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

[jarlrmai]

Do you think only the military operates instruments that gather data?

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Do you think only the military operates instruments that gather data?

Of course not. But there is a fundamental difference between civilian scientific instruments and tactical surveillance networks.
Academic institutions point telescopes at specific deep-space targets for astrophysics or track known orbital satellites; they do not operate all-sky, low-altitude air defense radar networks or classified early-warning satellite constellations. Airspace monitoring is a matter of national sovereignty, strictly managed by military and aviation authorities who do not share raw, classified telemetry with civilian universities.
As far as I know, this is something civilian science simply hasn't done in 80 years of history.

 

[jarlrmai]

Of course not. But there is a fundamental difference between civilian scientific instruments and tactical surveillance networks.
Academic institutions point telescopes at specific deep-space targets for astrophysics or track known orbital satellites; they do not operate all-sky, low-altitude air defense radar networks or classified early-warning satellite constellations. Airspace monitoring is a matter of national sovereignty, strictly managed by military and aviation authorities who do not share raw, classified telemetry with civilian universities.
As far as I know, this is something civilian science simply hasn't done in 80 years of history.

Astronomy is not limited to deep space there's a lot of wide angle astronomy;

Vera C. Rubin, ZTF for transients (at Palomar ala the recent controversial transients linked to nuclear tests study), Pan-STARRS, ATLAS etc

Then there's web camera networks, volcano/wildlife etc monitoring cameras, weather RADAR and ocean/climate stations that are non military.

Not to mention billions of people now with camera phones, of course they are less capable than military systems however it seems likely there would be SOME data that would stick out somewhere, especially given the application of current consumer/commerical technology to the same type of encounters reported and recorded many decades ago when there was much less and lower quality recording technology around.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Astronomy is not limited to deep space there's a lot of wide angle astronomy;

Vera C. Rubin, ZTF for transients (at Palomar ala the recent controversial transients linked to nuclear tests study), Pan-STARRS, ATLAS etc

Then there's web camera networks, volcano/wildlife etc monitoring cameras, weather RADAR and ocean/climate stations that are non military.

Not to mention billions of people now with camera phones, of course they are less capable than military systems however it seems likely there would be SOME data that would stick out somewhere, especially given the application of current consumer/commerical technology to the same type of encounters reported and recorded many decades ago when there was much less and lower quality recording technology around.

I see your point.

However, none of those systems are calibrated to track atmospheric anomalies. Wide-angle astronomy looks for deep-space transients, weather radars filter out aircraft-sized clutter, and consumer cameras lack telemetry.
That is precisely why the NASA UAP Report explicitly stated that UAP analysis is hampered by "poor sensor calibration, the lack of multiple measurements, and the lack of baseline data."
If civilian networks or commercial tech were sufficient, NASA wouldn't have concluded that science completely lacks the necessary baseline data.

 

[jarlrmai]

The problem is the UFOs can (and do) always just move into the gaps and low information zones of whatever sensors you have deployed.

However at some point you sort of have to do a reset, you take all these reports and recordings from the past and say, if there was something to these and they were still happening we'd now have data, so either the UFOs adapt to the increasing quality and volume of recording devices just staying on the edge, or they are just the inevitable result of the imperfections of all sensing technology.

And the NASA report when taken to it's logical conclusion really just misses out on saying that all sensors are imperfect. Could more cases be solved with better networks, probably, but likely more would emerge.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

The problem is the UFOs can (and do) always just move into the gaps and low information zones of whatever sensors you have deployed.

However at some point you sort of have to do a reset, you take all these reports and recordings from the past and say, if there was something to these and they were still happening we'd now have data, so either the UFOs adapt to the increasing quality and volume of recording devices just staying on the edge, or they are just the inevitable result of the imperfections of all sensing technology.

And the NASA report when taken to it's logical conclusion really just misses out on saying that all sensors are imperfect. Could more cases be solved with better networks, probably, but likely more would emerge.

