War.gov/UFO - Department of War Releases UAP Files - 2026 Release 1

[Bruce M]

Not all of them (as older types are in use too), but modern equipment has high resolution. It is just down graded when made available to the public.

Yes and no to deliberate downgrading.
There are certainly militaries like the US that downgrade official picture releases to mask their overall capabilities, but some of it may not be so deliberate. Covering up sensitive information(usually times and lat/long) requires it to be edited, and the editing program may output a lesser quality image.
The image quality seen by the operator is the full video quality, but the recording equipment cant record at that level - uncompressed video is rediculously large. So the recorder type and bitrate setting will be a big hit on quality. Same for downlinks, a lot of loss there.
I'll also add upload losses - youtube and social media also dithers incoming videos to compress them, yet more reduction on the original quality.

Recent-ish conflicts (<5 years) has seen the rise of a lot more footage making it out into the public. The Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2021 was the first where there was really unrestricted uploading of combat footage - lots of Bayraktar TB2s blowing up everything. The previous war on terror conflicts were mainly controlled by US, so their footage didnt get pushed out at the same rate. Early Ukraine has good TB2 footage as well - enough to inspire songs and donation campaigns.
For smaller systems, check out American law enforcement videos. There are many high quality MX10 videos of car chases and takedowns.

The other phenomenon that I hate is getting past video download restrictions by pointing a cell phone at a monitor and recording the footage that way. Bad for all the obvious reasons. But this is how videos get 'leaked', and are unfortunately common.

So its a mixed bag. There is a lot of small to mid sized camera system footage becoming publically available, so you can get a feel for what they are capable of. The larger systems cost well over $1m for just the optics systems, and then you need an air vehicle big enough to carry it, so that footage doesnt get out as much because only high-end customers own and operate them, and they are less likely to publish for likes and clout.

A dedicated publicity and promotion video can be good quality, but an expected 'ufo' encounter has a lot of reasons why the resulting footage is poor.

 

[Todd Feinman]

New interview with Burlison:

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4_vJHN-fPCw&pp=ygUcRm94IG5ld3MgdmlkZW8gZmx5aW5nIHNhdWNlcg%3D%3D

 

[Nemon]

New interview with Burlison:

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4_vJHN-fPCw&pp=ygUcRm94IG5ld3MgdmlkZW8gZmx5aW5nIHNhdWNlcg%3D%3D

What is he saying, please?

->

Videos

The reader should not have to watch the video in order to understand what is in it.

• Describe what the video is about, explain how it is relevant.
• Use time codes to precisely locate the relevant portions of the video (preferably wth the time encoded in a link).
• Provide a transcript of any important speech or text in the video.
• Use annotated screen grabs to convey the content.
• If you can, create an animated looping GIF (under 2MB) of the most relevant part.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Burlison is suggesting he is still a "skeptic", after watching 56(?) of the coming videos with rep. Luna. He says some of the videos show birds and balloons, but some are more interesting. They didn't just come from a guy who "lives in a van down by the river".

 

[NorCal Dave]

What is he saying, please?

Agreed. And not a paraphrase @Todd Feinman. You know how it works.

After some clips of witty banter between the Steves, Spielberg and Colber, we once again get the idea that the UFOs are beyond the control of Congress:

0:46
HOUSE REPUBLICANS THINK PRIVATE CONTRACTORS KNOW SOMETHING WE DON'T.

ONE CONGRESSMAN JUST SENT A LETTER TO MIT DEMANDING A CLASSIFIED VIDEO CALLED FLYING SAUCER TALK FROM THE 50s.

A flying saucer movie from the '50s being held by MIT?! Good lord. At least someone in Congress is "demanding" to see it, dagnabit.

And the new video of choice may be the pointy looking thing:

Burlison explains why MIT would have UFO videos:

1:45
>> SO MIT LINCOLN LABS IS ONE OF THE MANY FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.

THESE ARE QUASI PRIVATE PUBLIC ENTITIES THAT HAVE A SOLE MISSION OF DOING LONG TERM RESEARCH ON PROJECTS.
1:58

AND THEIR SOLE CLIENT IS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

SO THIS WAS THE EXACT TYPE OF LOCATION THAT WE SHOULD BE SEARCHING FOR FOR A TOPIC LIKE THIS AND THAT'S WHY MY TEAM IS
AGGRESSIVELY PURSUING INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS, VIDEOS, THAT ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF THESE FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, WHETHER
2:16

IT'S MIT LINCOLN LABS, RAND CORPORATION, MIT AND OTHERS.

