A new legal waiver allows current and former U.S. government personnel to disclose information related to unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) to representatives of the government’s Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE) initiative.
The waiver “establishes an authorized, legally protected disclosure mechanism for current and former personnel to provide UAP-related National Defense Information (NDI) to designated representatives of the PURSUE effort,” the U.S. Department of War announced on Monday.
The PURSUE initiative, initiated earlier this year by the Trump administration, is not a UAP investigative office like the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), but rather an effort to identify, review, declassify, and publicly release UAP-related records held by U.S. federal agencies.
According to the Department of War, the waiver supports President Donald Trump’s mandate for greater transparency surrounding UAP by creating a protected channel for military and government personnel to provide UAP-related National Defense Information (NDI) to designated PURSUE representatives. The directive applies to current and former Department of War service members, veterans, civilian employees, and contractors who currently have or previously had access to UAP-related NDI.
For covered disclosures made to designated PURSUE representatives, the waiver provides targeted relief from certain civil and administrative enforcement provisions contained in Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and Special Access Program Indoctrination Agreements (SAPIAs). The waiver applies specifically to authorized communications with PURSUE representatives.
Michael Gold, President of Civil and International Space Business Development at Redwire and a former NASA official who supported the efforts of AARO’s predecessor office, the UAP Task Force, and NASA’s UAP Independent Study Team, told The Debrief the move was “unprecedented.”
“To the best of my knowledge, this action by the Department of War is nearly, if not entirely, unprecedented,” Gold said. “I have never seen anything like this before on any topic, and it demonstrates the seriousness with which the Department of War and the Trump administration are treating UAP transparency.”
“This administration’s handling of UAP transparency has been extraordinary and should be applauded by all of those who care about the issue and good government generally,” Gold added.
Why does this matter for past whistleblowers?
The new PURSUE order comes after several UAP whistleblowershave come forward with allegations that the government possesses more information about UAP than has been publicly disclosed. Individuals who have claimed knowledge of UAP-related programs have also cited legal and professional risks as barriers to publicly discussing what they say they know. Those concerns have included potential violations of nondisclosure agreements, loss of security clearances, and administrative or legal consequences for revealing protected information.
The Department of War says the new waiver is designed to address some of those barriers. Importantly, however, the waiver does not mean that previously classified UAP information has been declassified or cleared for public release. Instead, it creates an authorized pathway for individuals with relevant information to provide it to PURSUE for review.
The Department of War says information submitted through PURSUE will undergo security review and, where appropriate, potential declassification before it can be publicly released.
“Disclosures of any kind made to PURSUE would need to be reviewed and classified information redacted before such information could be released publicly,” Gold told The Debrief. “The administration, through the National Archives and other executive branch agencies and departments, has already gone through this process to release information in the various tranches, and the same could be done for information disclosed via this waiver,” Gold said.
Gold said he was “optimistic that some very significant information could be publicly released through this process,” says Gold.
Gold also argued that members of Congress involved in UAP oversight should eventually be given access to information provided under the waiver.
“In addition to select representatives of PURSUE, I think it would be very beneficial if Members of the House UAP caucus and other select Representatives and Senators would be granted access to whatever information is provided under the waiver. For example, Representatives Burlison, Luna, Burchett, and others have been fearless champions for UAP transparency, and including them in this process would substantially bolster the credibility and efficacy of the overall effort.”
The change could provide former government personnel with an authorized route to disclose UAP-related information to PURSUE without triggering certain civil or administrative enforcement provisions that might otherwise apply under NDAs or Special Access Program agreements.
However, the waiver is specifically directed at authorized disclosures to PURSUE representatives. It does not provide blanket authorization for individuals to publicly reveal protected or classified information.
The potential implications for the commercial and private sectors also remain unclear. Gold, however, believes greater UAP transparency could have consequences for aerospace and aviation.
“UAP transparency could have tremendous beneficial impacts on the aerospace sector,” Gold said in an email to The Debrief.
“Understanding what the phenomenon is could lead to new scientific discoveries and technologies,” he said, adding that a better understanding of UAP “will benefit the safety of air traffic and space operations.”
Fundamentally, Gold says that any new information whistleblowers may now be willing to provide could also help reduce stigmas surrounding the topic that have impeded U.S. progress in the past, and which may even have aided foreign adversaries.
“By diluting the stigma surrounding UAP, it will close a loophole that I suspect is being used by adversary nations to hide advanced drone activity around critical American national security and civil infrastructure and facilities.”
Whether this new pathway produces substantive new information and opens the door for legitimate whistleblowers remains to be seen. As with previous UAP disclosure efforts, distinguishing well-supported testimony and documentation from misinformation, disinformation, or unsubstantiated claims will remain an important part of that process.
If the waiver results in significant new information reaching the public, it will depend on what is submitted to PURSUE, how that information is evaluated, and what can ultimately be cleared for public release following the security review process.
Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.
