THE SOURCE
DOW-UAP-D25, D28, D55, D74 and D75, five mission reports from the U.S. Department of War’s PURSUE Release 01, published at war.gov/ufo on 8 May 2026. All five were filed by U.S. Central Command and contain the structured “UAP Event Report” form embedded in each MISREP. D25 covers Greece, 25 January 2024. D28 covers Iraq, 20-21 September 2024. D55 covers Syria, November 2016. D74 covers Syria, 9 November 2023. D75 covers the Gulf of Aden, 14 July 2024.
What this briefing is
Release 01 Briefing 7 read a single Central Command mission report, the F-15E over Syria. Release 01 Briefing 20 read a batch of them as a pattern. Between those two, five mission reports went unbriefed individually: D25, D28, D55, D74 and D75. They are not duplicates of anything in the earlier briefings, and four of them carry the same structured form, the standardised UAP Event Report fields that the military fills in for these incidents.
This briefing closes the document tail of the CENTCOM mission-report set by reading the five together, both for the encounters they describe and for the form they share. The general grounding for reading PURSUE primary documents is in Release 01 Briefing 1.
TL;DR
The five mission reports are dated, in order, November 2016 (Syria), January 2024 (Greece), November 2023 (Syria), July 2024 (Gulf of Aden) and September 2024 (Iraq). All five were filed by U.S. Central Command. Four of them, D25, D28, D74 and D75, are born-digital documents that contain the same structured “UAP Event Report” template with named fields for event type, physical state, signatures, manoeuvrability observations, anomalous characteristics, description, propulsion, payload, and several others. D55, the 2016 Syria report, is older and shorter and contains a “possible missile launch” line that earlier readers would already recognise as the conventional candidate the aircrew themselves named.
Inside the forms, four distinct encounters stand out. D25’s UAP was a round, diamond-shaped object flying at approximately 434 knots over Greece in January 2024, almost certainly the mission report that pairs with PR28 in Release 01 Briefing 5. D28 raises an unsettled question about whether an unidentified object flew through the aircraft during the encounter over Iraq, and notes that the UAP created an IR lens flare on the sensor. D74’s aircrew described a probable high-confidence UAP “shaped as a bouncy ball” over Syria, observed dropping out of sight. D75 records a Gulf of Aden encounter in which the UAP, on a straight flight path at the same altitude, was faster than the observing aircraft could keep up with.
Taken together: these are tier 2 primary documents, the same source class as every other CENTCOM mission report in the release. Each contains specific, falsifiable aircrew observations rather than vague impressions. Each described behaviour fits one or more ordinary candidates in the same theatre and era. The form itself, the standardised UAP Event Report, is the institutional feature the cluster surfaces most clearly.
The standardised UAP Event Report
Open any of the four 2023-2024 mission reports here and the same form appears inside the MISREP. It has named, structured fields: UAP Event Type, UAP Physical State, UAP Signatures, UAP Maneuverability Observations, UAP Anomalous Characteristics and Behaviors, UAP Description, UAP Propulsion Means, UAP Payload, UAP Under Intelligent Control, UAP RF Frequency, UAP RF Duration, UAP Effects on Persons, UAP Effects on Equipment, UAP Reaction to Observation Interrogation or Engagement, UAP Objects or Material Recovered, UAP Date of DoD Acquisition, and others.
This is the same kind of finding Release 01 Briefing 9 made about the Range Fouler debrief form: a standardised intake template, with predefined fields the aircrew are required to fill in, is itself a statement that the military treats these encounters as a recurring, expected category that needs structured paperwork rather than free-text notes. The fields are not exotic. The form asks whether the UAP was “Benign”, what its “Physical State” was, whether it appeared to be “Under Intelligent Control”, whether it had any effect on persons or equipment, and whether material was recovered. Each field is a small, routine question. Across the four reports, the answers cluster heavily towards “Benign”, “Solid”, “Unknown” and “No”.
That is itself a result. A standardised UAP form, filled out by aircrew across multiple incidents, that consistently produces “Benign” classifications and “No” answers to the more striking questions, is the bureaucratic shape of a phenomenon that the people closest to it are not, at the form level, treating as a threat or as an extraordinary event.
D25, almost certainly the report behind PR28
D25 records an encounter on 25 January 2024 in the Greece theatre. The aircrew describe the object as “ROUND DIAMOND”, with a Short Wave Infrared signature in white, on a steady flight path, at approximately 434 knots. The event was classified “Benign” with the UAP physically “Solid”.
The pairing with PR28, the Greece footage already covered in Release 01 Briefing 5, is highly likely. PR28 was a January 2024 Greek airspace clip described in the inventory and press coverage as a fast-moving diamond-shaped UAP. D25’s date, theatre, and shape and speed description all line up. The inventory list for D25 sits in the same place. A reader interested in PR28 should read D25 as the written half of the same event, with the speed (434 knots, roughly 500 mph) and the SWIR-white signature putting numbers and a sensor band against the visual track.
Four hundred and thirty-four knots is fast for a small drone but well within the cruise envelope of a small jet or a cruise missile. The “diamond” shape is consistent with the appearance of a small fixed-wing UAV or a kite-shaped balloon viewed end-on. Steady flight path at that speed is not the behaviour of a balloon. The combination, fast, diamond, steady, white-hot in SWIR, is consistent with a small jet-propelled drone or cruise missile in the same kind of theatre.
