U.S. Customs and Border Protection Releases UAP Documents and Videos

Mick West

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Article:
In a new development concerning Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), a batch of documents and videos has emerged from the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The unexpected find came to light thanks to X user “Dr.Disclosure89 (@Docneuroeo)”, who alerted The Black Vault about this discovery.

As of now, the origins of this release remain a mystery. There are two main possibilities: either CBP took the initiative to proactively disclose these materials to the public, or they were released as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The Black Vault currently has multiple FOIA cases with CBP. Some of these requests were transferred to other agencies, while others remain open with CBP.


Original Source:
https://www.cbp.gov/document/foia-record/unidentified-aerial-phenomenon

Link to all the files on TheBlack Vault
https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/cbp/CBP-UAP.zip

Not sure if this anything new (regarding videos) - as what I've seen so far is video that was "leaked" a year or so ago.

the PDF has a LOT of stuff in it:
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2023-Aug/Records pertaining to Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.pdf

There are nominally 10 UAP, although there seems to be some mix-up in the zipping of them, like on labeled 10 ended up in 3.1, they seem largely related to the "DHS" leaks and the other known videos.

Video 1 - Don't recognize it. Shows an odd shape moving across a rural town. Possibly just a dot with the rest being reticle.
[Update: later in the video it clearly looks like a microlight aircraft - a powered hang glider]
New Thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cbp-uap-ufo-video-release-1-hang-glider-or-microlight.13180/
2023-09-21_13-20-08.jpg

Video 2.1, 2.2, 3, 3.2 - The "Rubber Duck" video
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dhs-rubber-duck-footage.12054/
2023-09-21_13-23-27.jpg

Video 4 - The A10 Warthog with a bird. Old.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-10-chased-by-object-looks-like-a-bird.12595/

2023-09-21_13-25-26.jpg

Video 5 - A low quality, white dot, maybe from later in the A-10
2023-09-21_13-26-33.jpg

Video 6 - another white dot.
2023-09-21_13-28-29.jpg

VIdeo 7 - A-10 again, but with the date visible
2023-09-21_13-29-40.jpg

Video 8 - DHS video, very low quality.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/alleged-dhs-employee-leaks-of-filmed-uaps.11884/

2023-09-21_13-30-44.jpg

Video 9 - Aguadilla
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ag...-ufos-probably-hot-air-wedding-lanterns.8952/
2023-09-21_13-31-30.jpg

Video 10 - White dot from a stationary camera, looks like the border fence.
New Thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cbp-uap-ufo-video-release-10.13179/
2023-09-21_13-32-14.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've updated the OP with a list of video, and linked to the metabunk threads for the ones we've discussion. Let me know if you recognize ones I've missed.
 
does that A-10 provide any insight into that one that is so controversial, I forget the name of it, is it go fast? the one that's been said to be an f-18? The shape of the A10 is so clear, is it close to the camera?

I think it's the glare one mick west has made videos about? The rotating glare one.

Adding an update thanks to JMartJr: The Gimbal video

So my question woudl be, why exactly is the object in the gimbal video not as clear?
 
Last edited:
It might seem like a silly question but are AARO and indeed NASA UAP investigations in-house or do they consult outside sources? Metabunk would seem like an obvious choice.
 
There is a lot of irony with these documents because of what it pretty much covers.
This series of events rests around a retired Agent who asked permission to conduct a study, was told he could do so PERSONALLY disconnected from work, then proceeded exactly as if he was officially sanctioned by the government just not given resources. That whole text exchange with his direct boss feels like reading 4chan posts.
I wonder if this guy faced any repercussions from the SCU situation since it's insinuated in the document that, that was not really an okay move.
 
Mick West said:
the PDF has a LOT of stuff in it:
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2023-Aug/Records pertaining to Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.pdf
Click to expand...
I am struggling to put all this together. Does anybody understand what a report for the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv has to do with the US Customs and Border Protection? Or is this just a dump of unrelated stuff (other than having "UAP" or "UFO" in the description) that happened to get stuck in a filing cabinet at USCBP, getting dumped in response to a FOIA request?
 
Don Kielty said:
It might seem like a silly question but are AARO and indeed NASA UAP investigations in-house or do they consult outside sources? Metabunk would seem like an obvious choice.
Click to expand...
But AARO should have access to classified data such as radar data. There would be little point in consulting people with access to less data.
 
Stryer said:
But AARO should have access to classified data such as radar data. There would be little point in consulting people with access to less data.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that is true. The data is just the first part of the story. The analysis of that data is another. Metabunk opens it up to many experts in many different fields, as I'm sure you've seen here.
 
You
Ann K said:
I'm not sure that is true. The data is just the first part of the story. The analysis of that data is another. Metabunk opens it up to many experts in many different fields, as I'm sure you've seen here.
Click to expand...
The data is the paramount part of any research. As is analysis, but you're telling me that analysis of less data is better?
 