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TAKING OUR INVESTIGATION.

Even before talking about the DoD files, I would argue this is Burlison foreshadowing that what he's seen so far is pretty meh. Burchette and others have played this card before. It's not that Congress can't find the UFOs and aliens because they don't exist, it's because the are held outside of the government and Congress' control.

And no, this supposed video isn't a smoking gun film of a flying saucer, rather it appears to be a lecture of some sort about flying saucers:

2:40
WE JUST RECEIVED WORD FROM MICHAEL THOMAS, WHO IS THE NATIONAL RECORDS OF ARCHIVES AND

RECORDS IN FACT THAT THEY ARE COOPERATING WITH MIT LINCOLN LABS, WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO COORDINATE

THE RELEASE OF A 1952 VIDEO FROM AN INDIVIDUAL FROM PROJECT BLUE

BOOK BY THE NAME OF EDWARD J RUPPELT WHO WAS BRIEFING THE SCIENTISTS ABOUT THE INCURSION OF UFOs IN THE UNITED STATES.

Yes, there'll be some interesting videos coming out, but people shouldn't expect to much:

3:44

THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC YET, SOME OF THEM ARE PRETTY-- VERY INTERESTING.

I DON'T WANT TO, LIKE, I DON'T WANT TO GET PEOPLE'S HOPES UP. THERE'S A LOT OF VIDEOS.

I THINK THE WAY THE ADMINISTRATION IS GOING ABOUT THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY BUT JUST KEEP IN MIND A LOT OF THESE VIDEOS HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED.

BUT AS YOU WATCH SOME OF THEM YOU WILL SEE THAT SOME OF THEM ARE CLEARLY BALLOONS OR BIRDS.

BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME THINGS IN THERE THAT ARE VERY INTERESTING

Since the videos are at best, "interesting", Burlison resorts to the tried and true narrative of 2nd hand reports from "high level intelligence officers" and "government officials" about "orbs":

4:24

BUT WHAT I WILL POINT OUT TO YOU IS THAT ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT PEOPLE ARE KIND OF OVERLOOKING IN THAT FIRST BATCH IS TOWARDS THE VERY END, IT'S A

DOCUMENT THAT IS NAMED U.S. PER STATEMENT ABOUT UAP SIGHTINGS.

AND IN THAT REPORT YOU HAVE OFFICIALS, HIGH LEVEL INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, YOU KNOW, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO ALL

REPORTED SEEING AN INCURSION AT ONE OF OUR MILITARY BASES IN WHICH THERE WAS AN ORANGE ORB
4:54

THAT WAS PRODUCING OR DISSEMINATING OTHER RED TYPES OF ORBS.

THIS WAS CITED NOT BY PEOPLE IN A TINFOIL HAT DOWN BY THE RIVER, THIS GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

SO THAT'S A CREDIBLE DOCUMENT EVERYONE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT.

Guess we'll have to go find this report.

Just me speculating a bit, but it seems Burlison is giving himself an out if none of the UFO stuff pan out. He's seen the videos, and he's downplaying them while reminding the host, Jesse, he is a skeptic and just "doing his job":

4:05

>> Jesse: ARE YOU A BELIEVER? >> I'M NOT.

I'M A SKEPTIC, JESSE. I'M STILL A SKEPTIC. BUT I'M DOING MY JOB.

I'M ON OVERSIGHT, I'M FOLLOWING THE INVESTIGATION WHERE IT TAKES ME AND I'M KEEPING AN OPEN MIND, TRYING TO STICK TO THE FACTS.

 

[Todd Feinman]

"IT'S MIT LINCOLN LABS, RAND CORPORATION, MIT AND OTHERS."

RAND had an old UFO paper they circulated internally, apparently. They used to have it right on their FAQs page, claiming they weren't trying to hide it, but were using it internally, iirc. It's still there, in a different place now. It's the paper by Kocher:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/drafts/DRU1571.html

Show me my orange orb friends! I'm sure they'll be there eventually.

 

[FatPhil]

THESE ARE QUASI PRIVATE PUBLIC ENTITIES THAT HAVE A SOLE MISSION OF DOING LONG TERM RESEARCH ON PROJECTS.

