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

[Ann K]

Without more complete info, drawing a final conclusion either way is just a premature assumption rather than an objective verdict.

But your (premature) assumption is that "believe in the possibility" is somehow the default position. I disagree, categorically. The tales of "something mysterious", however that's defined, are surely the extraordinary claims for which extraordinary evidence is required ...and therefore it's up to the claimants to produce it, which they have not done, even in the present day when decent cameras are to be found on phones in almost everyone's pocket.

There is no two-way equivalence, no "either way" about the matter, any more than you would feel justified in saying "I've never seen a unicorn or a leprechaun or a pixie or a Flying Spaghetti Monster nor has anyone I know, but I can't rule them out on the basis of incomplete evidence".

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Remember, the redacting has nothing to do with AARO. They have all the access they need, supposedly, but after that, it is up to the various agencies where these videos likely originate to handle the declassification, if any. If the Air Force wants stuff redacted from Reaper drone videos, that's their prerogative.

Do we know if AARO really only has those redacted videos we see, or have access to telemetry or more unredacted data?

But your (premature) assumption is that "believe in the possibility" is somehow the default position. I disagree, categorically. The tales of "something mysterious", however that's defined, are surely the extraordinary claims for which extraordinary evidence is required ...and therefore it's up to the claimants to produce it, which they have not done, even in the present day when decent cameras are to be found on phones in almost everyone's pocket.

There is no two-way equivalence, no "either way" about the matter, any more than you would feel justified in saying "I've never seen a unicorn or a leprechaun or a pixie or a Flying Spaghetti Monster nor has anyone I know, but I can't rule them out on the basis of incomplete evidence".

I made no assumption that something "mysterious" like the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
With respect, equating UAP to unicorns or leprechauns is a false equivalence. Military radar networks and FLIR sensors do not track mythological creatures.
Suspending judgment when analyzing redacted files that lack telemetry is not a leap of faith; it is simply proper scientific caution. Declaring a definitive conclusion based on incomplete data is fundamentally no different than making a premature assumption.
For the videos we have so far, I agree they're not conclusive.

 

[Ann K]

In short: we want reliable data and research, not random garbage that AARO has dropped so far. We want this to become a science question and not... whatever it is now.

Once again, the elephant in the room is your unwarranted assumption that "reliable data and research" exist at all. What you refer to as "random garbage" may be all that remains at the bottom of the barrel, and the best info they have ever had might be the stuff that has already been largely debunked. It cannot be a "science question" without some evidence, and as it stands it's more of a philosophy question, not at all an absorbing interest to real scientists.

 

[Ann K]

Military radar networks and FLIR sensors do not track mythological creatures.

So far we have seen that they do track balloons and birds.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

So far we have seen that they do track balloons and birds.

They surely do!

 

[boringrealit]

Once again, the elephant in the room is your unwarranted assumption that "reliable data and research" exist at all. What you refer to as "random garbage" may be all that remains at the bottom of the barrel, and the best info they have ever had might be the stuff that has already been largely debunked. It cannot be a "science question" without some evidence, and as it stands it's more of a philosophy question, not at all an absorbing interest to real scientists.

They made reports, so I assume it is based on something. Whatever it is, we need to see it to decide if it is correct or not.

If what AARO released actually was all that they have, then there need to be some sort of explanation why they claimed that there are 80 or so cases with multiple sensor data.

Besides that, there is also the videos Luna asked for (which I don't expect much from) that should be released, or at the very least get an explanation for why they aren't released. If there isn't more than the bottom of the barrel, then why are congress people talking about better videos, who tricked them?

Whatever the truth is, something shady is going on. They refuse to meet up and openly sort things out, for some reason. DoD and IC is constantly called out by people like Luna and Grusch, and the other side gives no answer. Only AAROs former directors is calling out Luna and that gang, but only after they left their position at AARO, for some reason. While they were directors, they were almost totally silent, and the current director is even worse. No transparency at all. They seem to try to make things worse. Leaving walkover to the UFO crowd.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Do we know if AARO really only has those redacted videos we see, or have access to telemetry or more unredacted data?

I would imagine that varies case by case. Again, classification, redaction and de-classifying are NOT controlled by AARO. Corbell has leaked a few of these videos without redaction, so it's safe to assume some exist in that form. As for "telemetry" or any other data not included in the actual video, it's probably case by case. If someone just uploaded a drone video of a submarine with some birds, there may be nothing more to it. I guess one could spend hours or days trying to track down where the video originated, but what's the point? It's a submarine with birds.

Suspending judgment when analyzing redacted files that lack telemetry is not a leap of faith; it is simply proper scientific caution. Declaring a definitive conclusion based on incomplete data is fundamentally no different than making a premature assumption.

I think this is another misconception people have and has come up in other threads about AARO. Congress created AARO with specific mandates and rules to operate under. The important thing is it wasn't created to do "science" in the formal way we think about it. They were not charged with producing peer-reviewed scientific papers that are acceptable for publication in mainstream journals.

They were mandated, in simple terms, to look into UAP, past and present and then report to Congress. That included a historical review (again), standing up a central reporting system, and investigating claims of UAP, whether video or whistle-blower derived. ANY one that went to AARO with a UAP story, was granted whistle-blower status by default, and were anonymous and could not be investigated.

Any evidence obtained or sent to AARO from US assets, like Reaper drones, could be analyzed, but is under the classification structure of the agency where it originated. AARO may have some videos that included lots of other data, but if the originating agency wants that classified, it's going to remain classified.

Someone was haranguing AARO in a thread about their first report, for not including ALL the raw data about the TTSA sample they looked at. They were complaining that "withholding" the raw data was not how science is done. But it wasn't science, it was a report to Congress. They told Congress, and by default us, that they tested the sample, it was unremarkable and clearly not from a UFO. That's all Congress needed per the congressional mandate that created AARO.