Exactly.
By admitting that we are dealing with "low information zones" and "imperfect sensing technology", you are confirming my point: civilian science has simply never had the calibrated, high-quality data networks needed for a rigorous study in the previous 80 years of history.
All sensors are imperfect, sure, but saying that people have been doing good science on UFOs for the past 50/40 years is not correct.

 

[Nourali]

Academic science is being conducted every day by real astronomers, physicists, and engineers. Obviously, they're (for the most part) not studying flying saucers and space ghosts, because these are not real things, but they teach us more about our reality every single day. I have no reason to believe that the global community of astronomers is hiding the existence of candy-shaped objects in our atmosphere, or dinner-plate-shaped craft running around kidnapping our cows. And people working in aviation safety aren't worried about airliners colliding with intergalactic Tic Tacs. That's not because they're part of some government cover-up. It's because they study actual threats to air safety.

Studying the videos released by the Pentagon, on the other hand, is more about understanding military platforms and systems, learning how to identify different types of clutter and malfunctions, and developing new systems better suited for an airspace filled with a growing number of small objects such as balloons, drones, and aircraft. And a lot of engineers are doing just that, since it's an important part of modern warfare. This research is obviously classified; anything else would be misconduct.

There are many more-or-less-skilled people around the world studying the UFO phenomenon out of personal interest, often organized into various groups. In Sweden, we have the (surprisingly scientific) UFO Sverige. Last year, they received just over 300 UFO reports, and the results of their investigations were as follows: 64.81% were not investigated due to a lack of data or credibility, 27.04% were identified as IFOs, 7.41% were considered probable IFOs, and 0.74% were categorized as "difficult to assess." In other words, there's not really anything left for the scientific community to investigate here.

Sorry for the long post, but I'm tired of people claiming that the "UFO phenomenon" isn't researched scientifically because of government secrecy and stigma.

For the stigma :
First, the stigma is not imaginary. NASA's 2023 independent UAP report explicitly identified stigma as a problem because it can reduce reporting and therefore lead to data loss.

Using UFO Sverige to say there's no stigma in science around UFOs is a bit of a stretch. It's cool that a civilian group can do serious work, and I'm not dismissing that at all, but that's not the same thing as saying the subject is normally studied in universities, astronomy departments, aerospace research, or aviation-safety institutions.
There's also a very simple reason why the topic may be under-studied: not just stigma, but priorities and resources. For example, French Air Force general Serge Cholley recently said that some colleagues at the DRM, France's military intelligence directorate, wanted the UFO topic to be investigated more seriously. His answer was basically that there were other things to deal with. That's actually revealing.

And honestly, if you want to use an example of serious, standardized UFO investigation, UFO Sverige is not the strongest one. The best civilian/institutional example is probably the French GEIPAN, linked to CNES, and that's exactly the point: it's an exception, not the norm. Even GEIPAN has had limited resources over the years, and its work does not support your conclusion that there is "nothing left" for science to investigate. It shows something much more nuanced: most cases are explained or too weak to evaluate properly, but a small category remains unexplained after investigation.

Even if GEIPAN as an institution does not officially say "it's aliens," Claude Poher, who founded GEPAN before GEIPAN, leaned toward the idea that some unexplained cases involved real physical objects of unknown origin. Jean-Jacques Velasco, who later headed GEPAN/SEPRA, also defended the extraterrestrial hypothesis as a serious possibility and was involved with the COMETA report. Yves Sillard, former CNES director general and later president of GEIPAN's steering committee, also treated the subject as a serious scientific and institutional issue. Jacques Patenet, another former GEIPAN head, acknowledged that a small number of cases still deserved the name "UFO" even after investigation. Gilles Munsch, for example, a GEIPAN field investigator and retired mechanical-engineering professor, has said that some cases he worked on still leave him perplexed.