Oh noes! Not research on *projects*. That pretty much condemns them. You can do research on technology, you can do research on the cutting edge of science, but you're definitely trying to hide something if what you're doing is research on *projects*.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Oh noes! Not research on *projects*. That pretty much condemns them. You can do research on technology, you can do research on the cutting edge of science, but you're definitely trying to hide something if what you're doing is research on *projects*.

Besides that, it's a bit of a non-sequitur. Burlison suggests MIT, and others, are engaged in long term research projects for the government. As in now? There is an ongoing long term project about UFOs at MIT? It's unclear, but the video in question, that he is "demanding" to see, is supposedly a 1952 lecture "from an individual from Project Blue Book by the name of Edward J. Ruppelt". These guys "demand" this stuff with no clue as to it's context, assuming it even exists.

In 1952, Captain Ruppelt was standing up Project Blue Book, after having been the head of Project Grudge. He coined the acronym "UFO", and Blue book ended in 1968:

Ruppelt was the first head of the project. He was an experienced airman, having been decorated for his efforts with the Army Air Corps during World War II, and having afterward earned an aeronautics degree. He officially coined the term "Unidentified Flying Object", to replace the many terms ("flying saucer", "flying disk" and so on) the military had previously used; Ruppelt thought that "unidentified flying object" was a more neutral and accurate term. Ruppelt resigned from the Air Force some years later and wrote the book The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, which described the study of UFOs by the United States Air Force from 1947 to 1955.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book

Again, if this supposed film even exists, it could have been Puppelt talking about the 1952 Washington DC UFO flap:

The 1952 UFO flap was an unprecedented rash of media attention to unidentified flying object reports during the summer of 1952 that culminated with reports of sightings over Washington, D.C.[3]​[4]​[5]​ In the four years prior, the US Air Force had chronicled a total of 615 UFO reports; during the 1952 flap, they received over 717 new reports.[6]​ Project Blue Book director Edward J. Ruppelt later recalled: "During a six-month period in 1952... 148 of the nation's leading newspapers carried a total of over 16,000 items about flying saucers."[7]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident

Ruppelt took the investigation of UFOs very seriously and retired when the staff was cut. However, he did write a book, and follow up edition, about his time at Grudge and Blue Book, concluding UFOs don't exist (bold by me):

The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects is a 1956 book by then-retired Air Force UFO investigator Edward J. Ruppelt, detailing his experience running Project Blue Book.[1]​ The book was noted for its suggestion that a few UFO sightings might be linked to spikes of atomic radiation.[2]​ Contemporary media summarized four topics discussed in the book:[3]​

• There is "no real proof" that flying saucers exist—no reliable photographs, no "hardware".[3]​
• While the Air Force is officially dismissive of the spaceship theory, that conclusion is "far from unanimous".[3]​
• Some staff within the Air Force had produced a UFO analysis, called the "Estimate of the Situation", concluding that some UFOs were interplanetary spaceships. That analysis was rejected by a panel of scientists meeting in January 1953.[3]​
• Technological explanations were not considered: "No one at the meeting gave a second thought to the possibility that the UFOs might be super-secret US aircraft or a Soviet Development".[3]​

In 1960, Ruppelt authored a second edition in which he reported being "positive" that UFOs do not exist.[4]​

Four years after the original publication, Ruppelt released a new edition with three additional chapters. In these, Ruppelt "seemed to have changed course", declaring UFOs to be a "Space Age Myth".[17]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Report_on_Unidentified_Flying_Objects

Possibly he was more open minded in 1952, but I'm still not sure what Burlison and the rest think they're going to get with this supposed film.

 

[MapperGuy]

Besides that, it's a bit of a non-sequitur. Burlison suggests MIT, and others, are engaged in long term research projects for the government. As in now? There is an ongoing long term project about UFOs at MIT? It's unclear, but the video in question, that he is "demanding" to see, is supposedly a 1952 lecture "from an individual from Project Blue Book by the name of Edward J. Ruppelt". These guys "demand" this stuff with no clue as to it's context, assuming it even exists.

I think we are starting to see the dawning realization that releasing videos is not the Great Disclosure people were hoping for. So Burlison is pivoting to that other concept, the government gave everything away to companies and universities. So now he will focus on demanding things from them, instead of the government.

