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.