An analysis of dozens of strange objects captured in official U.S. government videos has revealed new insights—and challenges—involving the study ofunidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP).
The researchers, both of whom serve on the UAP Science Advisory Council to the U.S. government, say their study highlights significant limitations on analysis of the purported UAP videos due to missing or redacted sensor data, which prevents civilian researchers from having enough of the tools necessary to determine whether seemingly fast-moving objects in the videos actually display anomalous velocities.
In an email to The Debrief, Haqq-Misra explained that while the new study is among the first to explore the limitations on what can be discerned about these objects based on analysis of the current batch of PURSUE releases, the underlying problem is not a new one for researchers tackling the UAP problem.
“I think our conclusion will come as no surprise to people in the aviation, aerospace, and intelligence communities who have already been closely following UAP disclosure,” Haqq-Misra told The Debrief, though expressing that the conclusions he and Kopparapu present “may not be fully appreciated in the broader public discussion.”
“I get lots of questions from friends, family, and other scientists about my opinion of the government ‘UAP disclosure’ data,” Haqq-Misra said. “A lot of people haven’t even looked at the data and may assume that there is more available than we really are getting.”
In terms of what data has been made available to the public since May, Haqq-Misra says the limitations are obvious.
“Most of the useful quantities are redacted,” he said. “It is also not immediately obvious that what appears to be a fast-moving object in an infrared sensor video might be a mundane object (like a bird) much closer to the camera.”
Analyzing the DOW’s ‘PURSUE’ UAP Videos
The videos Haqq-Misra and Kopparapu analyzed, all of which are currently available at the U.S. Department of War website, were acquired by targeting pods and other turret-mounted camera systems aboard military aircraft or similar government platforms. The collection includes infrared and electro-optical imagery, much of it showing unidentified objects either crossing the camera’s field of view or being actively tracked by the sensor.
Haqq-Misra and Kopparapu reviewed all 112 videos to determine what kinematic information could be extracted from them. At its simplest, analysts can measure how quickly an object moves across a video in pixels per frame. However, the problem arises when it comes to converting that apparent motion into an actual velocity—a process that requires several additional pieces of information.
In an email to The Debrief, Kopparapu, who expressed that his views are based on his own independent analysis and do not reflect those of NASA, said there was one primary form of data that, if it were to accompany future video releases, could make them far more useful to scientists working to understand the performance characteristics of the objects they convey.
“Based on our preliminary mathematical analysis, perhaps the single most important missing quantity is the range; the distance between the object and the observing platform, ideally measured over time,” Kopparapu told The Debrief. “Without range, something moving rapidly across the image could be a small nearby object moving relatively slowly or a much larger, distant object moving extremely fast.”
Additional information Kopparapu says would be very useful would include details about the camera’s field of view, as well as “the motion of the observing platform and viewing geometry.”
In their recent paper, Kopparapu and Haqq-Misra detail the specific measurements that would be required to determine an object’s velocity. However, Kopparapu expressed to The Debrief that “Some apparent anomalies could even arise from sensor or imaging effects,” adding that without the additional data outlined above, “there is simply not much more that can be concluded scientifically.”
Haqq-Misra told The Debrief that one of the goals of the UAP Science Advisory Council is to make recommendations about what kinds of data future PURSUE releases might be able to include that would enable independent scientists to conduct more accurate and meaningful kinematic analyses.
“We are hopeful that our recommendations based on analyses of sensor videos like these will lead to additional release of data that may even help us resolve some cases,” Haqq-Misra told The Debrief, echoing Kopparapu’s sentiments about the importance of having access to information about the object’s range from the camera system at the time the video was captured.
“Knowing the distance from the camera to the object is essential,” Haqq-Misra said. “This information might be under the redacted black boxes of some of the videos, so unredacted videos would be best.”
UAP Transparency vs National Security
The question of whether information currently redacted from government UAP videos can be safely released to scientists without compromising U.S. national security—as well as how much of that data should be released—remains a sticking point between Pentagon officials and the broader scientific community.
For researchers like Haqq-Misra, one solution might involve having some form of verifiable U.S. government record that certifies certain portions of the redacted information, without necessarily conveying that in the videos themselves in ways that could compromise sensitive information about the systems used to obtain the footage.
“Even just telling us the distance on an official government document would help!” Haqq-Misra told The Debrief.
“The flight trajectory of the aircraft with the observing camera is another important piece of data,” Haqq-Misra added. “In some cases, this data may simply be lost, but if flight logs exist for any of these cases, that would also help.
Although Haqq-Misra adds that technical information about the specific cameras used to capture a given video would “make the data even more useful,” the U.S. Department of War regulates much of this technical data under strict security classification, export control, and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) policies. Such restrictions are imposed to protect critical capabilities like sensor resolution, focal lengths, tracking algorithms, and other capabilities or technical properties that might potentially be exploited by foreign adversaries if they were revealed publicly.
