Insights from the UFO Report: Potentially Intercepting and Recovering Unidentified Objects

A new unclassified report published in the United States by the highest authorities in Defense and Intelligence provides new insights into how the world's first superpower plans to manage the challenges posed by UFOs.


Published 2023-10-19 at 10:24

Reading Reading 8 min.

On October 18, the U.S. UFO military study Group, the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) released its new unclassified report. It was made under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which oversees 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, and the Department of Defense (DoD), responsible for 7 military branches and 11 command centers.

The document is 16 pages long, with 7 pages making up the actual progress report. However, this concise document reveals intriguing information about the status of military research on UFOs within the U.S. government.

As is often the case with official documents, the devil is in the details, so every attentive reader is encouraged to first read the definitions in the glossary before tackling the text itself.


Two of the most interesting elements of this report can be found among those definitions. As recently mentioned in an official document published on the AARO website:


[AARO] 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.”

This point is precisely confirmed in the report, although the question of what these 'UAP objects' actually are remains unanswered. However, the report states:

'UAP Objects and Material:

Corporeal artifacts of UAP. UAP may contain one or more UAP objects (e.g., airborne craft exhibiting apparent anomalous capabilities). UAP material are samples, in whole or in part, of UAP objects (e.g., debris).'

A triple confirmation is obtained here:

  • the physical reality of these objects
  • the definition of UAP as flying machines with abnormal capabilities
  • the existence of recoverable debris.

These debris, as indicated in AARO's missions, are then passed on for scientific study and exploitation.

It is worth noting that this specific term is not used anywhere in the unclassified report. However, this unclassified report is accompanied by a classified report, shared only with individuals accredited to view it. It is likely that this definition pertains to an element in the classified section discussing the recovery operations of such debris. 

It is probable that requests for declassification under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) have already been submitted to the U.S. government, which could provide further insight in the future.

Image by Military_Material from Pixabay


Another definition of interest concerns UFO interceptions:

'UAP Engagement: Bringing UAP under kinetic or non-kinetic fire, to deny, disrupt, or destroy the phenomenon and/or its object(s).'

This statement is reminiscent of what occurred in the North American skies in February, where objects, still unidentified today, were allegedly shot down by U.S. fighters without any debris being found.

This also marks a change in military doctrine, as the British Condign report had previously advised their aviators not to attempt UFO interceptions due to the risks it posed to their crews and allies. Here, the reference to kinetic and non-kinetic weapons is broad, with the key difference being whether there is physical damage to the target in the former and none in the latter. This means that the entire U.S. arsenal can be used to halt these objects.

Furthermore, the ability to shoot down an unidentified object in flight is itself a novelty in conflicts, where target identification is crucial to avoid accidents and select the most suitable weapon system.

U.S. Programs

An interesting element can be spotted in the opening lines of the report:

'AARO has de-conflicted these cases with potential U.S. programs and continues to work closely with its Department of Defense and Intelligence Community mission partners to identify and attribute any objects found in these cases.'

According to this statement, AARO claims to have excluded unidentified cases that could be attributed to secret American programs, observed by military personnel who mistook them for UFOs. This raises questions given that AARO doesn't have the authority to access U.S. intelligence, and that the CIA is perfectly capable of creating its own secret platforms, as evidenced by the history of the U-2 program. 

However, the report does not provide the percentage of unidentified cases. Such an absence is intriguing, even though Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the head of AARO, stated in an interview on CNN the same day that these cases accounted for 2 to 5 percent of the total. Why is this not included in the official report, especially when these figures are similar to those of the French public UFO study group, the GEIPAN?

Further into the document, we read:

'Although none of these UAP Reports have been positively attributed to foreign activities, these cases continue to be investigated.'

The document states that there is a total of 801 cases, with between 16 and 40 cases being unusual, neither secret American programs nor foreign platforms. Even after 8 months of investigation, one might wonder what these dozens of cases are.

Image by Achim Scholty from Pixabay

Defense and collaboration

More concerning for U.S. Defense is the following statement:

'The continued volume and unidentified nature of most UAP is a direct consequence of gaps in domain awareness.'

Considering the spectacular capabilities of the United States in the military, nuclear, and intelligence domains, one may wonder how there can be gaps in the U.S. surveillance system? 

Perhaps the stigma, which, according to Australian Defense scientist Harry Turner, may have been deliberately created by the CIA on the subject, has caused blind spots where witnesses remain silent and recordings are erased for fear of damaging their reputation?

Or maybe the sheer number of objects scouring the skies and triggering early warning alarm systems forced military management to increase signal filtering, even though that would partially blind U.S. defense systems?

In the following section:

  • AARO mentions ongoing collaboration with NASA but without referring to their ASRS pilot testimony collection system.
  • Claims to receive reports of FAA observations without specifying the means.
  • Mentions giving recommendations for the purchase of specific sensors to observe UAP but without providing further details.

These are all pieces of information that would have been interesting to know, especially considering that the FAA informed NASA that they have no pilot testimony collection system and that the Galileo project is in the process of installing a second UAP observatory in Colorado.

A small section regarding the relationship between AARO and other military groups is also worth noting :

'The relationship between AARO and air domain elements such as NIM MIL, the USAF, including NASIC and AFRL, and air command elements remains strong.'

A bit further:

'AARO will work with the U.S. Navy and NIM MIL to ensure timely and quality reporting.'

This strangely echoes another mention in the report, indicating that only one maritime case had been reported to AARO compared to 290 aerial cases. Could this be seen as a turn against the Navy? 

The Navy has been quite vocal about aerial encounters between its naval forces and UAP, in contrast to the Air Force's silence on the matter. This lack of enthusiasm regarding UAP reporting was noted in an incendiary press article and even in a previous official report. Similarly, the Navy has always remained silent about encounters with unidentified submerged objects.

Another major domain seemingly absent from conversation is space, not mentioned by AARO, even though sources from NORAD have acknowledged tracking targets it cannot correlate with American platforms. The Space Force itself is silent on the matter, even though it is mentioned among the groups involved in drafting the report.

Furthermore, the side-by-side mention of the USAF, NASIC, and AFRL is also noteworthy, as they are the successors to the groups that were at the forefront of UFO research at the beginning of their study nearly 70 years ago. 

One might wonder what prompted these groups to collaborate and be praised in this report.

So even though the unclassified report was only 16 pages long, there are a some surprising hints and facts, that make us wonder : what could be in the classified version?

Main picture: Image by Robert Waghorn from Pixabay

Baptiste Friscourt

Born in 1986, this certified visual arts teacher started looking for reliable information on UAP in 2017 at the request of his students. Since then, he's been covering UAP research in France for The Debrief while vulgarizing international content on a demonetized platform of his own which was named Explorer Lab. After serving as Editor-in-Chief of UAP Check News between February 2023 and January 2024, he is currently editor-in-chief of Sentinel News.