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.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

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.



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.

Fair enough.
If AARO's mandate is just to act as a bureaucratic reporting tool—bound by whatever the originating military agencies choose to keep classified—then it's simply not equipped to solve this from a scientific standpoint. If they can't access or share the raw telemetry, the debate will just keep spinning in circles. If we can only analyze the cases they solve as birds or balloons, we will never see the full picture. Thanks for the breakdown!

 

[Ann K]

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.

You "assume". The supposition that the "something" the reports are based on is something other than the boringly mundane (or for that matter, not an outright attempt at a hoax) is also unwarranted.

"We need" ...no we don't. You certainly don't. The fate of the western world does not depend upon whether you, personally, have your curiosity satisfied, nor upon whether we as a group make a correct decision about the identity of what's shown.

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

Nobody owes us an explanation. That's our avocation, not our job. If you vote in Luna's or Burchett's district, you might ask them, but we have no reason to think that any particular person in congress actually believes what they say, as opposed to "Some voters are curious about UFOs, so I'm going to demand an investigation and get my name in the paper." Even the true believers have never provided a compelling reason for their belief.

 

[NorCal Dave]

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.

Where did AARO claim this? The report you cited with a similar claim is NOT from AARO. It was from the UAP Task Force and was compiled before AARO existed. This, and the problems with the UAPTF were explained up-thread.

Only AAROs former directors is calling out Luna and that gang, but only after they left their position at AARO, for some reason.

Because AARO, and it's director, is congressionally mandated to answer to Congress. Not the public. AARO reports to Congress, not you or me. After leaving government, Kirkpatrick was free to say how he felt about his congressional overlords.

While they were directors, they were almost totally silent, and the current director is even worse.

He reports to Congress, not the media, not to you.

No transparency at all.

What part of the AARO legislation says it's supposed to be transparent? The law says that every person that goes to AARO with a UFO story, any UFO story no matter how silly, is automatically giving whistler-blower status and must remain anonymous. The opposite of transparency. We know Puthoof and Davis went to AARO and told some whoopers, but AARO can't reveal that.

DoD and IC is constantly called out by people like Luna and Grusch, and the other side gives no answer.

What answer is there to give? If there are no secret UFO programs, then all the DoD can do is say, there is no secret UFO program.

Grusch has made all sorts of claims, but thus far hasn't gone into a SCIF, hasn't gone to AARO, hasn't released his IG complaint status and even though he is on Burchett's (or maybe Burlison) staff, nothing, absolutely NOTHING, has ever come of his claims. They're just stories with no evidence. At what point is it the job of the UFO crowd to actually put up and show some actual real evidence, instead of just retelling the same old stories and demanding an answer for their un-evidenced stories?

If some congressman and an ex-military guy came out tomorrow and said the Navy is in possession of, and is hiding Godzilla, but offered no evidence for the claim, how much burden in on the Navy to prove they don't have Godzilla? Isn't it the one making the fantastic claim, that has the burden of proof?

 

[Ann K]

If AARO's mandate is just to act as a bureaucratic reporting tool—bound by whatever the originating military agencies choose to keep classified—then it's simply not equipped to solve this from a scientific standpoint.

Who is? Do you really think that people can possibly conduct a "scientific" study when they have nothing to study? No crashed spacecraft, no alien bodies to autopsy, and not even a scrap of either of those things? Do you really think that unverifiable eyewitness accounts and a few photos are likely to harbor enough info to be definitive, in an era where hubcaps on strings and reflected light fixtures are called "UFOs" and "motherships", in an era where photoshop has now been supplanted by AI?

 

[boringrealit]

Another thing. Why is Corbell allowed to release the videos Luna ask for, but DoD don't even want to admit exists? Who makes that decision?

My usual guess is that they aren't really secret or classified and that it just is a charade. But why do they make a charade where a random journalist is made to look like the Disclosure-hero, and DoD to look like the bad guys? It makes it look like there is some heroic struggle against the evil Secret Keepers at DoD, when DoD could have released it themselves, instead of allowing Corbell to do it. But DoD is just sitting quiet and letting Corbell play up the drama.

Something is clearly fishy here. DoD is playing passive while allowing or possibly even supporting the Disclosure gang. Fake drama.

Could it be that the UFO stuff is meant as some sort of cover up for the funding that has disappeared over the years? Nah, that sounds just silly, but something is very wrong here.

 

[boringrealit]

You "assume". The supposition that the "something" the reports are based on is something other than the boringly mundane (or for that matter, not an outright attempt at a hoax) is also unwarranted.

"We need" ...no we don't. You certainly don't. The fate of the western world does not depend upon whether you, personally, have your curiosity satisfied, nor upon whether we as a group make a correct decision about the identity of what's shown.

Nobody owes us an explanation. That's our avocation, not our job. If you vote in Luna's or Burchett's district, you might ask them, but we have no reason to think that any particular person in congress actually believes what they say, as opposed to "Some voters are curious about UFOs, so I'm going to demand an investigation and get my name in the paper." Even the true believers have never provided a compelling reason for their belief.