While U.S. military concerns over the release of such information is often warranted, without access to it, the nature of how some military systems operate can make it difficult—if not impossible—to make meaningful determinations about the objects detected.
One example includes objects that are being actively tracked while they are filmed. By its design, a targeting system can move its camera to keep an object near the center of the frame, making the subject’s apparent movement approach zero, even if it is traveling rapidly through the environment. The resulting imagery can create the illusion of a stationary object and becomes unhelpful without access to additional information about the object’s movement.
GOFAST: A Case Study in Transparency?
Another example where the appearance of an object’s movement on video can differ significantly from its actual speed appears in the well-known Navy “GOFAST” video. Haqq-Misra and Kopparapu note that this footage was once widely interpreted as evidence of an object moving at extraordinary speed near the ocean surface. However, subsequent analysis using available telemetry showed that much of its apparent motion resulted from parallax generated by the observing aircraft, with its calculated motion ultimately being consistent with wind-borne drift—in other words, the object was most likely a balloon.
The important difference between the GOFAST video and those included in recent PURSUE releases, the researchers note, comes down to the amount of additional information that was available.
“In the GOFAST case, sufficient information was available to constrain the object’s motion relative to the observer and assess it in relation to reported wind conditions,” Haqq-Misra and Kopparapu write in their recent study. Notably, following its initial unauthorized release in 2017 along with two other historical U.S. Navy videos of alleged UAP, the Pentagon eventually determined that GOFAST did not reveal any sensitive information that compromised U.S. national security.
“After a thorough review, the department has determined that the authorized release of these unclassified videos does not reveal any sensitive capabilities or systems, and does not impinge on any subsequent investigations of military air space incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena,” an April 2020 Pentagon statement read. Seemingly, this case would appear to demonstrate that in at least some cases, enough additional information could remain unredacted in future UAP video releases to allow similar technical determinations to be made.
DOW-UAP-PR113: Anomalous Appearance, but Limited Information
Another example Kopparapu and Haqq-Misra look at in their paper involves a video in the recent PURSUE releases designated DOW-UAP-PR113, which features an infrared video reportedly recorded over the western United States in 1996.
The footage depicts what appears to be a compact dark object (or possibly two moving in very close proximity) rapidly crossing the camera’s field of view. Based on Kopparapu and Haqq-Misra’s measurements, the object travels approximately 142 pixels per frame, equivalent to roughly 2.2 frame widths per second, and remains directly visible for only about one-tenth of a second.
Still frame from the PURSUE “DOW-UAP-PR113” video, featuring an enlarged view of the camera field where the UAP appears, as conveyed in the original footage (Image Credit: U.S. Department of War)
One thing that makes the video unique among the PURSUE releases is the presence of markings in the imagery, which the researchers say allows them at least a limited ability to reconstruct an approximate angular scale and horizontal field of view. However, like in other cases, too little information is present to be able to make a complete determination about the object’s motion and capabilities.
For Kopparapu, circumstances like these demonstrate why he advises against drawing conclusions based on what can often appear to be remarkable speed or other capabilities in the PURSUE videos, yet without ruling them out necessarily as being mundane.
“With such limited data, I would urge people to avoid both extraordinary conclusions and outright dismissal,” Kopparapu told The Debrief. “Something can look extremely anomalous when we are seeing only a small part of the information needed to understand it.”
What the PURSUE Videos Can—and Cannot—Tell Scientists
Fundamentally, Haqq-Misra and Kopparapu believe that the videos currently made available under the PURSUE initiative cannot demonstrate—nor can they necessarily be used to exclude—the presence of anomalous kinematics displayed by the alleged UAP they contain.
This issue extends beyond just the PURSUE releases, however, since similar limitations can arise even with imagery captured by conventional cameras, whose technical capabilities are easily discernible. For instance, a single camera primarily measures angles, meaning some aspects of an object’s three-dimensional motion simply cannot be reconstructed based on that imagery alone.
To overcome such problems, Haqq-Misra and Kopparapu point to the use of multi-sensor approaches by independent research efforts.
In terms of what kinds of scientific observations might constitute a “genuine” UAP in future detections, Haqq-Misra says he and his colleagues with the UAP Science Advisory Council are already providing recommendations for the kinds of sensor platforms that could be leveraged to capture better UAP imagery and other data in the future.
“We have already provided recommendations for sensors that could be deployed to collect better quality data for understanding these objects,” Haqq-Misra told The Debrief. “An ideal observatory would be a multi-modal and multi-site observatory, leveraging video observations from infrared to visible and including other modalities such as radio, radar, and audio data collection.”
“The Galileo Project at Harvard is an example of a privately funded effort following this experimental design,” he adds.
Overall, the researchers say that while based on their analysis “the PURSUE sensor videos in their present form cannot fully resolve unidentified cases or conclusively indicate anomalous velocities,” the new research presents a meaningful early step toward identifying future strategies that may help researchers obtain better, more useful data.
