Western United States, January 1, 2025 — infopulsetoday.com —
The U.S. military captured an image of an unidentified anomalous phenomenon in late 2025, but the picture was altered before it reached the office tasked with investigating such objects. That is the core finding in a newly released document from the FBI, filed under the PURSUE archive on May 8, 2026.
The document, labeled “FBI Photo B9,” was submitted to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or AARO. It contains a single still image. The official description states that the image was “derived from a U.S. military system in 2025.” That same description then drops a troubling line: “original imagery was altered with redactions before being submitted to AARO.”
What was redacted? The document does not say. No accompanying mission report was provided either. This leaves the public and investigators with a cropped, possibly censored version of whatever the military system originally saw.
The incident took place in the Western United States. The operator who captured the image reported they were unable to positively identify the UAP. The record also notes that the date in the image is incorrect because the system date and time were never set. So even the timestamp is unreliable.
The FBI document includes a narrative description of the image. It is provided for informational purposes only. The description says the monochrome image has a grainy texture with a central crosshair reticle. A small, dark, circular object appears just below and to the left of the center of the reticle. The background shows an indistinct mountain range.
The document explicitly cautions readers. It says no part of the description should be interpreted as an analytical judgment, investigative conclusion, or factual determination about the event’s validity, nature, or significance. That is a careful legal hedge. But the stakes are plain.
Here is what is at risk. The U.S. government has an office, AARO, whose job is to analyze and resolve UAP incidents. It is supposed to get full, unredacted data from military systems. In this case, it got a single altered image with no mission report and a wrong date. If this is standard practice, then AARO is operating on incomplete information. The public, in turn, gets an even thinner slice.
The document does not specify what type of U.S. military system captured the image. That omission matters. Different systems have different resolutions, different capabilities, different error margins. Without knowing the system, analysts cannot properly assess the object’s size, speed, or distance. The redactions compound that problem.
This is not the first time records from the PURSUE archive have raised questions. But this case stands out because the FBI itself acknowledges the alteration. The bureau submitted the report, but it did not create the original image. Some other part of the military did. Then the image was redacted before it reached the FBI or AARO.
The operator’s inability to identify the object is not unusual. Many UAP sightings remain unresolved. What is unusual is the documented chain of custody issues. An altered image. A missing report. An incorrect date. These are not signs of a rigorous, transparent process.
The narrative description of the image is all the public has. It describes a dark circular object against a mountain backdrop. That is thin. It tells readers nothing about the object’s behavior, its trajectory, its emissions, or its origin. The original data, whatever it contained, is gone or locked away.
The PURSUE archive release gives a small window into how the government handles these incidents. The window is narrow and partly fogged. The FBI document makes that clear. It states the original imagery was altered. It does not say by whom or why. It does not say what was removed.
For anyone tracking UAP transparency, this is a concrete example of the problem. The system captured something. The operator could not identify it. The image was redacted. The report was not provided. The date was wrong. The result is a record that raises more questions than it answers. And those questions go to the heart of how seriously the government takes its own investigative mandate.