What is MISSSING from all this is one major fact that is studiously being ignored.
All of those whistleblowers were talking about HARDWARE (functioning and crashed saucers) and DEAD ALIENS.
Where are the demands for those physical artifacts?

Or are Burlision and company tacitly acknowledging that there aren't any?

 

[Ravi]

There is a 2nd release out. Not sure if there is already a thread on that one.

 

[NoParty]

There is a 2nd release out. Not sure if there is already a thread on that one.

Ross Coulthart, on 5/22/26, tried like hell (for over an hour) to make this important, despite ultimately conceding:
"...frankly, they're pretty underwhelming..."

[1:16:45]
Source: https://www.youtube.com/live/POD4iAL4teM

 

[JMartJr]

oss Coulthart, on 5/22/26, tried like hell (for over an hour) to make this important, despite ultimately conceding:
"...frankly, they're pretty underwhelming..."

Which is what would be expected if there is nothing to release, other than Low Information Zone cases where the "object;" if there is one, is too far away to resolve, plus a few glares and lens flares.

Members of congress interested in this might do well to state that they've seen enough distant specs and dots, and demand that those who say there is compelling evidence now produce it, or clearly identify where they saw it and who has it so that congress can secure it.

My suspicion is that this will lead to nothing of importance being released, because it is my opinion that no evidence of importance is likely to exist. But I could be wrong, maybe the folks who were earlier saying that they had seen shots of a UAP craft of some sort from a few meters away and the like were honest, correctly assessed the evidence and were correct in their recollection of what they have seen. So it's time to quit with the strategy of releasing nothing-burger blobs too far away to tell anything. If there is real evidence, bring it forward. If not, maybe let Congress get back to spending the time and effort and money spent on the Great Snipe Snark UFO Hunt and put it towards some other issues where attention is needed. I have a list, if they can't think of any! ^_^

 

[RTM]

Aren't a lot of these videos based on a list of events that UFO enthusiasts wanted released?

 

[JMartJr]

Aren't a lot of these videos based on a list of events that UFO enthusiasts wanted released?

That is my understanding. Why they would not make a list that focused on the claimed Real Clear Close Convincing Videos of Clearly Seen Technological Objects, and instead create a list of Yet Another Balloons, Too Far Aways and Featureless Indistinct Blobs is a question to which I can only guess at the answer -- members of Congress would have the ability to require an answer. I wish they would...

 

[NorCal Dave]

That is my understanding. Why they would not make a list that focused on the claimed Real Clear Close Convincing Videos of Clearly Seen Technological Objects, and instead create a list of Yet Another Balloons, Too Far Aways and Featureless Indistinct Blobs is a question to which I can only guess at the answer -- members of Congress would have the ability to require an answer. I wish they would...

Maybe because people like Corbel are providing the lists? I'm wondering where his credibility goes with these releases. On the one hand, he can confirm that he's been getting the real deal from leakers inside. On the other, there's still not much there, there.

Just speculating, but we did get this description from the sub video:

On March 6, 2026, eight members of the U.S. House of Representatives requested access to 51 potentially UAP-related records allegedly held by the Department of War and the Intelligence Community. The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) identified a collection of responsive materials held on a classified network. Many of these materials lack a substantiated chain-of-custody.

AARO assesses that this video, whose uploader-defined title is, "Multiple Spherical UAP USO near Sub. [CALLSIGN] 2022/03/25 in and out of water," is likely derived from an infrared sensor aboard a U.S. military platform. A user uploaded this video to a classified network in May 2024.

And there is a quote somewhere on this forum with Kirkpatrick saying various government employees would upload UFO material to government servers. Are some of these UFO people uploading things they think look weird, then telling and sometimes sharing them with Corbel? Is much of the dump, just UFO guys in government farting around on government servers?

 

[NoParty]

...maybe the folks who were earlier saying that they had seen shots of a UAP craft of some sort from a few meters away and the like were honest, correctly assessed the evidence and were correct in their recollection of what they have seen.

Yeah, what are the odds that every time we have unimpeachably credible, wise, honest witnesses,
no one ever has a camera? Yet every single time there actually is video, it's absolute crap?

That this stunning coincidence continues year after year, promise after promise, almost makes one wonder if some folks
are just so desperate to believe, that they'll suspend reasonable skepticism indefinitely. Or someone's making a buck.