“Reality takes time,” Kopparapu told The Debrief, “but fallacy does not.”
“Careful scientific investigation, accompanied by access to the underlying data, is the only reliable way to make progress on these cases,” he adds.
Micah Hanks is the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder of The Debrief. A longtime reporter on science, defense, and technology with a focus on space and astronomy, he can be reached atmicah@thedebrief.org. Follow him on X @MicahHanks, and at micahhanks.com.
The United States Department of War (DOW) released its latest collection of imagery and other materials related to unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) on Friday.
The fourth official release under what the DOW has dubbed the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE), the latest tranche of files includes several new previously unseen U.S. military videos depicting unidentified aerial objects acquired by the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).
“Today, the Department of War is publishing the fourth release of declassified and historical Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) files as part of the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE),” said Assistant to the Secretary of War for Public Affairs and Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell in a statement.
“The collection continues to be housed on WAR.GOV/UFO, and the Department will release additional files on a rolling basis,” Parnell said.
As with previous releases, the new videos leave much to the imagination; in most cases, they show small blurry objects captured with multi-sensor electro-optical targeting capabilities from fighter aircraft or UAVs, and in some cases, imaging systems on board civilian aircraft. In addition to the new imagery, several historical documents from as early as the 1940s were included with the release, the majority of which were previously made available in past releases by various U.S. government agencies.
Here is a look at a few key takeaways from the latest batch in the Pentagon’s ongoing release of UAP-related materials.
A Deeper Look at the Latest PURSUE UAP File Release
One series of historical NASA images included with the new PURSUE release originates from the 1996 STS-80 mission. The entry on the DOW’s site, “NASA-UAP-D030, STS-80 Unidentified Object Image 1, 1996,” features photographs obtained by astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia at the time, which convey a small triangular or cone-shaped object.
“During STS-80, between November 19 and December 7, 1996, astronauts aboard Space Shuttle Columbia captured a series of three images of an unidentified object in low-Earth orbit. In the first photograph, the object is visible near the center of the frame, to the right of the limb of the Earth,” a caption accompanying one of the images states at the DOW website.
It is unclear what the object in the photograph may be, although it is worth noting that several observations of allegedly unusual phenomena occurred during STS-80, which included the imagery captured of grainy luminous shapes from the spacecraft’s backward-facing cameras. The most common interpretation of these objects is that they were ice particles outgassed from the spacecraft, whose highly reflective surfaces could produce the optical effects captured from the space shuttle’s cameras, especially in such low-light conditions.
DOW-UAP-PR030, Unresolved UAP Report, Middle East, 2023: In this video, “Two areas of contrast transit the sensor field-of-view. The first enters the field-of-view from the bottom right and exits from the top edge of the frame. The second, relatively smaller area of contrast enters from the top and exits the bottom of the frame.”
The unusual shape of the object first seen entering the frame from the bottom of the screen could potentially be the result of a sensor artifact, similar to past videos released by the DOW, where the starlike appearance of refraction spikes emanating from an object (as also seen in this example from the most recent release) had been misinterpreted by some as being the literal shape of the alleged UAP.
DOW-UAP-PR108, Unresolved UAP Report, Western United States, 2020: This footage, reportedly collected over the Western United States in 2020, is notable (if for no other reason) due to its similarity to the famous “Tic Tac” imagery from 2004, captured by F/A-18 pilot Chad Underwood off the Baja California coast. Apart from that superficial similarity in appearance, the footage—like others from recent PURSUE releases—provides little additional context, and it is unclear what the object (seen below) may be.
Still frame from the DOW’s “DOW-UAP-PR108, Unresolved UAP Report, Western United States, 2020” video, included in the most recent PURSUE release number four (Image Credit: DOW).
Several other examples of imagery included with the fourth PURSUE release depict objects apparently engaging in flight at high speeds, such as an object appearing in “DOW-UAP-PR112, Unresolved UAP Report, Eastern United States, 2019” where the observer reportedly described the object in question as exhibiting “flight characteristics unlike anything [the observer] had seen in 28 years for the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy.”
Other objects appearing in videos included with the newest release, such as the UAP in “DOW-UAP-PR116, Unresolved UAP Report, Atlantic Ocean, 2020,” include descriptions from the observer that note an object with a “darker, maroonish color, approximately 12-15 feet in height” that was “travel[ing] with the wind,” did not “maneuver or change direction,” and appearing similar to a “large, somewhat deformed balloon.”
Still frame from video of an object included with the latest PURSUE 04 release, which appears most consistent with a balloon or cluster of similar inflatable objects (Image Credit: DOW).
We would have to agree with the witnesses’ assessment in the case: the flight dynamics of the object in the accompanying video (seen above) are indeed very consistent with an inflatable object, albeit possessing an odd shape (it is also possible this object may be a cluster of smaller balloons). The same can be said of other examples in the new releases, where, in some instances, dangling payloads beneath what are obviously balloons are clearly discernible in the purported “UAP” videos.
