The United States Central Command submitted a report of an unidentified anomalous phenomenon to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) consisting of 4 minutes and 58 seconds of video footage from an infrared sensor aboard a U.S. military platform in 2025. An accompanying mission report, DOW-UAP-D107, described the UAP as "look[ing] like a white round orbit... moving as fast as 500 miles per hour."
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. AARO reviews all reports submitted by military branches, intelligence agencies, and other government bodies, 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.
This material was among records identified in response to Congressional oversight requests and was publicly released as part of the Department of War's disclosure initiative. The release is intended to promote transparency and enable independent analysis of UAP-related records held by the U.S. government.
00:00-00:04: The sensor pans to track an area of contrast, keeping it generally centered within the frame.
00:05-00:50: The sensor decreases its level of magnification and continues to track the area of contrast, keeping it generally within the center of the frame.
00:51-01:21: The sensor decreases its level of magnification and adjusts its panning speed to track the area of contrast, keeping it generally within the center of the frame.
01:22-01:41: The sensor increases its level of magnification and adjusts its panning speed to track the area of contrast, keeping it generally within the center of the frame.
01:43-2:05: A rectangular digital overlay, or "focus box," appears near the center of the frame. This display element is a graphical component of the sensor system and does indicate a physical change in the environment. The sensor pans to track the area of contrast, keeping it generally within the center of the frame before exiting the sensor field-of-view from the bottom edge.
02:06-02:21: The sensor pans across the scene and decreases its level of magnification. The area of contrast intermittently re-appears from the left edge of the frame.
02:22-02:28: The sensor pans across the scene, reacquiring the area of contrast. After the area of contrast re-enters the scene, the sensor continues to pan to track it, keeping it generally within the center of the frame. The sensor engages briefly stops panning and the area of contrast exits on the right side once again.
02:29-02:36: The sensor activates an auto-tracking reticle, which does not establish a lock on the area of contrast. After the auto-track reticle disengages, the sensor stops panning, causing the area of contrast to exit the frame from the right edge.
02:37-3:22: The sensor pans and requires the area of contrast, keeping it within its field-of-view before it exits the bottom edge of the frame.
3:23-4:29: The sensor continues to pan then zooms out and reacquires the area of contrast, now significantly smaller in the sensor's field of view. The sensor continuously pans to keep the area of contrast in the field of view.
4:30-4:58: The sensor zooms in, and the area of contrast transits the field-of-view, exiting the top of the frame. The sensor cycles magnification levels multiple times.
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 evidence does not provide sufficient information to conclusively identify the phenomenon 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 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 and origin of the observed phenomenon? 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.
- Q.02What additional sensor data from the recording platform exists but has not been publicly released? Military and intelligence platforms typically carry multiple sensor systems operating simultaneously. Whether radar, electronic support measures, or other onboard sensors captured contemporaneous data has not been addressed in any official public statement.
- 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 elements in the released material means that the public cannot fully assess the operational context.
- Q.04Have any subsequent incidents in the same area or involving similar characteristics been linked to this case? A comprehensive cross-referencing of UAP reports with matching signatures has not been conducted publicly.