 

[MapperGuy]

Maybe because people like Corbel are providing the lists? I'm wondering where his credibility goes with these releases. On the one hand, he can confirm that he's been getting the real deal from leakers inside. On the other, there's still not much there, there.

Just speculating, but we did get this description from the sub video:

On March 6, 2026, eight members of the U.S. House of Representatives requested access to 51 potentially UAP-related records allegedly held by the Department of War and the Intelligence Community. The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) identified a collection of responsive materials held on a classified network. Many of these materials lack a substantiated chain-of-custody.

AARO assesses that this video, whose uploader-defined title is, "Multiple Spherical UAP USO near Sub. [CALLSIGN] 2022/03/25 in and out of water," is likely derived from an infrared sensor aboard a U.S. military platform. A user uploaded this video to a classified network in May 2024.

And there is a quote somewhere on this forum with Kirkpatrick saying various government employees would upload UFO material to government servers. Are some of these UFO people uploading things they think look weird, then telling and sometimes sharing them with Corbel? Is much of the dump, just UFO guys in government farting around on government servers?

Which brings us to the question: Has anyone obtained the NAMES of the people who uploaded these files? Would seem to be relevant to the question of their origin. Just saying 'they were uploaded' is not really a satisfactory answer if Congress wants to get at the "truth" of these videos.
I would assume that most of these were uploaded to SIPRnet (secret internet) which would have required someone to login using their personal credentials. Were they uploaded by one person one day a year or two ago? Or by many people over the last decade or two?

Tracing these videos back to their actual sources would seem to be a useful exercise. One thing about classified networks is you can't (or shouldn't be able) to log in anonymously.

 

[boringrealit]

Aren't a lot of these videos based on a list of events that UFO enthusiasts wanted released?

No, I think that was the 46 or so videos that Luna demanded. This is in response to Trump's order (not sure if it was an official order or just a tweet or something). There might be some overlap.

 

[boringrealit]

Which brings us to the question: Has anyone obtained the NAMES of the people who uploaded these files? Would seem to be relevant to the question of their origin. Just saying 'they were uploaded' is not really a satisfactory answer if Congress wants to get at the "truth" of these videos.
I would assume that most of these were uploaded to SIPRnet (secret internet) which would have required someone to login using their personal credentials. Were they uploaded by one person one day a year or two ago? Or by many people over the last decade or two?

Tracing these videos back to their actual sources would seem to be a useful exercise. One thing about classified networks is you can't (or shouldn't be able) to log in anonymously.

Yeah, without that they are pretty much worthless no matter if they look like blurry dots or perfectly crisp. The three Pentagon videos would be worthless too without witnesses backing them up.

 

[Nemon]

Which brings us to the question: Has anyone obtained the NAMES of the people who uploaded these files? Would seem to be relevant to the question of their origin. Just saying 'they were uploaded' is not really a satisfactory answer if Congress wants to get at the "truth" of these videos.
I would assume that most of these were uploaded to SIPRnet (secret internet) which would have required someone to login using their personal credentials. Were they uploaded by one person one day a year or two ago? Or by many people over the last decade or two?

Tracing these videos back to their actual sources would seem to be a useful exercise. One thing about classified networks is you can't (or shouldn't be able) to log in anonymously.

That crossed my mind as well, for example in the recent Syria thread where the question was whether the video had been filmed off a screen. Doesn't that imply that the person doing the filming is in the office of the person who has the video running on their PC? One scenario in that case is that the person who has access to the video chooses a middle ground between not violating secrecy and 'this never happened and I didn't notice you filming it'.
Another scenario: the person films it themselves in order to leave no trace of a copying process in the system.

And regarding manipulated, usually degraded copies: why reduce the files at all? By any standard these are small files. There is no reason to reduce the file size — unless someone is helpless with the technology. And has Corbell ever commented on this? He is, by all accounts, a 'visual artist' and 'filmmaker' and should be familiar with this. 'Enhancements' that introduce erratic artefacts don't help anyone either.

There are different implications for these scenarios, and I'm not entirely clear about them yet. Has this been discussed somewhere here? In any case, it was said here and there that people know there are longer and better versions of the pixel‑mush clips. If that refers to what we're now seeing in some of the official versions, then that is indeed, as Ross Coulthart says, 'underwhelming.'