Clarity Remains Elusive, but More Releases to Follow
To date, none of the videos or other documentation made available at the DOW website as part of its PURSUE releases provides clear examples of any objects attributable to unknown aircraft, or objects exhibiting unusual or advanced technologies.
In his statement on Friday, Parnell said the DOW and its agency partners “are actively working on the next release of UAP files,” which can be expected to appear on the DOW website in the coming weeks. In the meantime, all of the existing four releases of UAP imagery and documentation can be found on the DOW’s PURSUE page.
Micah Hanks is the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder of The Debrief. A longtime reporter on science, defense, and technology with a focus on space and astronomy, he can be reached atmicah@thedebrief.org. Follow him on X @MicahHanks, and at micahhanks.com.
A disc-like object observed producing “beams” while it hovered above an airport in Zimbabwe in 2008, an object resembling a flying “potato” over the Cheyenne Mountains in 2022, and alleged “orbs” observed by U.S. personnel are all among the sightings included in the Pentagon’s latest release of files related to UAP encounters.
“As the unprecedented levels of interest in both this topic and the Trump administration’s historic transparency effort continue, WAR.GOV/UFO has received over 1.7 billion hits worldwide since the site’s launch on May 8, 2026,” read a statement provided by Assistant to the Secretary of War for Public Affairs and Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell that accompanied Friday’s release.
“The Department of War and our agency partners are actively working on the next release of UAP files,” Parnell added.
However, as more videos and documents continue to surface, a fundamental question arises: what, if anything, do they reveal about UAP, and how the United States intelligence community collects and processes information about these objects, whatever their origins may be?
What the Latest PURSUE Release Reveals
Within the latest batch of files from what the Pentagon characterizes as the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE), a previously unreleased file from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) describes an unusual observation of an object that reportedly hovered above the Harare International Airport in Zimbabwe in 2008.
“Individuals debated if the sighting was an advanced reconnaissance device of a foreign government or of extraterrestrial origins,” a short description provided with the document states. Although no video or other supplemental data is provided, the written account that the document contains, which features partial redactions, states that observers described a “disc-like” object possessing a hollow center and “a series of rotating lights on the underside of the airframe.” As the lighting shifted colors, the object reportedly ascended quickly and was soon out of sight.
“Regardless of the origins,” the document states, the incident reportedly “resulted in the decision to place the Zimbabwe [redacted] on high alert.”
Another series of documents describes an observation of an object shaped like a “potato” that was seen near Colorado Springs in 2024.
Witnesses at the time described seeing “distinct edges” on the object, which “appeared to look painted in a creamy/whitish opalescent color.”
A digital rendering of an unresolved UAP Report from Colorado Springs in 2022 (Image Credit: U.S. Department of War).
“It was somewhat translucent with a slight shimmer,” the report states. “The object was made up of what can best be described as articulating fish scales or panels that were non-symmetrical, non-overlapping, and irregular shaped. The object itself was perfectly still but each panel on the object shifted in slow waves starting at different points of origin but at the same time.”
According to an assessment of the sighting by the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, which currently leads the Pentagon’s investigations into UAP, “Analysis possibly indicates that the positioning on the sun in relation to Cheyenne Mountain would allow for backscattering of sunlight reflecting off snow-covered ground.”
“This reflection could illuminate low-level clouds in the vicinity,” according to the assessment, which was produced by one of AARO’s intelligence community (IC) partners, adding that such conditions “might account for the visibility of the object followed by its sudden disappearance.”
The report concedes that the analyst had “low confidence in this assessment” based on limited information made available about witnesses at the time, such as their individual field of view, as well as the level of cloud cover over the area at the time.
Another pair of documents describes what sounds like a very intriguing observation of an “intense bright light” seen hovering below the tree line near the observer’s backyard. Emerging from their vehicle, the witness observed a “strange light” that they estimated to be approximately one meter in diameter. The object was described as a “brilliant and beautiful” reddish color the observer had never seen before, adding that “inside the red sphere, at the center, there appeared to be what [redacted] described as a ‘white plasma sun’ about the size of a basketball.”
In this instance, the written accounts were not alone: a supplemental video indeed shows a pair of objects matching the description provided, which look suspiciously like candle balloons, also known as “sky lanterns,” drifting along with the breeze. Additionally, the footage bears a resemblance to a video released by an aviation safety advocacy group last year (and in fact, it may be the same video), which was also quickly assessed to have been sky lanterns, rather than anomalous UAP “orbs.”
In short, the latest Pentagon releases—as with most other recent releases of government data related to UAP—feature some interesting stories, though the majority of the “new” data remains underwhelming, at least at first glance.
Hopeful—but Skeptical—Ufologists
In a posting on his X account, prominent skeptic Mick West noted that in advance of the Pentagon’s second PURSUE release, “ufologists (myself included) were hopeful we’d get some amazing evidence.”