Stryer said:
The data is the paramount part of any research. As is analysis, but you're telling me that analysis of less data is better?
Click to expand...
It's kind of like having two axes*... lots of good analysis of lots of good data is ideal, if there is less data you're still better off with more.better analysis than with less/worse.

*The graph kind, not the wood-chopping kind.
 
JMartJr said:
It's kind of like having two axes*... lots of good analysis of lots of good data is ideal, if there is less data you're still better off with more.better analysis than with less/worse.

*The graph kind, not the wood-chopping kind.
Click to expand...
I'm definitely supportive of the analysis carried out here.
 
Stryer said:
What data do we have that they don't?
Click to expand...
Well, I don't have any relevant data!

But hypothetically, if AARO had data regarding radar detection of something anomalous, corresponding eyewitness testimony might be useful.
The more relevant data there is, the better, regardless of source.
That said, I'm rather sceptical about any data collected so far being relevant (in the positive sense) to the "UFOs are of ETI origin" hypothesis.
 
John J. said:
Well, I don't have any relevant data!

But hypothetically, if AARO had data regarding radar detection of something anomalous, corresponding eyewitness testimony might be useful.
The more relevant data there is, the better, regardless of source.
That said, I'm rather sceptical about any data collected so far being relevant (in the positive sense) to the "UFOs are of ETI origin" hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. I want the data to first show what it's not rather than what it is.
 
Stryer said:
I don't disagree. I want the data to first show what it's not rather than what it is.
Click to expand...
That's hard, though, when you're dealing with CT phenomena, where a large part of the audience expects objects to have the power of disguise.

It has no visible propulsion system?—Then it might have an anomalous propulsion system.

The data is compatible with straight-line motion at a constant speed.—But the data is also compatible with an unusual (alien?!) J-hook trajectory that coincidentally fits the parallax.

etc.

Using the dats for a "process of elimination" approach generally leaves things unresolved.

"Follow the data" is often better, as it takes you where the evidence is pointing, and not to places it's not.
 
Stryer said:
You

The data is the paramount part of any research. As is analysis, but you're telling me that analysis of less data is better?
Click to expand...
That, of course, is not what I said. We get as much data as we can, but we also bring "fresh eyes" to the analysis, and as we have seen before, clear and well-explained information is not always respected nor examined closely by those who have the data but nevertheless insist that "I know what I saw".
 
Mendel said:
That's hard, though, when you're dealing with CT phenomena, where a large part of the audience expects objects to have the power of disguise.

It has no visible propulsion system?—Then it might have an anomalous propulsion system.

The data is compatible with straight-line motion at a constant speed.—But the data is also compatible with an unusual (alien?!) J-hook trajectory that coincidentally fits the parallax.

etc.

Using the dats for a "process of elimination" approach generally leaves things unresolved.

"Follow the data" is often better, as it takes you where the evidence is pointing, and not to places it's not.
Click to expand...
Again I agree we lack the information to resolve it. I think we should be happy to discount what they actually are.
 
Ann K said:
That, of course, is not what I said. We get as much data as we can, but we also bring "fresh eyes" to the analysis, and as we have seen before, clear and well-explained information is not always respected nor examined closely by those who have the data but nevertheless insist that "I know what I saw".
Click to expand...
Right but we're talking about a team dedicated to investigation of the cases, not a sole witness. Also some data is more paramount than others to solving the case. I personally dislike the videos as they provide too much ambiguity. I would much prefer we have access to radar data, which could provide kinematics of the objects in question. I presume AARO has access to theses. So on here we may come to a conclusion about an object in a video but that conclusion could be invalidated by the radar data.
 
Stryer said:
I personally dislike the videos as they provide too much ambiguity. I would much prefer we have access to radar data, which could provide kinematics of the objects in question.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.
A video has 30 frames per second. A typical surveillance radar does half sweep in a second:

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mt43UeqVaZU&t=10

Basically, it looks towards the target, then looks somewhere else for 2 seconds, and then looks at the target again. You have to kinda guess what moved where in the meantime. When you see an object that seems to have moved super fast, it's possible that you're really seeing two different objects (or maybe some spurious reflections), so it's really difficult to be certain about unusual movements.

Many radars are bad at tracking altitude.
 
Mendel said:
Many radars are bad at tracking altitude.
Click to expand...

Also, radars are less accurate then people think. In the Aguadilla case the SCU tried to use the radar PRF (pulse repetition frequency) to define how accurate the radar position data was. they used a PRF of 4.2kHz, around 360° at 81nm to determine the distance between pulses- which gave them an accuracy to within 1/8 of a mile. But upon looking at the specification of the AN/FPS-20Q radar (which they reference in their report!) the accuracy is given as 1 nautical mile in range, and 1° in azimuth, which at distance of 81nm gives is 2.9 nautical miles. Much less accurate than they try to make out.

1695633973202.png
Source: https://radomes.org/museum/documents/NASOceanaAN-FPS20Description.pdf
 
Last edited:
Mendel said:
Hmmm.
A video has 30 frames per second. A typical surveillance radar does half sweep in a second:

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mt43UeqVaZU&t=10

Basically, it looks towards the target, then looks somewhere else for 2 seconds, and then looks at the target again. You have to kinda guess what moved where in the meantime. When you see an object that seems to have moved super fast, it's possible that you're really seeing two different objects (or maybe some spurious reflections), so it's really difficult to be certain about unusual movements.

