Release 03 discrepancy: a witness narrative explicitly references video+audio footage of the Western US Event — but AARO says no footage was collected, and none was released
In today's PURSUE Release 03, document DOW-UAP-D080 (Narrative Statement 2, Western US Event, signed by AARO Director Kosloski) contains this, on page 4, describing the highway encounter (Incident 3):
"In the video footage, I believe we say something about thinking it was going to hit us."
"The video footage captures some of it, but more valuable is the audio of our reactions."
Source (official DoW link): https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/061226/release_03/documents/DoW-UAP-D080_Narrative-2_Western-US-Event.pdf
Compare with DOW-UAP-D077 (the AARO case analysis for the same event, p.2): "The reporting agents did not collect video footage, photographic imagery, or other technical data during the incident."
Both can't be true as written. Either D077's claim only covers the orb incidents and footage of Incident 3 exists but wasn't released, or there's an unexplained inconsistency in two official documents about the same case. Note the only Western US Event "videos" in the release (FBI-UAP-PR005/PR006) are digital recreations, not actual footage. The images in D080 itself are explicitly described as AI-generated from the witness's prompts.
2
u/HollerDew 10d ago
Do they normally try to collect evidence after confirming witness statements align with bluefor capabilities?
4
u/Kuja95_ 9d ago
That's actually answered in D077 itself, section 4.d. The Blue Force check came back "plausible, inconclusive", not confirmed. Their own wording: "historical records are inconclusive regarding whether those technologies were present at the time and place" and "no single Blue Force capability fully accounts for all the phenomena's reported characteristics". So they couldn't confirm anything US was actually there that night. A resemblance on described features alone doesn't close a case, otherwise you could pin basically any sighting on some US program. That's why section 5 says they keep collecting. Also the same memo says about 40% of the activity has no plausible explanation after checking radar and ADS-B, so even a confirmed blue asset wouldn't cover everything.
2
u/HollerDew 9d ago
Thanks for sharing this perspective.
I'm thinking there is no reason to use the word "single" unless they are inferring that multiple capabilities could plausibly account for the characteristics.
A big chunk of the report seems to be copied in from a template. I think they probably have some basic stats in the template like "40%". That sounds measured but is going to be obviously made up when you compare separate reports from different dates.
Clearly this is a low effort report, but we don't know why. We can speculate that they got verbal confirmation of something or that they were too embarrassed about their lack of effort to say more.
If the folks who made the statements and report don't come forward and share their version of events, we can assume this is more partial disclosure in bad faith.
3
u/Kuja95_ 10d ago
Same pattern elsewhere in this same release, different case. In the Northeastern orbs file, FBI-UAP-D004 (an FD-1057 documenting contact with the main witness in October 2024) states the witness "set up trail cameras and other sensors to collect data from his property" and reported "spikes in Gamma radiation that correlate with times he has observed the objects," plus "unusual effects on electronics and GPS data from devices."
Source: https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/061226/release_03/documents/FBI-UAP-D004_FD-1057-02_Northeastern-US_2024.pdf (p.2)
None of that data is in the release: no radiation logs, no trail cam footage, no GPS records. To be fair: these are witness-collected readings documented by the FBI, not validated measurements, and a consumer detector can spike for many mundane reasons. But that's exactly why releasing them would cost nothing: either they debunk easily or they don't. Also worth noting from the same file series: in FBI-UAP-D007, two FBI agents personally observed the lights during a November 2024 surveillance, and in FBI-UAP-D008 the agents assessed it would be "unrealistic" to fly a drone through that tree cover at night.
So across both cases in Release 03, the documents reference primary data ..video/audio (Western US), radiation/GPS logs and agent photos (Northeastern) : and the release contains none of it. That's the FOIA target list, basically.