Official · Document · Department of War
Camera Spots White Object, Then Loses It
The crew tracked it over the water, zoomed in — and then lost contact.
Released to the public May 8, 20262 min readALIENS editorial
Share:
The crew tracked it over the water, zoomed in — and then lost contact.
A military crew again found a white object that had been lost over the water, but lost it once more after zooming in.
A completed U.S. Navy 'Range Fouler Debrief' form documenting a UAP observation on 14 May 2020 at 20:40Z (night) during an ISR tasking. The reporting crew observed a solid white object fly through the sensor field-of-view, briefly lost it, then re-acquired and tracked it as it appeared to make erratic movements above the water. The form fields list a contact altitude of 20,000 ft, working area '28314', and indicate the radar produced an intermittent stable trackfile on a single contact. The document is stamped 'Declassified by MG Richard A. Harrison, USCENTCOM Chief of Staff' and released via USCENTCOM MDR 26-0019 to AARO.
During an ISR tasking, the crew observed a solid white object fly through the field-of-view. The object was temporarily lost and then re-acquired. The crew followed the object as it appeared to make erratic movements above the water; they obtained 4x zoom but lost the object due to poor track placement. The sensor operator continuously manipulated the sensor to maintain visual, evidenced by the water/wave background alternately being visible and not visible.
"While preforming an ISR tasking (UL TN/Black Hot/Lin), a solid w ite 1object flew through the FOV. There was a temporarily lose of the object but re-acquired shortly there after. The crew was able to follow the object as it appeared to make erratic moments above the water. During the follow, crew was able to obtain 4x zoom on the object but lost the object due to poor track place ent. While following, the sensor operator was continuously manipulating the sensor to maintain eyes on th1e object. This is apparent by the waves of the water in the background being visible and not being visible."
Speaker: Reporting aircrew (narrative field of Range Fouler Debrief)
Why it matters: Verbatim observer narrative of erratic-motion white UAP over water during ISR mission; OCR artifacts preserved as in source text
Page 1
"Declassified by MG Richard A. Harrison USCENTCOM Chief of Staff"
Why it matters: Identifies declassification authority
Page 1
"USCENTCOM MDR 26-0019 Approved for Release to AARO 01/26/26"
Why it matters: Release control marking — Mandatory Declassification Review approving release to AARO
Page 1
Richard A. Harrison
USCENTCOM Chief of Staff (declassification authority) · USCENTCOM · Page 1
Middle East / Persian Gulf (per manifest); contact working area '28314'
Page 1
ATFLIR (Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared)
sensor · Page 1
AIM-9x (self-track reference)
sensor · Page 1
Radar (radar-equipped aircraft, intermittent stable trackfile)
radar · Page 1
Email/contact instructions: 'Save this form with filenam "Date_Squadron_RF.pdr" and email it to[redacted]'
Likely reason: 3.5c, (b)(6) — personal privacy / point-of-contact identifying information
Troubleshooting phone contact: 'For troubleshooting, cal/I [redacted]'
Likely reason: 3.5c, (b)(6) — personal privacy
Repository link for uploading display tape files
Likely reason: 3.5c, (b)(6) — operational/network location
Aircrew identifying fields (Last Name/First Name, Rank, Squadron, SIPR Email, Crew Position) left blank per SPEAR sanitization policy
Likely reason: Per-form policy: 'SPEAR sanitizes all reports of identifying information. Absolutely no identifying information for aircrew or squadron will be recorded for analysis.'
Standardized Navy/USCENTCOM Range Fouler Debrief form, single page. Form fields captured: Date 05/14/20; Time 20:40:00 Z; Day/Night = Night; Working Area 28314; Latitude/Longitude fields contain 'N 49524 / E 20000' style entries that appear corrupted by OCR — treat lat/long as unreliable. Contact altitude 20,000 ft (form value '20000'); contact moving = Yes; radar equipped, stable trackfile = Intermittent; # of contacts in group = 1. Shape checkbox = Round. Mission Description = ISR. Side No./Buno fields contain '49524' / 'NIS' (likely OCR artifact). EA indications, AIM-9x self-track, ATFLIR autotrack, and Tally Achieved checkboxes all appear unchecked. Manifest pairs this with video PR-36 (DVIDS 1006083). Document is heavily structured form with handwriting/checkboxes; OCR has noticeable artifacts (e.g., 'preforming', 'w ite', 'moments' for 'movements'). Confidence reflects clarity of narrative offset by OCR noise in numeric/coordinate fields.
A crew member reported a solid, white object passing in front of the camera.
The report does not describe identifying details in the image and does not explain what the object was.
During a mission over the Arabian Gulf, a military crew observed a white object passing in front of their camera. It vanished for a moment, but the crew managed to reacquire it.
The crew then tracked it over the water but struggled to keep it in frame. The report describes the moment they lost it — and offers no explanation for what the object was.
The incident occurred in 2020. A military crew member reported seeing a solid, white object traverse the camera's field of view. Shortly after, it disappeared from the frame. The crew located it again and continued to track it.
The report does not describe a stationary object. The crew perceived it as moving with irregular motions over the water. However, the report lacks specific details about the movement itself, making it impossible to ascertain precisely what was observed.
During the tracking, a crew member operated the camera, attempting to keep the object in frame. The crew zoomed in fourfold. Even so, the camera failed to remain precisely aimed at the object, and it was lost again.
The report also mentions a small detail in the background: water ripples appeared in the image, then vanished, and reappeared. This occurred while the crew member was trying to maintain tracking of the object. This suggests the difficulty wasn't just in identifying what they were seeing, but also in keeping the camera aimed at it.
The report does not identify the object, nor does it offer a conventional explanation for what was observed. It also does not describe any further investigations that helped identify it, or any discernible details in the image itself. The description of the movements reflects the crew member's impression at the time of the incident and does not prove what the object was or what capabilities it possessed.
Ultimately, the object was no longer within the camera's view.