Now you are almost getting more paranoid than me. You think they just made everything up in the report? I guess that is possible, but wouldn't there be some sort of control within the USG?

"We need" if we are going to make any serious claim one way or another. We can't debunk without the facts.

Well, maybe they don't owe me any explanation, but they at least owe congress one, and maybe the American people too. Although, I understand that USA has more urgent issues right now than UFO-releases.

 

[NorCal Dave]

If AARO's mandate is just to act as a bureaucratic reporting tool—bound by whatever the originating military agencies choose to keep classified—then it's simply not equipped to solve this from a scientific standpoint

I don't think it's that bad, but it's not a scientific research organization like one would find at a University. I'd imagine Congress meant well, but also added their own little perks and tweeks creating what we have now. It is supposed to investigate and catalog UAP, whatever that is, and report back to Congress.

If they can't access or share the raw telemetry

My understanding is that they can access whatever they need for a giving claim or case, but they have no control over what of that information can be shared. So, they may investigate a video with some very highly classified data that they are aware of and have access to, but it's not going to be public and the data may even be limited or only certain members of Congress.

If you have the time, the video in this thread is very informative about how AARO was set up, what it does and maybe more importantly what it can't do:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/se...ro-a-duality-in-mission-regarding-uaps.14912/

 

[boringrealit]

Where did AARO claim this? The report you cited with a similar claim is NOT from AARO. It was from the UAP Task Force and was compiled before AARO existed. This, and the problems with the UAPTF were explained up-thread.



Because AARO, and it's director, is congressionally mandated to answer to Congress. Not the public. AARO reports to Congress, not you or me. After leaving government, Kirkpatrick was free to say how he felt about his congressional overlords.



He reports to Congress, not the media, not to you.



What part of the AARO legislation says it's supposed to be transparent? The law says that every person that goes to AARO with a UFO story, any UFO story no matter how silly, is automatically giving whistler-blower status and must remain anonymous. The opposite of transparency. We know Puthoof and Davis went to AARO and told some whoopers, but AARO can't reveal that.



What answer is there to give? If there are no secret UFO programs, then all the DoD can do is say, there is no secret UFO program.

Grusch has made all sorts of claims, but thus far hasn't gone into a SCIF, hasn't gone to AARO, hasn't released his IG complaint status and even though he is on Burchett's (or maybe Burlison) staff, nothing, absolutely NOTHING, has ever come of his claims. They're just stories with no evidence. At what point is it the job of the UFO crowd to actually put up and show some actual real evidence, instead of just retelling the same old stories and demanding an answer for their un-evidenced stories?

If some congressman and an ex-military guy came out tomorrow and said the Navy is in possession of, and is hiding Godzilla, but offered no evidence for the claim, how much burden in on the Navy to prove they don't have Godzilla? Isn't it the one making the fantastic claim, that has the burden of proof?

I didn't mean AARO there, USG, or DoD, or wait, wasn't it ODNI that UAPTF was placed under? Well, whoever is in charge.

Nevertheless, as established by law and in accordance with direction from the Secretary of War, AARO places a heavy emphasis on transparency in facilitating the declassification and release of information so the public can see the results of AARO's reviews for themselves.

AARO is also working closely with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to transfer UAP-related records for permanent storage and public access, thus further promoting transparency in accordance with existing law.

AARO seeks to build trust through increased openness and analytic rigor as it executes its important national security mission. AARO will continue to demonstrate its commitment to transparency by publishing declassified information, engaging with partners across the U.S.Government, and transferring records to public archives

https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/Information Papers/AARO_Declassification_Info_Paper_2025.pdf

They could answer to the accusations and explain somehow why they aren't complying.

Grusch has been in SCIF. He has had contact with AARO, but I don't think there was much love there. I don't know why his full complain haven't been released. As usual, things aren't clear. For some reason.

If Godzilla had the same following as UFOs and people actually was convinced that it was real, then they should do their best to show the research and whatever he claim to have.

 

[JMartJr]

I doubt Gofast, Flir1/Tick-tack and Gimbal would be enough, but I don't know how they think. None of them performed any spectacular maneuvers

BUT... they were initially claimed to show incredible speed skimming low over the ocean, amazing acceleration and strange and mysterious rotation while in flight, respectively, by UFOdom. It took some amount of work to demonstrate that this was not the case for any of them. Aguadilla was supposed to show amazing rapid trans-medium flight dipping in and out of the ocean... until the work was put in to show that the objects were over land and drifting along at wind speed. Stars and a plane were presented as mysterious pyramidal flying objects.

Despite pretty thorough debunking, these videos and other are still presented as evidence by many in the media and in UFOdom.

My working hypothesis is that various members of Congress, shown equally mundane but odd looking videos, are likely to have been equally fooled by what they have been shown. If I'm wrong, they are at liberty to prove it... they have access to the evidence not me! Leakers, leak the actual proof.. Members of Congress, secure the release of this amazing evidence. Until then, claims of "I have seen all this amazing evidence, trust me bro," will be "No, I don't think I will."