 

[boringrealit]

That crossed my mind as well, for example in the recent Syria thread where the question was whether the video had been filmed off a screen. Doesn't that imply that the person doing the filming is in the office of the person who has the video running on their PC? One scenario in that case is that the person who has access to the video chooses a middle ground between not violating secrecy and 'this never happened and I didn't notice you filming it'.
Another scenario: the person films it themselves in order to leave no trace of a copying process in the system.

And regarding manipulated, usually degraded copies: why reduce the files at all? By any standard these are small files. There is no reason to reduce the file size — unless someone is helpless with the technology. And has Corbell ever commented on this? He is, by all accounts, a 'visual artist' and 'filmmaker' and should be familiar with this. 'Enhancements' that introduce erratic artefacts don't help anyone either.

There are different implications for these scenarios, and I'm not entirely clear about them yet. Has this been discussed somewhere here? In any case, it was said here and there that people know there are longer and better versions of the pixel‑mush clips. If that refers to what we're now seeing in some of the official versions, then that is indeed, as Ross Coulthart says, 'underwhelming.'

But these are clips that DoD are releasing themselves - through AARO, I assume - so there shouldn't be any scenarios of that kind. It should be the best videos available, but with some data redacted. And they should know exactly how and by who it was filmed, and which people was available as witnesses. The whole thing looks very suspicious, probably intentionally so.

Corbell's opinion shouldn't be necessary, DoD has their own experts that should clarify things. But as usual, they do the opposite and leave everyone to speculate and guess what's in the clips and what the point of these releases are.

 

[jarlrmai]

My view is someone or maybe multiple people inside the military, perhaps with an interest in UFOs has access to footage from drones, these clips are either made by them or someone else, but they are uploaded somewhere saved and given a number in an official database, so they are now part of the system. Some are leaked to Corbell by screen recording, the unredacted versions he seems to get on the regular.

This person also knows the names/numbers of the official files, they leak use these to Corbell, who gives then to Luna who raises the official request.

Marik then does the role of running interference on X about whatever Mick/Metabunk come up as potentially mundane explanations.

 

[boringrealit]

My view is someone or maybe multiple people inside the military, perhaps with an interest in UFOs has access to footage from drones, these clips are either made by them or someone else, but they are uploaded somewhere saved and given a number in an official database, so they are now part of the system. Some are leaked to Corbell by screen recording, the unredacted versions he seems to get on the regular.

This person also knows the names/numbers of the official files, they leak use these to Corbell, who gives then to Luna who raises the official request.

Marik then does the role of running interference on X about whatever Mick/Metabunk come up as potentially mundane explanations.

AARO have/had a site for uploading like that, it was done ineptly as usual for them, but I assume they figured out that it had to be classified after a while, since some clips say "this was uploaded to a classified network by someone". That is probably the whole process. No quality control or anything.

The docs are more interesting since they come from other sources and over a much longer time span (since 1947 or so I think). They also hold more actual info about people and offices involved.

 

[Harabeck]

And they should know exactly how and by who it was filmed, and which people was available as witnesses.

The description on each the videos explicitly claims the opposite:

The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) identified a collection of responsive materials held on a classified network. Many of these materials lack a substantiated chain-of-custody.

The whole thing looks very suspicious, probably intentionally so.

I don't know if it's meant to look suspicious. I think this whole thing is clearly for show, though.

 

[NorCal Dave]

AARO have/had a site for uploading like that, it was done ineptly as usual for them, but I assume they figured out that it had to be classified after a while, since some clips say "this was uploaded to a classified network by someone". That is probably the whole process. No quality control or anything.

ARRO was only stood up a few years ago and repeating what I said in the thread about Luna asking for videos:

If we look at the big 3 from the whole NYT/AATIP/TTSA reveal, we get a mashup of names with limited context. GIMBAL, GO FAST and FLIR1 are the names we know them by and may be the names used internally, but by who? As has been noted before, the name GIMBAL seems to indicate whoever had it or named it, understood it was the result of a rotating gimbal system.

Given the amount of sensors mounted on the huge amount of military hardware spread over the world, often under multiple different command chains, there is likely all kinds of anomalous looking videos floating around in this ecosystem. Most of it is not correlated or cataloged. It's in different command chains, different theaters and different sections of the DoD, DHS, the intell world and all kinds of places.

