language above to AARO:

https://defensescoop.com/2023/06/27/senates-intelligence-authorization-bill-questions-reverse-engineering-of-government-recovered-uaps/ NRO Constellation (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, well, unless I'm misreading the vector of discussion, I don't think we have a consensus to include any of this. Chetsford (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Please stop copy and pasting this wall of quotes (in fact, stop copy and pasting entirely, as you've been asked before), if it didn't convince others the first time subsequent times won't do any better, and this just makes it harder for everyone to use the talk page. If you haven't read it yet, have a look at WP:BLUDGEON. This discussion style never works. MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I am reiterating key elements of the discussion that some editors, for some reason, are ignoring in their entirety.

How can a WP page on AARO be considered complete (and neutral) if it does not provide appropriate weight to one of the office's core missions?

Multiple reputable secondary sources (Nature, The Guardian, New York Magazine) have covered this. NRO Constellation (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I am reiterating that this sort of copy/paste style is considered unacceptable by the Wikipedia community. Please take local norms into account. MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

And I am asking how it can be considered acceptable to censor multiple reputable secondary sources that illustrate how key members of Congress (led by those who established AARO) believe that a government "legacy program" has retrieved UAP and "biological evidence of non-human intelligence" - and that investigating such programs is a core mission of AARO.

No good reason has been articulated to censor Nature, The Guardian, and New York Magazine on this page. NRO Constellation (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Your questions have been answered above, I decline to repeat myself any further. MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

They most certainly have not. NRO Constellation (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

That you do not like the replies you got does not mean they do not exist. MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see above. The replies dealt with trivial matters (e.g., whether or not Schumer sponsored certain legislation, which he did, and which is a matter of public record) instead of the substantive matters raised.

No one has opined on Gillibrand's legislation (please see above; Gillibrand led the effort to establish AARO), nor on the broader - and far more critical - fact that, e.g., (1) the senator who established AARO, (2) the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate (Schumer), and (3) the current Secretary of State sponsored nuanced legislation alleging the existence of a government "legacy program" that has retrieved UAP and "biological evidence of non-human intelligence."

This is documented exhaustively in reputable secondary sources yet, for some reason, is being censored by a small group of WP editors. NRO Constellation (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Well, nothing we can do about that. Seems like there's a consensus to omit. Anyway, moving on... Chetsford (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Isn't a justification required? Especially when multiple credible, secondary sources are provided? NRO Constellation (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:SATISFY. That you do not agree with the justification given doesn't mean that that doesn't exist, either. MrOllie (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Once again, there was no justification.

The objections above dealt with trivial matters (e.g., whether or not Schumer sponsored certain legislation, which he did, and which is a matter of public record) instead of the substantive matters raised.

Nor has anyone opined on Gillibrand's legislation (please see above; Gillibrand led the effort to establish AARO), nor on the broader - and far more critical - fact that, e.g., (1) the senator who established AARO, (2) the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate (Schumer), and (3) the current Secretary of State, among others, sponsored nuanced legislation alleging the existence of a government "legacy program" that has retrieved UAP and "biological evidence of non-human intelligence." AARO is explicitly tasked with investigating such a "legacy program," and its current director (Kosloski) has stated publicly that AARO has spoken to "firsthand" witnesses of unreported UAP programs.

The substantive matters raised above, again, are documented exhaustively in reputable secondary sources. Yet, for some reason, they are being censored by a small group of WP editors. Why? NRO Constellation (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Look, you've already gotten a block from the article for edit warring. People get blocks every day for bludgeoning talk pages with repetitive walls of text - something to think about before you copy and paste text again, as you have done many times on this page and just did again. MrOllie (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Intimidation, threats, and obfuscation. Anything to avoid the substantive matters raised, right?

No one has opined on Gillibrand's legislation (Gillibrand established AARO), nor on this secondary source which ties the legislation directly to AARO: https://defensescoop.com/2023/06/27/senates-intelligence-authorization-bill-questions-reverse-engineering-of-government-recovered-uaps/

Also, @LuckyLouie, AARO is not a "rather small" office. It is staffed by over four dozen individuals.

Source:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/UFOsandUAPs/24-F-0448_AARO_Cons_OUSD_I&S_ORG_Chart_Aug-24.pdf NRO Constellation (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The editors on this page have been more than patient. I've explained the numerous problems your proposed text has, chief among them pushing a POV that a vanguard of important legislators believe secret knowledge of ET exists and is being hidden. That topic is better covered in one of the articles dealing with UFO conspiracy theories and movements, not a page about a rather small administrative government office. Others have tried to reason with you as well. Pasting the same argument over and over and accusing editors on the Talk page of censorship is WP:TE and can get you sanctioned pretty quickly. Please stop. - LuckyLouie (talk)

RfC

NRO Constellation -- if you feel it's appropriate, you are welcome to open an WP:RFC, however, there are basically four editors active on this page and three of them seem intransigent about your suggested additions. Merely exhausting everyone by process of repetition is the least effective way to obtain consensus. Chetsford (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps. @LuckyLouie thinks the points raised should be filed under "UFO conspiracy theories and movements." And yet, the director of AARO - the focus of this page - has stated that "firsthand" witnesses to unreported UAP programs have spoken to his office while, at the same time, multiple reputable sources report that some of the most prominent members of the Senate believe that a secret "legacy program" has retrieved UAP and "biological evidence of non-human intelligence." It's quite remarkable that this is being suppressed in this manner. One must naturally ask why. NRO Constellation (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

"One must naturally ask why." There are numerous Reddit communities at which one can ask why. I've given you a productive avenue by which you can potentially gain consensus to make the edits you want. Engaging in speculation on the alleged censorial motivations of other editors is treading close to WP:TALKNO. Chetsford (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Once again, the threats and obfuscation emerge. Anything to avoid the substantive points raised, right? And thank you for the recommendations. NRO Constellation (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

"thank you for the recommendations" You're welcome! Chetsford (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

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: [2], [3]. [4], [5]). Chetsford (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

Marik von Rennenkampff sources

[6] 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)

"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)

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

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)

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:

• https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14821713/video-disc-shaped-ufo-military.html
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdl1nz3t3DE

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

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)

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)

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)

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

References

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)

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

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)

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)

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)