Case No. 129·Afghanistan
2020·Afghanistan–Pakistan border (USAF reconnaissance platform)
Afghanistan.Afghanistan · disc on USAF ISR platform IR sensor
In 2020, a U.S. Air Force high-altitude reconnaissance platform captured over the Afghanistan–Pakistan border a disc-shaped object on a thermal/infrared sensor, estimated at 200-400 m, showing no heat plume despite being recorded by a thermal camera. The footage (dated Nov 23, 2020) was released in June 2025 by journalists Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp. Afghanistan's first record: real military sensor data in-theater, with the honest caveat that the Pentagon has not officially confirmed it (unlike the Navy videos).
Year
2020
Tier
B
Probability
32%
Category
Incident
Limited evidence: single-witness, local or without primary verification. Three independent axes: the «tier» measures the strength of the evidence; the «probability» estimates how genuinely unexplained the case is —a natural phenomenon can remain unexplained, so it does not equal «non-prosaic»—; and the partition of explanations (below) says what it most plausibly was. So a well-documented case can have a possible hoax as its most plausible cause, and a Tier B is not, for that reason, a hoax.
Part 01
The night in question
On November 23, 2020, during the final months of the long U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, a high-altitude intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platform operating under the direction of the U.S. Air Force recorded a disc-shaped object over the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The recording, made with a thermal/infrared sensor, showed an object estimated at 200 to 400 meters across moving in and out of the cloud layer and, according to those who released it, executing abrupt changes of direction. The most-debated point is what the sensor did not capture: no heat plume or signature. A thermal camera is designed precisely to detect temperature differences, so a conventional propulsion system —a jet, a propeller, a rocket— should have produced an obvious signature. Its absence is what turns the footage into an anomalous datum rather than just another aircraft.
The video stayed out of the public domain for several years and was only released in June 2025 by journalists and investigators Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp, through their podcast 'Weaponized'. Both said they had spent roughly two years authenticating the material and verifying its provenance before publishing it; Knapp stated the source was 'legit' and that they were certain it was real. The pair had previously released other military video leaks —among them the spheres and the so-called 'pyramid' captured by the Navy in 2021—, some of which were later confirmed as authentic by the Pentagon itself, giving their chain of custody a mixed but not negligible track record.
The corpus framing is deliberately cautious about provenance. What anchors the case is its nature as a military sensor datum in an active theater of operations: a thermal image from an ISR platform, not an isolated visual testimony or an amateur photo. The honest caveat is equally important: unlike the Navy videos (Nimitz, GoFast, Gimbal) officially acknowledged by the Department of Defense, this Afghan recording reached the public through a journalistic release and, as far as is public, there is no formal Pentagon confirmation or open AARO file backing it. Nor can it strictly be ruled out that an object with no apparent thermal signature is explained by the observation geometry itself, by sensor calibration or by a cold target at great distance. It is therefore included at its appropriate tier: a real, geographically-anchored sensor record, but with a weaker institutional chain of custody than the corpus's S-tier cases.
Part 02
Why this case moved the needle
It is Afghanistan's first corpus record and extends its coverage into an active war theater: not a visual testimony but a thermal-sensor image from a USAF ISR platform. That instrumental nature is what gives it weight —sensor data are less susceptible than the human eye to motion illusions or suggestion— and the absence of a heat signature on a camera designed to detect one is, if the footage is authentic, the genuinely hard feature to explain with known technology.
Its limit, however, must be stated with equal clarity. Unlike the three officially acknowledged Navy videos, this footage depends on a journalistic release made five years after the fact, with no Pentagon confirmation or public AARO file, and by investigators whose authentication record is real but not infallible. The corpus accordingly treats it as a geographically-anchored, promising military sensor datum, not as an officially validated case: it places Afghanistan on the map of the phenomenon without elevating the episode to the evidentiary status of the S-tier cases. It is a methodological reminder that provenance matters as much as content: an extraordinary image with an incomplete chain of custody weighs less than an ordinary image with a complete file.
Part 03
What's left on paper
Documented evidence
- Disc-shaped object recorded on a thermal/IR sensor from a high-altitude USAF ISR platform (Nov 23, 2020).
- Over the Afghanistan–Pakistan border region; estimated size 200-400 m, no heat plume or signature, with abrupt changes of direction.
- Footage released in June 2025 by journalists Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp (~2 years of authentication; authors of other military video leaks).
- Honest caveat: no formal Pentagon confirmation or public AARO file — weaker chain of custody than the Navy videos.
Location
Afghanistan–Pakistan border (USAF reconnaissance platform) · 33.00°, 69.50°
Distribution of explanations
This case is classified among the model's hypotheses: the bar splits 100% by how much each explanation weighs (the uncertainty is spread across the hypotheses the case supports). Summed across the corpus they produce the comparable partition. It is a different question from the Probability above: that one estimates how likely the case is a genuinely unexplained phenomenon; this one splits which the explanation would be.
Modal hypothesis: Misidentification 42% · sums to 100%
Confused with: No single object identified
Structured analytical judgment, not a calibrated frequency. Forced classification: the mass the evidence cannot assign is spread across the hypotheses the case does support.
Associated actors (1)