OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Pentagon Releases New UFO Files Including 1952 Audio

9 sources · updated 2026-09-20
Left 33% Center 33% Right 33%
1 left · 1 center · 1 right

What happened

The Pentagon on Friday released its sixth batch of declassified unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) files, 71 in total — 67 from the Defense Department and four from Colorado law enforcement — dated 1952 to 2025, consisting of 55 PDFs, 15 videos and one audio file, with 64 of 71 redacted. The drops followed an executive order by President Donald Trump earlier this year directing UFO-file declassification; the first tranche of 161 files was posted in May. This batch includes 37 Defense Intelligence Reference Documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP), which ran from 2008 to 2012 and surveyed topics including warp drives, wormholes, antigravity and exotic propulsion; the Pentagon said those papers are “best understood as reference and synthesis products rather than as original research” and “should not be read as implying current validation of the concepts discussed.” Also included are unresolved military videos — among them a 2025 U.S. Central Command report of six small spherical objects over the Middle East moving at about 480 miles per hour and frequently changing direction, 2023 infrared footage of circular objects over the Yellow Sea, and four October 2023 Colorado law-enforcement cellphone clips of a silent object with red, blue and green flashing lights — plus a 1952 hour-long audio briefing by Air Force officer Edward Ruppelt and July 1952 Tremonton, Utah, film shot by Navy Chief Warrant Officer Delbert C. Newhouse. On Monday the Pentagon announced a legal waiver allowing current and former employees previously bound by nondisclosure agreements to share UAP-related information with the government.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles

2 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 2 of 2
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Rep. Eric Burlison and Department of Defense
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 2
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: official documents
Credits another outlet 0 of 2
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 2
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 18, 20:19 UTC by The Hill, naming its source. First document in the first report, from The Hill (official documents).
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage makes the latest Pentagon dump sound like a 1952 archival story, omitting recent unresolved military videos and Defense Intelligence Agency studies on exotic propulsion. BBC lingers on Navy film from Tremonton, Utah, and Project Blue Book's inability to decide what it showed. Right-leaning coverage is simply more complete, reporting spherical objects over the Middle East that kept changing direction and a 2008 program that commissioned papers on warp drives and alleged radiation injuries. The same split appears in emphasis. Left-leaning coverage opens on mid-century film and briefing audio, and right-leaning coverage opens on present-day sensor footage. Daily Wire's headline puts the story on objects "Changing Direction At High Speeds," a live military frame BBC does not lead with. Did the Pentagon try to match those Middle East spheres to drones, balloons, or sensor glitches before calling the case unresolved?
Bottom line

Read the BBC and the sixth UFO dump is a 1952 Navy reel from Utah. The New York Post led with unexplained spheres over the Middle East moving at 480 miles per hour.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • A 2025 report describes six small spherical objects over the Middle East moving at 480 mph and repeatedly changing direction individual casein Daily Wire, New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The AAWSAP papers in the drop had already been public for years via FOIA; the new versions add previously withheld office names contextin Daily Wire, CBS News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The Pentagon said the AAWSAP studies should be viewed as reference documents and that their inclusion does not mean the concepts were validated official statementin Daily Wire, CBS News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • A 1952 Air Force briefing recording in the drop has Edward Ruppelt saying about 20% of roughly 800 UFO cases remained unexplained numberin Daily Wire, CBS News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Colorado law enforcement submitted four videos from an October 2023 incident, including a silent object with red, blue, and green flashing lights individual casein Daily Wire, New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage treated the drop mainly as continued archival declassification of old, still-inconclusive cases rather than as new proof of extraordinary craft. BBC led with the 1952 Tremonton film of “bright airborne objects,” stressing that after Project Blue Book review “the film’s limited detail and lack of fixed reference points meant investigators could not reach a definitive conclusion,” and placed the six drops in the context of Trump’s executive order. The Hill similarly centered the newly released 1952 Project Blue Book audio and noted that Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., had pushed for that recording’s declassification. Those outlets did not lead with AAWSAP’s exotic-propulsion papers or the 2010 injury study.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets framed the files as evidence of genuinely mysterious, high-performance objects and of government work on technologies “straight out of science fiction.” The Daily Wire highlighted “mysterious objects changing direction at high speeds,” the unresolved 480 mph Middle East orbs, AAWSAP studies of warp drives, wormholes, antigravity and “negative mass propulsion,” and a 2010 paper on alleged injuries after anomalous aerospace encounters whose author concluded the incidents supported the possibility that “some advanced systems were already deployed and not fully understood by the United States.” It also quoted Ruppelt that about 20% of roughly 800 early Air Force cases were “very good reports offered by very reliable people” from which “just absolutely no conclusions can be drawn,” and noted that newly posted AAWSAP versions restore previously withheld details such as which offices produced them. The New York Post and OAN likewise led with “floating orbs” at nearly 500 mph over military corridors.
Our Take (balanced)
The strongest left-leaning point is evidentiary caution already on the record: BBC’s account of the Tremonton film tracks Project Blue Book’s failure to reach a conclusion, and the Pentagon itself warned that the AAWSAP papers are synthesis documents, not validated research. The strongest right-leaning point is that much of the new material is officially unresolved — including the 2025 CENTCOM spherical-object report — and that the government did commission work on exotic propulsion and on alleged encounter injuries, with Ruppelt’s 1952 “20%” unexplained figure as contemporaneous corroboration. The central unresolved tension is whether this batch mainly extends a long run of grainy, redacted, inconclusive sightings plus speculative reference studies, or whether the mix of high-speed unresolved military cases and previously restricted exotic-technology files points to phenomena and capabilities the government still cannot explain.

9 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.