On March 6, 2026, eight members of the U.S. House of Representatives requested access to 51 potentially UAP-related records allegedly held by the Department of War and the Intelligence Community. The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) identified a collection of responsive materials held on a classified network. Among these materials was PR052, a video record described as "UAP USO Formation [CALLSIGN] (Mission)."
The case was publicly released by the Department of War on May 22, 2026 via the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS) as part of Release 02 — the second tranche of unresolved UAP reports made public under a Department of War disclosure initiative. The released material consists of sensor video footage documenting the unidentified contact.
The case was submitted to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) for formal assessment as part of the office's centralized UAP reporting pipeline. PR052 is derived from a infrared sensor aboard a U.S. military platform . AARO reviews all reports submitted by military branches and combatant commands, applying standardized analytical criteria to determine whether observed objects or phenomena can be identified as conventional aircraft, drones, atmospheric phenomena, or sensor artifacts, or whether they exhibit genuinely anomalous characteristics warranting further investigation.
The analysis was limited by the quality and duration of the available sensor data and the absence of corroborating multi-sensor data. As with many single-sensor UAP reports, the inability to cross-reference with radar tracking, electronic warfare systems, or other intelligence sources constrained the depth of analytical conclusions that could be reached. AARO has noted that this media was digitally altered prior to its upload to a classified network, adding further uncertainty to the assessment.
00:08:16
This media was digitally altered prior to its upload to a classified network, and is presented as received. 00:00-00:05: Four areas of contrast transit the frame from the bottom third of the left side to the bottom third of the right side of the frame. 00:06-00:38: The video appears to cut, refocusing on four areas of contrast. Visual elements of the sensor display enter and exit the frame. 00:39-06:08: The video seems to cut multiple times, applying various contrast filters and zoom levels. Visual elements of the sensor display enter and exit the frame. 06:09-06:50: The sensor zooms in on four areas of contrast. 06:51-08:10: The areas of contrast become increasingly indistinct over time as the video quality degrades. 08:11-08:15: Video appears to cut, or zoom out, likely cutting to an earlier portion of the video, with the areas of contrast more visible.
This video description is provided for informational purposes only. Readers should not interpret any part of this description as reflecting an analytical judgment, investigative conclusion, or factual determination regarding the described event's validity, nature, or significance.
The official conclusion of AARO is that this case remains an unresolved UAP report. The available video footage does not provide sufficient evidence to conclusively identify the object as any specific conventional platform, nor does it contain observable characteristics that can be definitively categorized as anomalous. The designation "unresolved" reflects the determination that the available evidence is insufficient to reach a positive identification or to rule out conventional explanations.
This case is representative of a category of AARO reports involving single-sensor detections where the duration and quality of the available data are inadequate to support a definitive analytical conclusion. Such cases remain open in AARO's case management system and may be revisited if additional data becomes available.
- Q.01What was the true nature of the object captured in the sensor video footage? Without independent sensor data — including radar tracking, electronic warfare system returns, or corroborating optical observations — it is impossible to determine the object’s range, velocity, altitude, or physical composition. The available single video footage alone is insufficient to distinguish between a conventional object and something outside the known performance envelope.
- Q.02What additional sensor data from the recording platform exists but has not been publicly released? Military sensor platforms typically carry multiple sensor systems operating simultaneously. Whether radar, electronic support measures, or other onboard sensors captured contemporaneous data, and what that data might reveal, has not been addressed in any official public statement about this case.
- Q.03What information has been redacted from this record, and how does that redaction affect the completeness of the public record? The presence of redacted visual elements and redacted callsigns in the released material means that the public cannot fully assess the operational context in which this recording was made, including the specific platform type, unit identity, or mission parameters.
- Q.04What specific military platform and sensor system captured this recording? While AARO has assessed the general type of sensor involved, the specific platform, its operational mission at the time of the recording, and the sensor operator’s contemporaneous observations have not been disclosed, limiting the ability to independently assess the object’s characteristics.
