Sean Kirkpatrick told the NASA meeting that AARO currently has about 800, and that they are getting new ones in at roughly 50-100/month. The new standardized military reporting procedures and the emphasis on fighting stigma and fear of career-damage, seems to have dramatically increased the flow of reports. I believe that these are all anomalous in Sean's minimal sense, meaning that whoever submitted them found them extraordinary and puzzling. That doesn't necessarily mean that they will remain anomalous upon inspection. My impression is that the AARO are unable to reach any conclusion about most of their reports because the quality of the data isn't what they would like. Hence all the interest at the NASA meeting in improving the quality of the data. Because AARO can't reach any conclusion on most of their cases, they can't just dismiss them as if they were convincingly debunked. But they do dismiss them in a sense, since their initial classification of their cases is sort of a triage process intended to identify a smaller set of cases that justify applying valuable investigative resources and attention. Of their cases, a small percentage (2-5%) appear to be incompatible with the likelihood of conventional explanation. That's more strongly anomalous than the minimal sense that led to cases being reported initially. (So 'anomalous' comes in degrees.) Which suggests that they are receiving, on average, 1 to 5 truly puzzling cases per month. These presumably are the real meat of the matter and are what they devote most of their attention to. I worry that excluding the classified cases will deprive NASA of access to some of the best-evidenced cases. (radar, satellites, highly trained aviators, exotic military sensors...) But NASA argues that excluding the classified cases will make it easier for them to collaborate internationally and with academia. It will also make it easier for them to be open with the worldwide public. Yes. My sense is that their residual class of more puzzling anomalies is heavily populated with the flying spheres. In my opinion, what makes a worldview open as opposed to closed is the willingness to consider, and not just ridicule and debunk, the possibility that at least some of these phenomena might be signs of something new, unexpected and interesting.