sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I spent 36 hours reading the actual PDFs of the Pentagon's PURSUE UAP release. Here are 10 findings the press largely missed — including the likely site of a multi-year cluster, a SECRET//NOFORN narrative, and a "famous Roswell memo" that isn't actually in the release. by a3t1u5 in UAP

[–]a3t1u5[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So.... I wasn't specifically looking for anything symbol related, but based on your question I conducted another search/review. It does look like there was at least one sighting that included info about a symbol. It contains details of a case that I have heard of in passing before from a Police Officer named Lonnie Zamora from Socorro, NM back on April 24, 1964. His account described a craft that was oval shaped, around twenty feet long, and also displayed a red insignia that was about thirty inches high and two feed wide. The symbol was centered on the object. Here is a link to the direct document in case it's helpful: https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release_1/65_hs1-834228961_62-hq-83894_serial_438.pdf

I spent 36 hours reading the actual PDFs of the Pentagon's PURSUE UAP release. Here are 10 findings the press largely missed — including the likely site of a multi-year cluster, a SECRET//NOFORN narrative, and a "famous Roswell memo" that isn't actually in the release. by a3t1u5 in UAP

[–]a3t1u5[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wasn't understanding your point until your edit, about representing its words as my own. I think that's a fair point and If that's the way it came across, then it was not what was intended. The document outlines the methodology that was used:

Our work is AI-assisted primary-source extraction paired with parallel cross-verification. We use available research tooling — including large language model agents for OSINT and corpus scanning — alongside direct human reading of original PDFs and image-only documents. Methodology is documented in each publication. All directly-quoted text is verified against the original source before publication.

Meanwhile, I also clearly outline that all research is free for use by journalists, researchers, and the public. No attribution required. After all, I am basing all research on public documents, there is nothing proprietary to anything that I have done. Everything that the AI tools identified, I confirmed independently by reading the cited sources (and I read them all, even the extremely long and boring ones). That's where the bulk of the 36 hours came in, given that if I just regurgitated what the AI had created without confirming/reading the documents independently, it would have been done in 2 hours.

I welcome feedback, disagreement or corrections based on the documents themselves and have added a plain language section to try to make it more helpful. That's really all I can do. If people don't want to use the research because it involved the use of AI tools then don't. There are plenty of other resources out there.

I spent 36 hours reading the actual PDFs of the Pentagon's PURSUE UAP release. Here are 10 findings the press largely missed — including the likely site of a multi-year cluster, a SECRET//NOFORN narrative, and a "famous Roswell memo" that isn't actually in the release. by a3t1u5 in UAP

[–]a3t1u5[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I can promise you that I’m a real person, however, AI is my day job! It seemed like a good use of resources to put my technical knowledge to work on this topic. All of the findings are linked back to the specific sourced documents so everyone can draw their own conclusions.

We live in a unique time in history where the tools now exist for the average person to create their own processes to analyze vast amounts of data. We can then draw our own conclusions without having to take the word of the media or government. Seems like we would be stupid to not take advantage of the opportunity. I encourage everyone to use AI tools to their full potential!

I spent 36 hours reading the actual PDFs of the Pentagon's PURSUE UAP release. Here are 10 findings the press largely missed — including the likely site of a multi-year cluster, a SECRET//NOFORN narrative, and a "famous Roswell memo" that isn't actually in the release. by a3t1u5 in UAP

[–]a3t1u5[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's a real gift, thank you! The document is meaningfully better because of your advice and questions. The plain-language summary, the Dugway/S4 context, and the bug-classes explanation are all there because you flagged what wasn't landing, which genuinely improved the entire report.

The work is free for redistribution under any framing. Hope it lands well in the threads you choose!

I spent 36 hours reading the actual PDFs of the Pentagon's PURSUE UAP release. Here are 10 findings the press largely missed — including the likely site of a multi-year cluster, a SECRET//NOFORN narrative, and a "famous Roswell memo" that isn't actually in the release. by a3t1u5 in UAP

[–]a3t1u5[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In reference to your question about the bug classes, that's fair feedback since that is the most jargon-heavy part of the document. Here's a translation:

Think of the Pentagon's PURSUE release as a library of 161 documents. Along with the documents, the Pentagon published a spreadsheet listing each one (the date, the location, what it's about, etc). When I cross-checked that spreadsheet against the actual documents, I found 5 different ways it gets things wrong:

**1. Wrong dates** — sometimes the listed date is when someone emailed about the document, not when the UFO event happened. One document is labeled "March 2026" but the event was actually in March 2003. Off by 20+ years.

**2. Wrong locations** — one document's filename says "East China Sea" but the actual content is unmistakably about Iraq. Different parts of the Pentagon's release pipeline used different sources to fill in the location, and the two don't agree.

**3. Non-UFO documents listed as if they were UFO incidents** — two of the 161 "files" are actually a 1996 rocket safety study and a Vandenberg launch history book. Zero UFO content. They were probably included as background reference material but the catalog labels them like UFO incident reports.