D28, the question of a fly-through
D28 covers an encounter on 20-21 September 2024 in Iraq, near a redacted location that, from the surrounding text, reads as Ayn al Asad or similar. The aircrew note that the UAP “MOVED AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED THROUGH THE SENSOR FIELD OF VIEW”, was visible on the MX-20 and MX-25 sensor pods, and “CREATED AN IR LENS FLARE” on the sensor before leaving the field of view.
The most striking line in the form is the candid aircrew uncertainty: “IT IS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME WHETHER AN UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT [flew] THROUGH THE AIRCRAFT”. That is a near-miss flag, the aircrew themselves not sure whether the object’s path took it through their aircraft. It is also the kind of line that, recorded in the aircrew’s own words, is much more useful than any later analyst’s summary. The IR lens flare detail is honest about the sensor’s own contribution to the captured image, and a reader of Release 01 Briefing 3’s lens-flare section will recognise the pattern.
D74, “shaped as a bouncy ball”
D74 covers a 9 November 2023 encounter in Syria. The aircrew describe a probable high-confidence UAP “SHAPED AS A BOUNCY BALL” and record observing it drop, with the object eventually moving out of range. The report classes the UAP as Benign and Solid. Separately, the same report notes the aircrew observed a “WHITE SUV” on the ground, an unrelated ground observation that the same mission picked up.
“Bouncy ball” is an unusually specific shape word: small, spherical, bright. It fits the same family of spherical clips that the rest of Release 02 worked through in Release 02 Briefing 19, and the same candidates apply, balloon, small drone, and so on. The descending behaviour is consistent with a balloon losing buoyancy or a drone in deliberate descent. None of this is extraordinary; the value of the report is in the aircrew’s exact wording at the time.
D75, an object faster than the aircraft
D75 covers a 14 July 2024 encounter in the Gulf of Aden, coordinated with NAVCENT and AFCENT. The form records a straight flight path at the same altitude as the observing aircraft and an anomalous note that the UAP’s speed was faster than the aircraft could match. The crew followed it “TILL THE DISTANCE BECAME TOO FAR TO FOLLOW”.
The U.S. military aircraft tracking objects in the Gulf of Aden range across many platforms, including slow surveillance aircraft and helicopters. Speed relative to a P-8 maritime patrol aircraft in level flight differs from speed relative to a slower platform. Without the observing platform identified, “faster than the aircraft” is a relative figure. The report itself records the observation and stops there, as the form requires.
D55, the older one
D55 stands apart from the other four. It dates from November 2016, the oldest mission report in this set, and is shorter and lighter on structured form content. The relevant line is brief: an “UNIDENTIFIED LOW-FLYING OBJECT” at 55 nautical miles, described as a “possible missile launch from an origin unknown” detected via a sensor identifier that is now redacted.
A “possible missile” classification, in the same vein as Release 01 Briefing 22’s short-clip aircrew descriptions, is the aircrew’s own first-pass conventional candidate. D55 is the oldest mission report in the released set and reads accordingly: a brief, contemporaneous candidate identification, not an exotic claim.
What the file says
They establish that U.S. Central Command logged five additional unidentified-object encounters across 2016 to 2024 in Syria, Greece, Iraq and the Gulf of Aden, that each was filed through the proper chain, and that four of the five carry the structured UAP Event Report form with named fields for the encounter’s characteristics. They establish, in D25, the written half of the encounter PR28 covers visually. They establish in D28 an aircrew-recorded fly-through question and an IR lens flare on the sensor, and in D74 a spherical “bouncy ball” UAP that the aircrew watched descend. They establish, across all four 2023-2024 reports, that aircrew consistently classified these UAPs as “Benign” and “Solid” within the form’s own categories.
What the file does not say
It does not establish that any of the objects were anomalous. The aircrew’s own classifications cluster on “Benign”, and the described behaviours fit ordinary candidates in each theatre.
It does not, on its own, identify any object. The reports record observations and classifications, not closed conclusions.
It does not lift the form from “infrastructure” to “discovery”. The standardised UAP Event Report shows the military processes these encounters routinely; it does not make any individual encounter remarkable.
And it does not rise above tier 2. The five reports finish the unbriefed CENTCOM mission-report set with the same evidentiary weight, and the same honest limits, as the rest of the cluster.
What to watch
The UAP Event Report’s fields, Physical State, Under Intelligent Control, Effects on Equipment, Objects or Material Recovered, are the same questions on every mission report; across the four 2023 to 2024 reports the answers cluster on Benign, Solid, Unknown and No. D25 likely pairs with PR28, a case where the written half and the video half of one encounter can be read side by side.
Read the file. Decide for yourself.
References and further reading
- DOW-UAP-D25, D28, D55, D74 and D75, PURSUE Release 01, U.S. Department of War, hosted at war.gov/ufo
- Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters, U.S. Department of War, war.gov/ufo
- AARO UAP Records, All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, aaro.mil/UAP-Records
- Signals from the Periphery, Release 01 Briefing 5, on PR28 as the video paired with D25; Release 01 Briefing 7, on reading a single mission report; Release 01 Briefing 9, on the standardised Range Fouler form; Release 01 Briefing 20, on reading the CENTCOM mission reports as a batch; Release 01 Briefing 22, on aircrew candidate identifications in the short-clip reports