It's in French, but you can easily get a translation. There are around a hundred D and D1 cases available. Unlike AARO, GEIPAN publishes the actual investigation reports, so you can go through the cases yourself, review the evidence, read the investigators' reasoning

The aviation safety point is also oversimplified. Air traffic systems and radars are not designed to "detect everything in the sky" and preserve every weird return for scientific analysis. They are designed to create a usable picture of relevant air traffic. Radar systems filter clutter: ground returns, weather, birds, false plots, noise, and other unwanted returns. That is necessary, otherwise operators would drown in useless information.
So the argument "if UAP were real, civilian aviation radar would see them all the time and everyone would panic" is naive. Small objects, slow objects, low-altitude objects, non-cooperative objects without transponders, intermittent returns, or objects with unusual signatures may be filtered, misclassified, ignored, or not displayed in a useful way.

Brett Feddersen, former senior aviation and national-security official, associated with FAA national security and aviation security roles said "I can say through my experience that we are absolutely not alone in this universe." He also presents UAP as a national security and aviation safety concern.
This isn't proof, but I don't know how you can make such a confident argument about aviation security when a senior figure who worked at the highest levels of aviation security has said something like this.

O'Hare 2006 case, the FOIA-released tower audio shows that the report of a "flying disc" near gate C17 was treated with jokes and embarrassment, including the line: "I haven't seen anything, and if I did I wouldn't admit to it." That is basically stigma in real time. At first, the FAA reportedly said it had no information, but after a Chicago Tribune FOIA request, internal communications confirmed that the report had been discussed. The FAA then dismissed it as a likely weather phenomenon and declined to investigate further because it was not seen on radar or by the tower...


For the UFOs cases :
I think identified UFO cases are actually a strong argument for the reliability of genuinely unexplained UFO reports.

Why? Because explained cases show that witnesses do not simply make things up. The vast majority of reports investigated by the GEIPAN eventually receive a conventional explanation. When an observation involves an aircraft, a drone, a satellite, a meteor, a lantern, a drone, an astronomical object, or a perceptual error, investigators are usually able to identify it.

That is important because it means witness testimony, despite low or very average consistency in most cases, contains enough useful information and reliable description to allow an identification.
Of course, witnesses make mistakes. They frequently misjudge distance, size, and speed, especially at night, when objects are far away, and when there are no visual reference points. But this does not mean witnesses are useless or delusional. Most of the time, they describe the basic characteristics of what they observed surprisingly well.

Someone reporting a Starlink train is generally not going to claim they saw a Tic Tac UFO making impossible 90-degree turns before disappearing into space piloted by aliens. Instead, they will typically say something like: "I saw a line of lights, evenly spaced, crossing the sky over a certain period of time. It looked strange because I'd never seen anything like it before." They may misjudge the true distance and therefore the true speed, but they are still describing Starlink reasonably accurately. They are not inventing an entirely different phenomenon.

And the more consistent (actionable information such as the time, direction of travel, azimuth, duration, and other details that can be investigated) an observation is, the more useful the testimony becomes. Some of them are also very reliable (multiple witnesses, extended duration, relative proximity, detailed descriptions, favorable observation conditions, radar data...)

This is where the real problem begins for hardline skeptics.
A small but significant residual category of cases remains unexplained. These cases are not simply vague stories with insufficient information. On the contrary, some of them are among the most detailed, coherent, and well-documented UFO reports available. Yet they remain unidentified despite serious investigation.

The 2014 Bornel case in France is a good example.
In this case, two witnesses observed a silent luminous phenomenon displaying an orange glow. The primary witness initially believed he was observing an aircraft in distress, but quickly noticed characteristics that did not fit that interpretation. He described a bright orange object moving silently beneath a cloud layer before eventually perceiving a black triangular shape, he made a drawing of what he saw. The observation lasted long enough to allow detailed examination rather than a brief glimpse.

