Civilian's Blue Triangle Near Secured Facility, March 2023

Brief

An Information Disclosure Analyst from the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security submitted a derivative classification review request to OSI, seeking approval to use an UNCLASSIFIED summary of a UAP IIR in a product. The underlying report describes a civilian witness observing a large, featureless blue triangular object emitting 'whitish blue' light hovering near a national security facility for roughly three minutes before moving erratically — described as 'backing up' in a 'jerking' or 'jumping' motion — over an approximate eight-minute total observation. OSI's CI Collections PM confirmed the authority to process this as a derivative review and approved the UNCLASSIFIED release. The IIR itself and a draft report are referenced as attachments but are not reproduced in the extractable pages.

Metadata

Agency

Department of War

Release

5/8/26

Incident

3/23/26

Location

Pacific Time Zone

Type

PDF • .pdf

Length

6 pages

Classification

UNCLASSIFIED (downgraded from SECRET//NOFORN)

Tags

triangular, blue, featureless, hovering, erratic movement, light emission, national security facility proximity, Pacific Time Zone, 2023, nighttime, IIR

Key points

• The object was described as a large, blue, featureless triangle with a solid, unwavering silhouette emitting powerful 'whitish blue' light from multiple points along its perimeter.p.4
• The witness reported the object hovering stationary above or near a national security facility for approximately three minutes before moving.p.4
• Lateral movement was characterized as 'backing up' in a 'jerking' or 'jumping' manner explicitly inconsistent with 'smooth' jet propulsion.p.4
• Total observation duration was approximately eight minutes; time of day was night.p.4
• The witness was a civilian; the report was obtained by personal cellular device.p.4
• The reporter stated the object had no discernible front or rear, no vapor trail, no photograph or data collection capabilities, and no cloaking capabilities — and did not think it was a drone.p.4
• Original classification was SECRET//NOFORN; the analyst requested reclassification to UNCLASSIFIED for use in a product.p.5
• OSI confirmed authority to process the request as a derivative classification review rather than a full declassification — bypassing the lengthier AFOSI Commander-signature process.p.1
• The IIR and a draft report were attached to the email chain, suggesting additional evidentiary material beyond the pages provided.p.5

Verbatim

• An individual reported observing a large blue featureless triangular object with a solid, unwavering silhouette emitting powerful "whitish blue" light from multiple points along its perimeter.

  p.4

• The reporter described the object as "hovering" stationary above or near a national security facility for approximately three minutes.

  p.4

• The reporter characterized the object's motion as "backing up" in a "jerking" or "jumping" manner inconsistent with "smooth" jet propulsion.

  p.4

• They stated that they "didn't think" the object was a drone.

  p.4

• They stated that the object did not seem to travel along a defined flight path, possess any "photograph or data collection capabilities," emit a "vapor trail," or demonstrate "cloaking capabilities."

  p.4

• Our process for declassifying IIRs is lengthy and requires AFOSI Commander signature so I'm exploring options akin to a security review of the UNCLASS summary you have provided below.

  p.2

• I concur with using this at the UNCLASSIFIED level in your product. Consider your request approved.

  p.1

Most interesting

• The witness explicitly evaluated the object against known categories — jet propulsion, drones, cloaking, defined flight paths — and ruled each out, suggesting a technically aware observer rather than a passive bystander.
• The report notes the object had no discernible 'front or rear,' which, if taken at face value, is inconsistent with any known fixed-wing or rotary aircraft design.
• The phrase 'backing up' to describe the object's movement implies the witness perceived directionality to the craft despite also stating it had no front or rear — an internal contradiction worth noting.
• OSI's pivot from full declassification to derivative classification review is procedurally significant: it shortened the approval chain and sidestepped AFOSI Commander-level sign-off, accelerating public release.
• The document header lists the incident date as 3/23/26 while the embedded report states March 2023 — a three-year discrepancy that may reflect a data-entry error in the war.gov listing or a misfiled metadata field.
• The report explicitly states altitude and speed were 'Not reported,' leaving the object's performance envelope entirely unconstrained by the available evidence.