“All 46 videos have been released,” West wrote. “None of them are amazing. Maybe it’s time to consider that this might be the best they have.”
Whether or not the videos we’ve now seen are indeed among the best examples of UAP in the Pentagon’s holdings, West isn’t wrong to point out the obvious: the current examples the Pentagon has provided fail to establish that there is anything truly extraordinary about the objects these videos convey.
West places himself in the commendable position of being among the hopeful “ufologists” that he says are eager to see better data on these phenomena. I can affirm that this author is among those ranks as well, having followed the subject for decades; beyond that, and reporting on the subject for The Debrief, I have also managed an independent UAP sightings reporting website for the last two years, as a self-funded citizen science effort to collect data on possible UAP observations and make it freely available to the public. Unlike a few similar sites and apps that crowd-source data on possible UAP sightings, I also work to assess the data and resolve cases whenever enough information has been provided to make that feasible.
Like West would probably also tell you, I can confirm that the majority of UAP sightings have prosaic explanations, which can often be determined using resources that include weather data, aviation tracking sites, astronomical software, rocket launch data, and other online resources that are generally free to the public. After attempting to resolve UAP sighting reports, there is, however, a residuum of unresolved cases that remain intriguing.
Assessing UAP videos in this way, in order to determine whether they document real anomalous phenomena or simply misidentifications of known objects, often carries a very negative stigma, partially because it has an equally negative term attached to it: “debunking.” The negative association here is unfortunate, since the careful study and interpretation of purported UAP imagery and, when warranted by evidence, its classification as either misidentified known phenomena or genuine unresolved cases, is one of the most beneficial ways we can work toward advancing our understanding of the UAP issue.
Equally unfortunate is the fact that, all too often, what we get instead when it comes to UAP releases is just the opposite: imagery and other data (sometimes including official U.S. government materials released through unauthorized channels) that have undergone virtually no assessment, and which feature scant accompanying details required to help contextualize the sightings.
What we are left with are usually blurry videos and images of objects that end up seeing wide circulation, often with the help of the most ardent promoters of UAP (many of whom also happen to be equally skilled at self-promotion). Beyond making a poor case for the legitimate study of UAP, such instances invite criticism—although not so much from the hopeful, skeptically-minded “ufologists” genuinely interested in viewing quality UAP data. Rather, the most frequent attacks originate from ideological, self-branded “skeptics” whose real focus appears to be aimed at superficially undermining the topic and its proponents using rhetoric heavily dipped in ad hominem, all as a means of driving engagement through their social media accounts.
Who can really blame them? Such high-traffic social media engagement can reportedly be quite profitable these days, and let’s face it: few among the most active voices in the online UAP fracas these days appear to be above engaging in a bit of good old-fashioned grifting—including the ones who often complain the loudest when they see others doing it.
Fundamentally, though, none of this helps to advance our knowledge about UAP. Answers to questions about what these objects are, as well as what they aren’t, and whether any good evidence exists for truly “anomalous” behaviors often associated with these objects by those who witness them, remain void from such contentious prattling—just as it apparently remains absent from the vast majority of the new records released by the Pentagon.
However, that isn’t to say there aren’t at least a few intriguing data points that have emerged from the recent releases.
An Intriguing UAP Case from the Second PURSUE Release
In the second batch of videos released by the Department of War, one potentially intriguing example of an unidentified flying object seems to have gone mostly overlooked.
The case involves imagery from the holdings of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office that was originally captured on April 12, 2021. Labeled “Spherical UAP [CALLSIGN] 2021/04/12 vid 0,” the footage, according to details provided at the time of its release, “is likely derived from a full-motion video camera and an infrared sensor aboard a U.S. military platform operating within the United States Central Command area of responsibility in 2021. A user uploaded this video to a classified network in June 2024.”
According to a short description provided by the Department of War, “An area of contrast enters the sensor field-of-view from the upper right corner of the frame, exiting in the bottom right corner of the screen. The sensor pans to track the area of contrast, centering it within the sensor field-of-view.”
“The sensor changes modes as the area of contrast becomes indistinct against the background,” the summary concludes.
However, viewing the footage reveals something slightly more intriguing than this description alone conveys. The footage appears to show a small, light-colored object moving above a rugged desert terrain, presumably somewhere in the Middle East. As the object is being filmed using the electro-optical system on board a United States military drone, at one point, the object can be seen as it begins to descend in altitude, an elevation change made apparent by the shadow the object casts against the terrain below it (as can be seen in the still frame from the footage featured below). At this point, the object engages in a sudden change in direction and appears to enter a shadowed area of the landscape, at which time its brightness (seemingly due to reflectivity of its surface) is significantly diminished by the surrounding shadow, and the object becomes indiscernible.
