The US Department of Defense has published a CSV dataset containing UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) observation records. It appears to include structured entries that can be used for independent analysis and research.

Dataset: https://www.war.gov/Portals/1/Interactive/2026/UFO/uap-csv.c...

Mirror: https://gist.github.com/ahmetcadirci25/e4edb7d30109fdb8ff14b...

Could be useful for anyone interested in data analysis, anomaly detection, or open government datasets.

▲

kittikitti 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Thank you for the links. I was able to find the CSV too by taking a look at the network sources from the webpage. I find that the dataset is messy, with missing data. For example, 65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_153 has a link that doesn't work either in the CSV nor the webpage.

On the other hand, there is no link in the CSV for NASA-UAP-D3A, Gemini 7 Audio Excerpt, 1965 but the link in the webpage does work. It utilizes https://api.dvidshub.net/ to request the content.

Another example are incident dates like with DOW-UAP-PR36, Unresolved UAP Report, Middle East, May 2020 that are N/A in the CSV but have an incorrect one inside the snippet (5/1/20 as opposed to 5/14/20). It also seems like there are duplicate incidents just with different media. By the way, the video in this incident is compelling.

I look forward to dissecting the dataset but it's far from perfect. There is definitely a massive amount of potential here.

	▲	booleandilemma 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Their site has a bad link. The file for "65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_153" is here: https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release_1/65_HS1-834228961...

▲

nolok 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm pretty sure they renamed it the departement of war, for some reason

▲

ethagnawl 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There is. They're insecure man-children who played too much Call of Duty.

▲

dingaling 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's accurate.

"War" is the application of violence for political ends. "Defense" is only a subset of that.

	▲	nolok an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, the idea is that we wanted to move focus from might make right to deterrance and international law. It's why the UN charter prohibits agressive war but allow self defense, and why the US renamed its departement of war to department of defense in 1947. So yeah, sure, in the current attitude and action that are very much "hey let's go back to that great time where we openly agreed war of conquest are a good thing" they have it makes sense.

▲

GolfPopper 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>I'm pretty sure they renamed it the daprtement of war, for some reason.

Nope. Actually renaming it was too long and complicated a process, so instead they're pretending they renamed it.

▲

Terr_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

*sigh* No, it wasn't not renamed, in the same way that a cape-wearing 4-year-old isn't actually changing his legal name to SuperBadguyKillerMan.

	▲	nolok an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I mean, apparently they didn't legally but he did sign an executive order, and they do use war.gov ; so it's a de facto versus de jure situation.