"Sketch, observer's point of view"

A photograph was taken during the event. Although the image itself is not conclusive, it does show a luminous source that broadly corresponds to the witnesses' account.
The GEIPAN report also mentions a strange detail concerning the witnesses' dog. During the sighting itself, the dog reportedly showed no reaction. However, in the day that followed, she stopped eating for three days, developed a large patch of hair loss with eczema for about eight days, and still had minor skin problems two months later.
Investigators did not dismiss the case as lacking information. The GEIPAN considered the testimony sufficiently consistent and reliable to conduct a thorough investigation. The primary witness was regarded as particularly credible due to his observational abilities and professional background. Cognitive interviews and on-site investigations revealed no significant inconsistencies.

When conventional explanations were examined, none proved satisfactory.
The GEIPAN concluded that no rational explanation clearly fit the available evidence. The drone hypothesis was described essentially as the "least bad" explanation, not because it strongly matched the observations, but because drones are such a broad category that almost any shape or lighting configuration can theoretically be imagined. Even then, the investigators considered the hypothesis weak and acknowledged that other explanations were even less convincing.

The Bornel case is also not isolated. Reports involving "black triangles" have appeared repeatedly over decades. Some involve multiple witnesses, relatively close-range observations, extended durations, physical effects, and with recurring features that are both specific and relatively obscure. All of these cases were investigated and ultimately classified as D or D1 cases.
Villers-lès-Luxeuil, 2019 : two witnesses reported a large, dark, silent triangular structure, almost stationary at low altitude, under 100 meters, with a white light at the front and a fixed red light. The object reportedly tilted on itself before disappearing.

Buchelay, 2003 : one witness described a large triangular object with nine orange rings. The object reportedly remained stationary for a few seconds, tilted about 45 degrees, then rose rapidly and disappeared.

Ussy-sur-Marne case, 1994 : Even more striking. Three gendarmes on patrol saw lights above the motorway, approached them, and then distinguished a stationary dark triangular object. After they stopped their vehicle, the object reportedly came closer and hovered above the car. When they started driving again, it left very quickly and became only a point in the distance. The report also mentions a temporary failure of their communication equipment during part of the observation, with no noise and no smoke.

Neufchâtel-en-Bray, 1994 : a motorist first saw two dark pyramid-like shapes, apparently stationary at a distance, then later a third black triangular shape flying above his car at around 80 km/h before accelerating and disappearing, This occurred only three days after Ussy-sur-Marne.

Neuvelle-lès-Lure, 1989 : three witnesses reported a large dark triangular object with three headlights and a central red point. It was silent, stayed stationary for a short time, tilted about 45 degrees, then left at high speed. A fighter aircraft was also reportedly seen in the area around the same time.

La Source, 1980 : two witnesses reported a dark triangular object moving silently at low altitude. After being visible for a short period, it tilted and disappeared rapidly. Again, the pattern is familiar: triangle, silence, low altitude, tilt, sudden departure.

And thats not all the black triangular D cases the GEIPAN have.

This match Dylan Borland's testimony and the cases described by Tim Phillips and Jon T. Kosloski.
With the ase involving a local law enforcement officer who reportedly saw a glowing orange orb several hundred feet above the ground. As the officer drove closer to investigate, he then saw a "blacker than black" triangular prism about 40 to 60 meters away. The object reportedly "reared up" at a 45-degree angle, then shot upward into the sky faster than anything the officer had ever seen.

I honestly don't know how you can look at all of this and still say, with 100% confidence, that there is nothing there, no stigma, no serious issue, and simply "nothing to see here."

 

[jarlrmai]

Exactly.
By admitting that we are dealing with "low information zones" and "imperfect sensing technology", you are confirming my point: civilian science has simply never had the calibrated, high-quality data networks needed for a rigorous study in the previous 80 years of history.
All sensors are imperfect, sure, but saying that people have been doing good science on UFOs for the past 50/40 years is not correct.

No-one does or ever will, UFOs will just move to the gaps.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

To be fair, i don't really like the typical false dichotomy of "either it's aliens or just prosaic clutter and conspiracy theories".
It's just illogic, to me.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

No-one does or ever will, UFOs will just move to the gaps.