Many radars are bad at tracking altitude.
Click to expand...

This is all speculation, particularly in regards to the parameters of the radar.

AARO claim to be a scientific organization so we need to know the exact devices they have obtained data from, the parameters by which they operate and the error rates of these.

It's not good enough that this whole field relies on speculation.
 
DavidB66 said:
Ye shall know them by their fruits. If it's the same 'team' who couldn't recognise a microlight, I wouldn't expect too much.
Click to expand...
Everyone makes mistakes, even research teams. Amateurs make even more mistakes. I don't think it's fair to discount a scientific inquiry because they got something wrong.
 
Stryer said:
This is all speculation, particularly in regards to the parameters of the radar.
Click to expand...
Not really, no.

Your (speculative) claim was that the (non-existing) radar would show the motion better, and I cited some facts why that may not be true.
 
flarkey said:
Also, radars are less accurate then people think. In the Aguadilla case the SCU tried to use the radar PRF (pulse repetition frequency) to define how accurate the radar position data was. they used a PRF of 4.2kHz, around 360° at 81nm to determine the distance between pulses- which gave them an accuracy to within 1/8 of a mile. But upon looking at the specification of the AN/FPS-20Q radar (which they reference in their report!) the accuracy is given as 1 nautical mile in range, and 1° in azimuth, which at distance of 81nm gives is 2.9 nautical miles. Much less accurate than they try to make out.

1695633973202.png
Source: https://radomes.org/museum/documents/NASOceanaAN-FPS20Description.pdf
Click to expand...
This is more the type of details we need regarding the radar.
 
Stryer said:
Right but we're talking about a team dedicated to investigation of the cases, not a sole witness. Also some data is more paramount than others to solving the case. I personally dislike the videos as they provide too much ambiguity. I would much prefer we have access to radar data, which could provide kinematics of the objects in question. I presume AARO has access to theses. So on here we may come to a conclusion about an object in a video but that conclusion could be invalidated by the radar data.
Click to expand...
DavidB66 said:
Ye shall know them by their fruits. If it's the same 'team' who couldn't recognise a microlight, I wouldn't expect too much.
Click to expand...
Stryer said:
Everyone makes mistakes, even research teams. Amateurs make even more mistakes. I don't think it's fair to discount a scientific inquiry because they got something wrong.
Click to expand...
Are we going hear the 'team' who got it wrong admit that, or pull the video down because it's now acknowledged to be an incredibly prosaic explanation? (Now an IAP: Identified Anomalous Phenomenon?!! Somehow that whole TLA [three letter acronym] doesn't allow for the identification to make it any clearer. Is it still Anomalous, once Identified?)

Anyhoo, while I agree in principle with Stryer's last point, mistakes can happen, where are the checks and balances? IMO, every further video released/leaked/hyped and oversold with poor analysis by 'experts' just adds another bale onto the giant haystack that UFOlogists want us to believe still contains a needle... They do themselves their own disservice.
 
psikiwi said:
Are we going hear the 'team' who got it wrong admit that, or pull the video down because it's now acknowledged to be an incredibly prosaic explanation? (Now an IAP: Identified Anomalous Phenomenon?!! Somehow that whole TLA [three letter acronym] doesn't allow for the identification to make it any clearer. Is it still Anomalous, once Identified?)

Anyhoo, while I agree in principle with Stryer's last point, mistakes can happen, where are the checks and balances? IMO, every further video released/leaked/hyped and oversold with poor analysis by 'experts' just adds another bale onto the giant haystack that UFOlogists want us to believe still contains a needle... They do themselves their own disservice.
Click to expand...
To be fair I think some on this forum are guilty of that too. Some Ufologists (is that an offensive term?, apologies if it is) are certainly guilty. What gets me about this whole area (flat earth is easier to dismiss) is that both sides seem to make a lot of assumptions. The whole thing is so polarized that both sides dig their heels in.

Secondly the so called scientific research group, AARO are not being transparent enough in how exactly they are studying these cases and what data they have access to. I stand by my claim though, more data types, despite the fact some such as radar may have errors (what measurement doesn't) is better to deal with than one type of data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JMartJr
CBP UAP / UFO Video Release #1 [Hang Glider or Microlight]
Replies
10
Views
2K
Ann K
Ann K
S
CBP UAP / UFO Video Release #10
Replies
19
Views
3K
Doctor Franger
Doctor Franger
Mick West
Gimbal Range Fouler and Other Reports.
Replies
0
Views
1K
Mick West
Mick West
Mick West
AARO's Historical UAP Report - Volume 1
7 8 9
Replies
323
Views
17K
Ann K
Ann K
L
Deinterlacing The Navy UAP Videos
Replies
12
Views
968
john.phil
J

Latest posts

Back
Top