In theory, these are supposed to be forwarded to AARO for analysis, but that assumes whoever has a given video thinks it's a UAP worthy of sending to AARO. Or, there are likely some, like Grusch, who completely distrust AARO, and don't forward anything to them.

This is something ARRO acknowledged at the beginning:

Most UAP reports are fragmented, sparse, and unstructured, ranging from military logs and pilot reports to archival records, social media posts, and civilian testimony. Interpreting this heterogeneous data at scale is complicated by barriers of classification, translation, and retention.At the same time, UAP reports also present opportunities for novel methods of integration,metadata design, and analysis.

https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/Information Papers/2025_UAP_Workshop_Paper.pdf

The problem is that the UFO crowd, a relatively small but very vocal group, steadfastly believes the US government knows about alien visitation, has crashed UFOs, has alien bodies, possibly has treaties with alien groups AND this is all contained and coordinated by 1 or more secret legacy programs beyond congressional oversite and possibly beyond the President's authority. So, if they can just get the right action from Congress or the president, all the data these secret legacy programs have been hiding for decades will come out as a coherent and complete whole. An alien gift box wrapped up with a bow if you will.

If, as is likely, there is no secret program and no secret central command where all of this secret UFO/alien information is kept, then the whole government UFO data collection is what we're seeing now. A jumble of different things spread across various agencies, commands, departments, servers and backrooms, often maintained by UFO enthusiasts for their own reasons.

 

[jarlrmai]

AARO have/had a site for uploading like that, it was done ineptly as usual for them, but I assume they figured out that it had to be classified after a while, since some clips say "this was uploaded to a classified network by someone". That is probably the whole process. No quality control or anything.

The docs are more interesting since they come from other sources and over a much longer time span (since 1947 or so I think). They also hold more actual info about people and offices involved.

AARO probably don't pay as much per video as some..

 

[Nemon]

But these are clips that DoD are releasing themselves - through AARO

You slightly misunderstood me, it seems. There is a discrepancy between some of the leaks (I assume we're mainly talking about Corbell here) and the now‑released official versions. The versions do differ. But my scenarios refer to how the leaks came into existence and what the implications of that are.

Edit: And by the way: Didn't someone claim to have seen the three Pentagon videos in better versions as well? But they weren't included in Release 1 or 2 now. If I remember correctly, back then they went from Mellon to Elizondo, from where they surfaced. Even if the general pattern may have been similar, one could now assume that different people and different channels were involved.

 

[boringrealit]

You slightly misunderstood me, it seems. There is a discrepancy between some of the leaks (I assume we're mainly talking about Corbell here) and the now‑released official versions. The versions do differ. But my scenarios refer to how the leaks came into existence and what the implications of that are.

Edit: And by the way: Didn't someone claim to have seen the three Pentagon videos in better versions as well? But they weren't included in Release 1 or 2 now. If I remember correctly, back then they went from Mellon to Elizondo, from where they surfaced. Even if the general pattern may have been similar, one could now assume that different people and different channels were involved.

Ah, ok. Yeah, that is somewhat of a mystery, if they are classified. My guess is that they aren't classified or in some sort of limbo where there haven't been a decision regarding classification. I know Corbell speaks about it as if he has to get some "go ahead" to be allowed to publish them. Which is odd.

Same with your example of Mellon and Elizondo releasing the pentagon videos. Couldn't they release the longer versions right away? Maybe they didn't have access to them, but then how and why was the lesser versions created? Feels like we are being played. There is always some "oh, you almost got a disclosure there, but keep trying and tell all your friends about the UFOs."

 

[boringrealit]

The problem is that the UFO crowd, a relatively small but very vocal group, steadfastly believes the US government knows about alien visitation, has crashed UFOs, has alien bodies, possibly has treaties with alien groups AND this is all contained and coordinated by 1 or more secret legacy programs beyond congressional oversite and possibly beyond the President's authority.

I don't see the UFO crowd being loud as the problem, rather that the UFO crowd has powerful people on the inside. The UFO crowd has been going on since the 50s without any real success, but now they have the support of powerful politicians and gov people. I don't know how that happened, who convinced them, but I would guess that Tom DeLonge's generals played a role.

It might actually go back to Clinton. Bill is said to have been interested in UFOs and felt that he was blocked, and his wife was supposed to be the Disclosure President. Podesta probably played an important role.