---
title: "Study says 112 UAP videos lack enough data for strong anomaly claims"
url: "https://usubjects.com/article/study-says-112-uap-videos-lack-enough-data-for-strong-anomaly-claims-3368"
updated: "2026-08-21T16:01:18.007Z"
description: "A new study of the PURSUE UAP video set says the footage is too incomplete to support strong claims that the objects are anomalous, even though many clips are intriguing. The item also notes ongoing U.S. and European UAP reporting efforts, with critics calling for better transparency, reduced stigma, and closer cooperation on air-safety concerns."
sources: ["https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEwbCMKu1Rg"]
licence: "All rights reserved"
---

# Study says 112 UAP videos lack enough data for strong anomaly claims

Published: 2026-08-20  
Source: [Anomalist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEwbCMKu1Rg)

### Overview

A new scientific review of the **PURSUE UAP video set** is adding a note of caution to the public conversation around unidentified anomalous phenomena. In a video analysis of the government’s latest document releases, researcher Richard Dolan argued that while many of the clips are visually compelling, the available evidence is still too incomplete to support strong claims that the objects shown are truly anomalous. The study at the center of the discussion, *Limits on Velocity Recovery from the PURSUE Sensor Videos*, examines **112 videos** and concludes that missing metadata prevents researchers from reliably determining the physical motion of the objects captured on camera.

### What the study found

According to the authors, **Jacob Haqq-Misra and Ravi Kopparapu**, the problem is not simply that the footage is low quality, but that critical contextual information is absent. Without details such as **range, telemetry, and sensor orientation**, scientists cannot accurately calculate velocity or size. Dolan emphasized the core limitation in blunt terms: **“pixels are not speed.”** A small object moving close to a sensor can appear similar to a much larger object moving far away, making visual impressions alone unreliable as evidence of extraordinary behavior. The study therefore argues that the current video set may be useful for discussion, but not sufficient for definitive scientific conclusions.

### Why metadata matters

Dolan also highlighted a technical issue common to military and surveillance imagery: camera systems often use rotating turrets to keep objects centered, which can create misleading visual effects. An object may appear to hover or drift slowly against the background even if it is moving quickly, or vice versa. To correct for that, researchers need **unredacted azimuth and elevation data**, along with other sensor information that has not been made public. In the absence of that data, the study says, claims of extreme speed, unusual maneuverability, or other anomalies remain speculative. The report portrays the release of videos without the underlying measurements as an **incomplete form of transparency** rather than a full disclosure of evidence.

### Two examples from the file set

The video report pointed to two PURSUE cases to illustrate the difference between suggestive imagery and measurable data. In **DOW-UAP-PR113 (1996)**, an object crossed the frame in roughly **0.1 seconds**, but its actual speed cannot be determined from the video alone. Depending on distance, Dolan noted, it could have been something mundane, such as a bird near the camera, or something far more unusual. By contrast, **DOW-UAP-PR149 (2023)**, filmed near a commercial cargo ship in the Middle East, offered more context. Using the ship as a reference point, researchers estimated the object may have been **2 to 3 feet wide** and moving around **220 to 295 mph** under certain assumptions. Even there, the conclusion depends heavily on whether the object was close to the ship and how the scene was recorded.

### Broader implications

Dolan placed the study in historical context, invoking physicist **James E. McDonald’s** 1969 paper *Science in Default*, which warned that imagery alone is not enough for rigorous UAP research. That argument is now resurfacing as governments in the **United States and Europe** continue to expand reporting systems and review procedures for UAP sightings. Critics say the path forward requires **better transparency, reduced stigma, and stronger cooperation on air-safety concerns**. The study’s overall message is measured rather than dismissive: the footage may be intriguing, but without raw sensor data, independent scientists cannot yet make strong anomaly claims with confidence.

## Provenance

This USUBJECTS page is a summary or digest of the linked original source. Any accompanying generated visual is an illustrative reconstruction, not evidence.