Screen capture from the Pentagon UAP video titled DOW-UAP-PR061, “Spherical UAP [CALLSIGN] 2021/04/12 vid 0”, where the object’s shadow can be discerned against the nearby landscape (to the left of the small white object, seen just above and to the right of the center of the frame (Image Credit: U.S. Department of War).
The most intriguing aspect of this behavior is the object’s apparent movement into what we might interpret as a position of concealment. In doing so, the object not only appears to “hide,” but it also demonstrates an obvious change in direction that is suggestive of controlled motion. This is significant for a few reasons: one is that in many purported UAP videos, a phenomenon known as the parallax effect can (and often does) lead to an optical illusion where a slow-moving or even stationary object can have the appearance of moving. This illusion is caused by differences in relative speed between objects closer to the camera and those further distant, causing any closer objects to appear to be moving faster than those in the background (a good explainer on parallax effect and its relationship to UAP sightings can be read here, made available at the website of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office).
In the case of the “Spherical UAP” featured in the video from the second PURSUE release, perhaps some degree of motion parallax cannot be ruled out. However, the object’s descent just before changing direction and entering the rugged portion of terrain cast in shadow appears to clearly demonstrate in this case that the object is engaged in movement, which equally appears to convey intelligent control. Finally, an interpretation that the object may be taking a position of concealment, if correct, may indicate that the object and/or its operators had been aware that it was being observed.
Does anything conveyed in this video offer proof of extraterrestrial technology? Absolutely not. Are there any obvious signs of extraordinary capabilities being demonstrated by this object? No, there aren’t. What this video does demonstrate, however, is footage of an object that appears to be engaged in behaviors that clearly show movement beyond the capabilities of most simple balloons, and one that may fit the general description of objects the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office has characterized as its general “target” description for UAP it investigates (more on that in a moment).
In the case of the DOW-UAP-PR061, “Spherical UAP [CALLSIGN] 2021/04/12 vid 0” footage, the object not only demonstrates changes in its direction of motion, but also appears to conceal itself. Obviously, a better interpretation than “balloon” in this instance might be some kind of unmanned aerial system, although what limited information the footage conveys is simply too indistinct to be able to tell. Altogether, it simply remains “unidentified” in the purest sense: some kind of object engaging in what appears to be controlled flight, while not exhibiting any otherwise extraordinary capabilities.
However, all of this raises another important question about UAP reports: why do we always have to assume that an object must display “otherworldly” or otherwise extraordinary capabilities for it to qualify as a “genuine” UAP?
The Problem of Conditioning
Another intriguing phenomenon related to the recent release of UAP information by the Pentagon involves the similarity in responses to these releases from both UAP advocates and UAP skeptics.
Some proponents of genuine anomalous UAP have expressed frustration over the Department of War’s release of several dozens of videos, all of which fail to reveal any “classic” UFO shapes like flying saucers or giant black triangles, nor any confirmation of extraterrestrial technologies detailed in the troves of formerly classified documents included with the releases.
Meanwhile, skeptics essentially argue the same thing: so far, these videos show nothing particularly remarkable, and clearly fail to prove that extraterrestrials have visited Earth.
In short, the fundamental premise of most “believers” and “skeptics” appears to be the same: “UAPs either must represent evidence of extraterrestrials, or else they are unimportant.”
This premise fails to acknowledge several important issues, such as 1) that many ideas about how UAP are supposed to look and behave are based on presumptions about how we expect any technologies produced by extraterrestrials advanced enough to traverse interstellar distances would appear to us, 2) that UAP could still represent a genuine mystery, even if they aren’t evidence of extraterrestrial technologies, and 3) that even if most UAP turned out to be technologies of earthly origin, they could still represent a security concern, and hence warrant U.S. government investigation.
Clearly, it should be acknowledged that there is also witness testimony—some of it quite compelling—that describes unusual characteristics associated with UAP, such as extreme acceleration, erratic movement, exceptional agility/maneuverability, environmental effects, and other capabilities which could only be characterized as “anomalous.” Such descriptions are also part of what informs many of our expectations about how UAPs are supposed to behave. However, it is important to recognize that just because such eyewitness descriptions exist, it does not necessarily mean that we can—or should—attribute such capabilities to all UAP observations, and thereby use such presumptions as a gauge for their credibility on a case-by-case basis.
How the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office Characterizes UAP
A careful review of resources made available by the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) helps to shed further light on the attributes of what it characterizes as UAP.
A page dedicated to education and resources at AARO’s website lists a small collection of studies detailing current state-of-the-art technologies related to spherical drones, novel propulsion systems, and other technologies, which it says represent “advanced propulsion systems that are consistent with UAP observations.” The obvious implication of providing such resources involves the consideration that at least some UAP appear to operate in ways consistent with known earthly technologies, albeit ones that are still in their emergent stages.
