A U.S. operator reported an unidentified phenomenon. The record lists both the Arabian Gulf and the Pacific Ocean.
A U.S. military operator reported an unidentified phenomenon. The record’s heading lists the Arabian Gulf and 2020, but its location field says the Pacific Ocean. No event date is given.
Heavily redacted 7-page USCENTCOM Mission Report (MISREP) concerning a probable UAP observation in the Arabian Gulf area of operations during 2020. Nearly the entire document is withheld under classification marking 1.4(a); only a single GENTEXT description fragment survives, recording that at 1246Z an operator observed one probable UAP in the vicinity of grid 3SKT4255899519, with no mission impact and continued original tasking. Companion to the D4, D5, and D7 mission reports in the same release.
At 1246Z, a U.S. military operator observed one probable UAP in the vicinity of grid 3SKT4255899519. The encounter had no mission impact and the operator continued original tasking.
"AT 1246Z, 1.4(a) OBSERVED 1X PROB UAP IVO 3SKT4255899519. NO MISSION IMPACT, CONTINUED ORIGINAL TASKING."
Why it matters: The only substantive narrative content surviving the document's redactions; provides the encounter time (1246Z), object count, MGRS-style grid reference, and operational outcome.
Page 7
Arabian Gulf
Page 1
Grid 3SKT4255899519
Page 7
Entire page withheld
Likely reason: Classification marking 1.4(a) — military plans, weapons systems, or operations
Entire page withheld
Likely reason: 1.4(a)
Entire page withheld
Likely reason: 1.4(a)
Entire page withheld
Likely reason: 1.4(a)
Entire page withheld
Likely reason: 1.4(a)
Entire page withheld
Likely reason: 1.4(a)
Surrounding GENTEXT, observing platform/unit, and follow-on detail withheld around the surviving description fragment
Likely reason: 1.4(a)
Manifest lists incident_location as 'Pacific Ocean' but the title and content place this in the Arabian Gulf (USCENTCOM AOR) — the manifest field appears to be a metadata error. Released portion is essentially a stub: time-on-target (1246Z), count (1), grid (3SKT4255899519), and 'no mission impact' outcome. Marking '(S//REL)' on the surviving line indicates the broader document is Secret with releasability caveats. Part of the D4/D5/D6/D7 MISREP cluster from the May 2026 DoW release.
No. The record does not describe the phenomenon; it only notes that the operator reported it.
It is unclear. The record’s heading lists the Arabian Gulf, while the location field says the Pacific Ocean.
A U.S. military operator reported seeing a phenomenon they couldn’t identify. The record lists two different locations: the Arabian Gulf and the Pacific Ocean.
The report appears on a military form used to document what happened during an operation. Instead of describing what the operator saw, the form offers only a brief note. The two locations raise a simple but unsettling question: Where did it happen?
The document is a mission report, a form the U.S. military uses to record the circumstances of operations. The military also uses such reports to document phenomena it could not identify. The U.S. Department of War created this report, and parts of it have been redacted.
The visible information amounts to a note that a military operator reported seeing an unidentified phenomenon. There is no description of its appearance or movement, or of how long it was observed. The event date is also missing. The document preserves the fact that the report was made, but not the details that might help readers imagine the encounter.
The discrepancy appears in the record itself. Its heading lists the Arabian Gulf alongside the year 2020. The location field says the Pacific Ocean. These are two different regions, and the record offers no explanation for why both appear.
The year in the heading does not establish when the event took place: the field for the event date contains no date. There is no way to tell whether either location is correct or what the connection between them might be. The only detail about what was seen is that the operator did not identify the phenomenon.
The record does not reveal what the operator saw, when they saw it, or why two locations appear. It also cautions that the report reflects the reporter’s impressions at the time of the event, not necessarily the phenomenon’s actual properties.
What remains is a record with two points on the map, but no answer to where the story began.