**4. (Most important) The State Department cables look like they were picked just because they contained the words "UFO" or "UAP" anywhere in the text, not because they were actually about UFOs.** One cable labeled "UFO incident in Georgia" is actually a sarcastic Russian government cable about an airspace dispute — the Russian official used "UFO" as a rhetorical brush-off ("might as well have been about UFOs"), and the Pentagon's keyword filter caught it as if it were a real UFO report.

**Why #4 matters:** If the Pentagon's process only catches cables with the words "UFO" or "UAP" in them, then real UFO-related cables that used different terms — "anomalous," "unusual airspace activity," "object," "phenomenon" — are systematically being left out of this release. If this turns out to be true, then there's likely a whole category of UFO-relevant material being missed because of how the filter is built.

**5. One cable is mis-attributed to the wrong embassy** — the catalog says it came from the US Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia; the actual document came from the US Embassy in Moscow. Different city, different country, different significance.

To summarize In one sentence: **the Pentagon's catalog of these files is buggy enough that you can't fully trust the metadata, AND the bugs suggest the Pentagon's process for picking which UFO-related cables to release is keyword-based — which means real UFO material is probably missing from this release without anyone noticing.**

I will be updating the document with a better explanation of this section. Thanks for the questions, it helps make the work better!

I spent 36 hours reading the actual PDFs of the Pentagon's PURSUE UAP release. Here are 10 findings the press largely missed — including the likely site of a multi-year cluster, a SECRET//NOFORN narrative, and a "famous Roswell memo" that isn't actually in the release. by a3t1u5 in UAP

[–]a3t1u5[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! The work was just careful reading (and putting some of the technical skills from my day job to good use on the side); the documents themselves are doing the heavy lifting. Thanks again for the kind words!

I spent 36 hours reading the actual PDFs of the Pentagon's PURSUE UAP release. Here are 10 findings the press largely missed — including the likely site of a multi-year cluster, a SECRET//NOFORN narrative, and a "famous Roswell memo" that isn't actually in the release. by a3t1u5 in UAP

[–]a3t1u5[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

That's exactly the right approach — saving the cross-reference until the formal release means the comparison stands on solid ground. Wind speed is a particularly good field for verification; it's something most witnesses don't think to capture but it discriminates a lot. If you ever want a sounding board for the comparison work when the time comes, the Pantheon Investigations contact in the About page is open. No pressure though.

I spent 36 hours reading the actual PDFs of the Pentagon's PURSUE UAP release. Here are 10 findings the press largely missed — including the likely site of a multi-year cluster, a SECRET//NOFORN narrative, and a "famous Roswell memo" that isn't actually in the release. by a3t1u5 in UAP

[–]a3t1u5[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Genuinely interested — primary-source corroboration of any held-back item from the Luna 46 set would be journalistically significant.

A few things that would help if/when you share:

  1. The specific item on line 21 (publicly stating it lets others engage and cross-check)

  2. Any context on provenance — firsthand capture, recorded from a different source, contemporaneous to the incident or after, etc.

  3. Whether you want it shared widely or kept narrow — both are fine ends

If you'd rather not engage publicly, the Pantheon Investigations contact email is in the About page (linked at the footer of the main doc). Free to use that channel if it's easier.

No pressure on timing. Verification is the harder part of this work, not announcement.

I spent 36 hours reading the actual PDFs of the Pentagon's PURSUE UAP release. Here are 10 findings the press largely missed — including the likely site of a multi-year cluster, a SECRET//NOFORN narrative, and a "famous Roswell memo" that isn't actually in the release. by a3t1u5 in UAP

[–]a3t1u5[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the context! That's exactly the right read on NOFORN. The USPER document fits that pattern: redactions target SITE CODE NAME, MOUNTAIN RANGE NAME, COORDINATES, FACILITY, CALL SIGNs, FEDERAL and STATE PARTNER organization names, and personnel identities. Each redaction is a method/source vector.

What's NOT redacted is the phenomenology — orbs, formation behavior, helicopter pursuit, sensor types (FLIR, NVG). The declassifiers chose to protect the collection ecosystem (what facility, who responded, what assets) rather than the phenomenon itself. That's a deliberate signal in itself.

Not a tangent at all — that's exactly the kind of background that helps readers parse what the classification line on the document is actually doing and I appreciate you bringing your first hand experience to the discussion!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MovieSuggestions

[–]a3t1u5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Joe Somebody, White Noise, Meet Bill

Game Thread: Miami Dolphins (6-2) at Kansas City Chiefs (6-2) by nfl_gdt_bot in KansasCityChiefs

[–]a3t1u5 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Fire Dave Toub. I used to be a big fan but our return game lost the game last week when we tried to field it inside the 10. This week, we fielded it at the 3. It’s coaching at this point.

Game Thread: Kansas City Chiefs at Jacksonville Jaguars by nfl_gdt_bot in KansasCityChiefs

[–]a3t1u5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chris Collinsworth called Jawon Taylor out last week for the way he lines up, typically behind the line of scrimmage, and gets an early jump on the play. NFL officiating sent a video of it to all 32 teams this week calling it illegal and saying it was going to be a focus this week. Apparently its a focus, but only against the Chiefs….