 

[John J.]

If we can only analyze the cases they solve as birds or balloons, we will never see the full picture.

It's possible the full picture is birds, balloons, other people's drones, misunderstandings of visible spectrum imagery of intense IR sources etc. etc.
If this is the case, we still learn something from working out what is being seen/ detected/ reported as UAP.
We know military personnel including pilots and radar operators can make serious misidentifications, just like anyone else. The evidence is irrefutable, and sometimes mistaken interpretations of what is seen or detected has lead to much more serious consequences than wondering if an alien craft has been witnessed.

The fact that we don't seem to have any evidence definitely indicating anything more exotic might be an indication there isn't anything exotic to be seen.
If Earth isn't being visited by extraterrestrials, no amount of transparency, skywatching or other or investigative initiatives will reveal that it is.

Could it be that the UFO stuff is meant as some sort of cover up for the funding that has disappeared over the years?

If we're talking about the $22 million awarded to AAWSAP/ AATIP, at the behest of Senators Larry Reid, Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye, I think that's a very good question. A significant part of that money went to companies owned by Reid's friend Rob Bigelow, who in turn commissioned 38 papers that are all (bar one, about lasers) in the public realm. None of the papers advanced our knowledge of UFOs, or the possibility of extraterrestrial life, one jot; nor did they provide much of use in terms of understanding potential (human) adversary technology.
A number were authored by/ connected to people who have track records in getting funding for research which supported extraordinary claims but which couldn't be replicated and has led nowhere.
Whether "the UFO stuff is meant as some sort of cover up for the funding..." might be a question for Elizondo, Bigelow and others,

 

[Andreas]

or we just cannot assume those remaining cases are LIZ as well without even looking. Assuming everything is a lack of data before analyzing it is just not something I would personally do.

What good does it do to guess (and hope?) that videos and documents we don't even know exist would potentially show something anomalous? We have the declassified material to study, and skeptics have already done a great job analyzing most of those videos. But when the evidence doesn't hold up to scrutiny, there are always people who claim that new evidence is just around the corner.

People in the UFO community have talked about fantastic things for as long as anyone can remember. They have claimed and hoped, but they haven't been able to provide any conclusive evidence to back up those claims. Rumors about well-documented, multi-sensor cases are worth noting, and such rumors don't change the fact that the material we have been given access to, for the most part, appears to be misinterpretations of mundane phenomena.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

What good does it do to guess (and hope?) that videos and documents we don't even know exist would potentially show something anomalous? We have the declassified material to study, and skeptics have already done a great job analyzing most of those videos. But when the evidence doesn't hold up to scrutiny, there are always people who claim that new evidence is just around the corner.

People in the UFO community have talked about fantastic things for as long as anyone can remember. They have claimed and hoped, but they haven't been able to provide any conclusive evidence to back up those claims. Rumors about well-documented, multi-sensor cases are worth noting, and such rumors don't change the fact that the material we have been given access to, for the most part, appears to be misinterpretations of mundane phenomena.

Without having the actual data, I won't assume it's balloons and birds by default.
If that qualifies as 'believing' in something, then we might need to discuss definitions first.

 

[Eburacum]

Without having the actual data, I won't assume it's balloons and birds by default

After eighty years of disappointment, the null hypothesis seems like a reasonable assumption.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

After eighty years of disappointment, the null hypothesis seems like a reasonable assumption.

An assumption based on 'eighty years of disappointment' is an emotional stance, not the null hypothesis. But yeah, to each his own.

 

[JMartJr]

Without having the actual data, I won't assume it's balloons and birds by default.

My working hypothesis will be that it is more birds and balloons and stars and distant planes... always subject to being proven wrong.

But it's been birds and balloons so far, and we know that birds and balloons exist. An extraordinary claim that THIS time it was something else, arising from evidence they can see but I can't -- I'll discount that unless/until it is made evident.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Who is? Do you really think that people can possibly conduct a "scientific" study when they have nothing to study? No crashed spacecraft, no alien bodies to autopsy, and not even a scrap of either of those things? Do you really think that unverifiable eyewitness accounts and a few photos are likely to harbor enough info to be definitive, in an era where hubcaps on strings and reflected light fixtures are called "UFOs" and "motherships", in an era where photoshop has now been supplanted by AI?

Do you assume "anomalies" MUST be aliens?
I don't.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

My working hypothesis will be that it is more birds and balloons and stars and distant planes... always subject to being proven wrong.

But it's been birds and balloons so far, and we know that birds and balloons exist. An extraordinary claim that THIS time it was something else, arising from evidence they can see but I can't -- I'll discount that unless/until it is made evident.

I didn't make the "anomalous" claim, again, AARO did.
Whatever the F they mean.

 

[Gary C]

I didn't make the "anomalous" claim, again, AARO did.
Whatever the F they mean.

Fair but one interpretation of AARO's use of "anomalous' is dead end. They've looked at all the actual data they have, requested related material from other government agencies and there is nothing else to be done with case files, classified or not.