AARO also gives us the following definition of UAP, according to an AARO Mission Brief featured at its website: “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) are sources of anomalous detections in one or more domains (i.e., airborne, seaborne, spaceborne, and/or transmedium) that are not yet attributable to known actors and that demonstrate behaviors that are not readily understood by sensors or observers.”
The brief goes on to define “anomalous detections” as “phenomena appearing to demonstrate capabilities or material properties exceeding the known state-of-the-art,” adding that UAP “may consist of one or more objects and may persist over an extended period,” are mainly “attributable to domain-awareness gaps, and in at least some cases “may represent advanced capabilities operating in domain awareness gaps.”
The AARO Mission Brief also separates the misidentification of known objects such as balloons and drones, as well as developmental or experimental platforms, from “genuine” UAP, which it clearly defines as AARO’s designated mission area.
According to past information produced by AARO under the tenure of its inaugural director, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, typically reported UAP characteristics include appearances of generally round objects roughly 1-4 meters in size, possessing white, silver, or translucent coloration. Performance altitudes, on average, fall within 10,000 to 30,000 feet, and velocities of the objects range from hovering in a stationary position to movement at speeds of up to Mach 2 (1534.54 miles per hour).
Above: Table featuring commonly attributed UAP characteristics based on AARO data available in 2023 (Image Credit: U.S. Department of War/All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office).
Despite such capabilities, no kind of thermal exhaust has been associated with these objects, and their propulsion systems remain unknown. Additional signatures associated with such genuinely anomalous UAP, according to AARO, include “intermittent, X-Band (8-12 GHz)” radar, as well as radio frequency emissions in the 1-3 GHz and 8-12 GHZ ranges. While no thermal exhaust evidencing propulsion is evident, intermittent shortwave infrared and medium-wave infrared thermal signatures are occasionally detectable.
“That’s what we’re looking for and trying to understand what that is,” Kirkpatrick told U.S. Senators during an April 2023 hearing that first revealed the AARO technical data described above.
Given the specificity of such technical information (all of which, as cited above, relates to AARO materials produced in 2023 during its early period in operation), one must wonder how such details could be derived from any of the videos or other materials the Department of War has released under the recent PURSUE initiative.
The obvious implication is that the data described above must have other, better-quality sources, which have not yet been released by AARO or the Department of War.
What This All Means, for Now
Of course, AARO also maintains that it has found no evidence of extraterrestrial technologies in its UAP investigations. All this taken together, a few things can be concluded based on the totality of AARO’s findings since its investigations began: 1) some objects appear to be genuinely anomalous, which AARO calls UAP, 2) AARO takes its investigations of these objects seriously, 3) studies involving breakthrough or disruptive technologies available at its website imply that AARO may suspect some UAP of being related to such developments, and are therefore not currently misidentifications of well-known objects or technologies, but possible “breakthrough” technologies whose origins remain unattributed, and 4) specific details about appearance and operational characteristics of AARO’s UAP “target package” strongly suggest the existence of higher quality UAP data that likely remains classified.
If it ends up being true that additional, higher-quality UAP data exists in U.S. government holdings—data from which AARO’s own technical attributes for genuinely “anomalous” UAP are derived—it therefore stands to reason that the recent batches of imagery fall significantly short of being the “best data” that has been obtained about these objects. Still, some of the videos, such as DOW-UAP-PR061 (described earlier in this article), nonetheless appear to match the so-called “target package” for genuine UAP first characterized by Kirkpatrick in 2023, even if they aren’t the most astonishing UAP videos in existence. Again, we should consider the conditioning outlined earlier, which has helped to encourage the public’s never-ending expectation for “extraordinary” revelations, most of which end up falling flat once they do finally come to light.
The bigger questions, for now, are whether such examples of higher-quality UAP data do indeed exist, and if so, whether they will be made public in any future releases.
“We are collecting as much data as possible, following the data where it leads, and sharing our findings whenever possible,” AARO states on its website. “We will not rush to conclusions in our analysis. In many cases, observed phenomena are classified as ‘unidentified’ simply because sensors were not able to collect enough information to make a positive attribution.”
Arguably, if there are better quality UAP materials in AARO’s holdings, there are probably very reasonable considerations for why that information has not yet been released, which may include uncertainty about whether some data could involve potentially sensitive information about experimental U.S. technologies or those of foreign adversaries, the release of which could have implications that, for now, may warrant secrecy.
In conclusion, although most of the videos in the recent Pentagon UAP releases provide too little data to draw any firm conclusions, arguably, some of the most important considerations are made evident by what the recent releases don’t contain—especially when compared to the information AARO uses as the basis for what it calls “genuine” UAP.
To borrow that overused X-Files quip once again, “the truth is out there.” Whether we’ll be seeing the best data that supports that truth any time soon is another question entirely.
Micah Hanks is the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder of The Debrief. A longtime reporter on science, defense, and technology with a focus on space and astronomy, he can be reached atmicah@thedebrief.org. Follow him on X @MicahHanks, and at micahhanks.com.
Login