Declaring a phenomenon permanently unknowable before even deploying the right sensors isn't just scientific in my opinion.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Why? Because explained cases show that witnesses do not simply make things up. The vast majority of reports investigated by the GEIPAN eventually receive a conventional explanation. When an observation involves an aircraft, a drone, a satellite, a meteor, a lantern, a drone, an astronomical object, or a perceptual error, investigators are usually able to identify it.

This only show that when witnesses give good enough informations the cases can get resolved. It does not mean that when cases remained unresolved the witnesses gave good informations.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

This only show that when witnesses give good enough informations the cases can get resolved. It does not mean that when cases remained unresolved the witnesses gave good informations.

I actually agree with you, but:
GEIPAN's official methodology specifically defines Category D cases as anomalous precisely because of the quantity and reliability of the data.
Furthermore, GEIPAN is a civilian branch of CNES; just like AARO, if the French military captures highly sensitive or weapon-system telemetry during an event, that data remains classified and never makes it to GEIPAN's public database. We are fundamentally dealing with the exact same data-sharing restrictions.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Here's the official GEIPAN methodology criteria for D cases.
Do I claim this proves anomalies? No.
This just proves that science on these supposed anomalies can be done but it has historically been hindered by military secrecy anyway.
While roughly 98% of solved cases turned out to be mostly clutter, there are still roughly 2% of difficult-to-explain (I don't like "unexplainable" definitions) cases that persist even with supposed good data.
However, that good, raw, scientifically shared and verifiable data is precisely what is possibly classified.
I think "80 years of investigations" needs to be better defined if we are making assumptions here on LIZ that we cannot fully access.
I won't say these 80 years history on UFOs is disappointing, it's only disappointing if you look at it from the "alien beings from space" perspective.

 

[JMartJr]

Debunking "their aliens" is kinda like "debunking god" for Christians.
It's just impossible, no amount of evidence supporting other plausible claims is ever gonna convince them of anything.
No amount of data would change their mind, if their belief is based on faith.

I'd differentiate between debunking the existence of aliens or God, and debunking that a particular incident resulted from aliens flying by or a direct intervention by God. The latter seems doable, and more likely to be accepted by at least some believers. The former seems difficult to do.

 

[FatPhil]

Never said is worth believing, just pointing out that it has been said.

So by "That's all I'm saying." you meant "But I'm not saying that"?
More clarity required.

I notice that your responses to several people have basically been "that's not what I'm saying", so lack of clarity seems to be a systemic issue. Maybe find some common ground, and try to work out where we deviate when expanding away from that common ground?

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I'd differentiate between debunking the existence of aliens or God, and debunking that a particular incident resulted from aliens flying by or a direct intervention by God. The latter seems doable, and more likely to be accepted by at least some believers. The former seems difficult to do.

Fair distinction. I completely agree with that framing. Debunking specific events with hard data is absolutely doable and necessary. My point was strictly about the general, faith-based belief system, which, as you noted, remains virtually impossible to change.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

So by "That's all I'm saying." you meant "But I'm not saying that"?
More clarity required.

I notice that your responses to several people have basically been "that's not what I'm saying", so lack of clarity seems to be a systemic issue. Maybe find some common ground, and try to work out where we deviate when expanding away from that common ground?

What I meant is that I do not claim that there is definitive proof of yet unexplained phenomena in the UFO topic.
I know no more than you do, I'm pointing out that if that was the case, we still had to go through data which, in most cases, is reserved to the military and classified for obvious reasons.
I pointed out the "real anomalous" statements by AARO, because they seem to indicate that there could be interesting data (or not?) but it is in most cases not accessible by the public.
Also, I highlighted how PURSUE and all the "declassification programs" have no real interest in sharing interesting scientific data that could reveal how their sensors work.
My whole point is:
There could be interesting data from a scientific point of view, but, it will often remain inaccessible because of security policy and actionable data that will likely never come out.