Pentagon Investigates Alleged Colorado Triangle UAP Videos

The Pentagon says it is investigating reports that the United States Air Force possesses two unreleased cellphone videos allegedly showing a large triangular object near a military installation in Colorado.

Acting Pentagon press secretary Joel Valdez stated that the Department of War was researching the whereabouts of the reported recordings and would publish what it finds through the government’s Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters, known as PURSUE.

“We will release what we find under PURSUE on war.gov/ufo,” Valdez said, according to the department’s public statement and subsequent reporting.

That acknowledgment is the most important verified development in the story. It does not authenticate the reported contents of the videos, confirm that the object was anomalous or establish that the footage will ultimately be released.

But it transforms the matter from an allegation circulating solely through unnamed sources into a specific public question that the Pentagon has agreed to investigate.

What Has Been Alleged?

The existence of the recordings was initially reported by the New York Post, citing sources described as familiar with the footage.

According to those sources, a service member used a personal cellphone to record a dark triangular object on two consecutive nights in 2023. The videos were reportedly taken near an unidentified military installation somewhere in Colorado.

The sources further alleged that the object was approximately 100 feet across, moved above mountainous terrain and appeared to conceal itself within clouds.

None of those visual or performance claims can presently be verified.

The recordings have not been released to the public. Their native metadata, resolution, duration, chain of custody and complete visual contents are unknown. There is no publicly available sensor information establishing the object’s distance, dimensions, velocity or altitude.

Even the reported size of approximately 100 feet would be difficult to establish reliably from an ordinary cellphone recording without a known distance, identifiable reference points or corroborating sensor data.

The dramatic descriptions should therefore be treated as claims about unseen evidence — not as conclusions established by that evidence.

Two Specific Case Numbers

The reporting associates the alleged recordings with two Air Force Office of Special Investigations references:

The publication of specific identifiers makes the story more testable than a general claim that secret footage exists somewhere inside the government.

However, The UFO Times has not independently obtained the underlying files or documentation necessary to confirm what those identifiers represent. Their presence in media reporting does not by itself authenticate the recordings or establish their classification status.

The identifiers now provide concrete reference points for journalists, congressional investigators, government archivists and Freedom of Information Act researchers.

If the Department of War produces records carrying those identifiers, researchers will be able to compare the released material with the original descriptions. If the department cannot locate them, it should explain whether the numbers were inaccurate, whether the records belong to another system or whether legal restrictions prevent their disclosure.

Why the Pentagon’s Response Matters

Government acknowledgment and evidentiary confirmation are not the same thing.

The Pentagon has reportedly acknowledged that it is looking into the allegation. It has not publicly confirmed that the two videos exist as described, that the videos depict the same object, that the object was approximately 100 feet wide, that the incident occurred above a particular military installation, that the object demonstrated extraordinary performance, that the footage remains classified, or that the object was a non-human craft.

For decades, disputes over UAP evidence have frequently stalled at the same point: witnesses or insiders allege that stronger evidence exists, while the responsible agency either declines to comment or says it cannot locate the material.

This case presents a narrower question. Two reported recordings have been tied to two reported identifiers, and a Pentagon spokesperson has publicly indicated that the department is searching for them.

The next meaningful development will not be another description of the footage. It will be the government’s documented response.

Connection to PURSUE Release 05

The Colorado-video investigation follows the fifth release under the PURSUE disclosure program, published on August 7, 2026.

Release 05 contained 41 records drawn from several government agencies, including 22 documents, 16 videos and three images. Among the materials were military sensor recordings, historical intelligence files and FBI interview records describing large triangular objects near Colorado Springs.

The release also included artistic renderings based on witness testimony. Those renderings were not photographs of the reported objects and should not be confused with the two alleged Colorado cellphone videos now under discussion. The image below is one such rendering, produced by the FBI from a separate witness account in 2026.

The UFO Times’ examination of Release 05 found that the tranche expanded the public record but contained substantial evidentiary limitations. Some videos lacked complete native sensor data. Some extraordinary performance descriptions depended on witness estimates. Several triangle images were later reconstructions rather than contemporaneous photographs.

The same evidentiary discipline applies here. A detailed verbal description may justify investigation. It cannot substitute for the footage itself.

What Would the Videos Need to Show?

If the recordings are located and released, several questions will determine their evidentiary value.

1. Are they the original files? Native recordings are more useful than compressed copies, edited clips or videos recorded from another screen. Original files may preserve timestamps, device information and other metadata.
2. Is the chain of custody documented? Researchers need to know who recorded the videos, when they were transferred, whether they were altered and how they entered Air Force investigative custody.
3. Can the location and time be confirmed? Terrain, weather records, astronomical conditions, aviation activity and military operations can all help test what the videos show.
4. Is the distance known? Apparent size and speed cannot be reliably calculated without distance. A small nearby object can appear similar to a large distant object.
5. Is there corroborating evidence? Radar, infrared imagery, base-security records, aircraft telemetry, additional witnesses or recordings from separate locations would substantially improve the case.
6. Does the object demonstrate genuinely anomalous behavior? A strange shape alone is not enough. Analysts would need reliable evidence of performance incompatible with balloons, aircraft, drones, atmospheric effects, optical distortions or classified human technology.
7. Can independent analysts examine the best available data? Public release of a degraded excerpt would be less informative than access to the complete, least-compressed files with relevant contextual information.

Without those elements, the footage might remain intriguing but inconclusive.

Triangles in the UAP Record

Reports of dark triangular or boomerang-shaped objects have appeared repeatedly in modern UFO history. Witnesses have described them as silent, unusually large and sometimes equipped with lights at their corners.

That recurring description has produced several competing interpretations. Some sightings may involve conventional aircraft viewed under poor nighttime conditions. Others may involve groups of lights perceived as the edges of a single solid structure. Experimental or classified aircraft are another possibility, particularly near military installations. Atmospheric conditions, limited visual reference points and errors in estimating distance can also make an object appear larger, slower or stranger than it is.

A smaller residual group may remain unexplained because the evidence is incomplete.

The recurrence of a particular shape does not establish that every triangle report has the same cause. Nor does it establish that any of them represent extraterrestrial technology. Each incident must be evaluated on its own evidence.

The Most Responsible Conclusion

The Pentagon’s investigation is a legitimate breaking-news development. It creates a measurable commitment: locate the reported videos, determine what records exist and release whatever can lawfully be made public through PURSUE.

But the strongest claims remain unverified.

The public has not seen the recordings. No independent analyst has confirmed the reported dimensions or behavior. The precise military installation has not been officially identified. No released evidence presently demonstrates exotic propulsion or non-human origin.

The correct position is neither to dismiss the story automatically nor to declare that an extraordinary craft has been captured on video.

What Happens Next

The UFO Times will monitor the PURSUE archive for either reported case identifier; any official Pentagon clarification; possible Air Force or AFOSI acknowledgment; release of the original or derivative footage; congressional inquiries concerning the recordings; and evidence clarifying the location, date and chain of custody.

Follow all developing stories at the News Feed.