A submarine travelling on the ocean's surface is an unusual setting for a UFO mystery. Yet a military video released in May 2026 has renewed interest in objects reportedly moving near a submarine and possibly crossing between air and water.
The recording, identified as DOW-UAP-PR067, lasts four minutes and fifty seconds. Its original uploader gave it a title referring to multiple spherical unidentified objects moving in and out of the sea.
That description has attracted considerable attention because an object capable of travelling freely between air and water would raise intriguing questions about its design and capabilities.
However, there is an important distinction between the video's title and the observations documented by the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).
The official description identifies moving areas of contrast in infrared imagery, but it does not independently establish that any object entered or emerged from the ocean.
Understanding that difference is essential to evaluating what the footage actually reveals.

What Is the PR067 Submarine UFO Video?

Unlike many historical underwater UFO accounts, PR067 has an identifiable government record and a publicly released video. That allows readers to compare the uploader's dramatic title with AARO's more limited description.
The distinction is revealing: the title suggests movement between air and water, while the official notes describe tracked areas of infrared contrast. The case demonstrates why examining primary evidence matters more than accepting a headline at face value.

What Does AARO Actually Describe?

AARO's published notes provide a sequence of observations rather than a definitive identification.
At approximately 45 seconds, an area of contrast enters the image from the lower left and moves towards the right as the sensor follows it.
Around 57 seconds, a second area appears from the lower right. The camera adjusts to keep the moving features within view.
Further tracking continues, with changes in the camera's field of view affecting which features remain visible.
These details establish what analysts observed in the recording, but they do not identify the features as extraterrestrial vehicles.
Most importantly, AARO's description does not confirm the alleged movement between air and water.
The phrase suggesting that objects travelled in and out of the sea appears in the uploader's title.
This is not a minor technical distinction. It separates an extraordinary interpretation from the observations actually described in the public record.
Our article explaining what AARO is examines the organisation's role in assessing military UAP reports.

Why Does the Submarine Matter?

The presence of a submarine makes the footage particularly interesting because naval operations depend heavily on identifying nearby activity.
Submarines may be observed by aircraft, satellites and other surveillance systems, especially when operating at the surface.
However, an object appearing close to a submarine in an image is not necessarily physically close to the vessel.
Distance and perspective can be difficult to judge in infrared footage.
A small object nearer the camera may appear similar in size to a much larger object farther away.
Without reliable measurements, investigators cannot confidently determine the relationship between the submarine and the moving features.
The available description also does not establish that the submarine was being approached, followed or threatened.
Those possibilities would require additional evidence beyond the video itself.

What Are Unidentified Submerged Objects?

The term unidentified submerged object, or USO, is commonly used in UFO discussions to describe something reportedly observed beneath or near the water whose identity remains unknown.
Unlike UAP, which is used in formal government investigations, USO does not always have a consistent official definition.
Stories about unusual underwater objects have circulated for decades, including reports involving naval personnel, sonar contacts and unexplained lights.
However, the evidence varies considerably between cases.
Some reports depend on witness recollections, while others involve images or instrument readings that may lack sufficient context.
The famous Tic Tac UFO incident is another naval UAP case, although its circumstances differ significantly from PR067.
The two incidents should not be treated as evidence of the same phenomenon simply because both involve military activity near the ocean.
Each requires an independent assessment of the available observations.

Did the Objects Really Enter the Ocean?

This is the central unanswered question.
The recording's title suggests that spherical objects repeatedly moved between air and water.
If verified, such behaviour would deserve careful technical investigation.
However, determining whether an object crossed the water's surface requires more than an apparent movement on a screen.
Researchers would need to establish the object's position relative to the sea before, during and after the alleged transition.
They would also need to account for camera movement, viewing angle and possible environmental effects.
Reflections, wave patterns, distant objects and changes in infrared contrast can complicate interpretation.
The public PR067 description does not provide independent measurements confirming a genuine transition.
Consequently, the footage should not be presented as verified evidence of an aircraft entering the ocean or a submerged vehicle emerging into the air.

Why Is Infrared Footage Difficult to Interpret?

Infrared cameras detect differences in thermal radiation rather than recording ordinary visible colours.
They can reveal objects that might be difficult to see through conventional cameras, making them valuable for surveillance.
Nevertheless, infrared imagery has limitations.
The appearance of an object depends on the sensor's characteristics, atmospheric conditions, distance and image-processing settings.
A feature may look brighter or darker because of temperature contrast rather than its actual colour or material.
Camera tracking can also create misleading impressions of movement.
When the sensor pans to follow one feature, the surrounding scene shifts across the display.
Without reliable information about the camera's orientation and motion, estimating the speed of a distant object can be difficult.
A military sensor recording may be useful evidence, but it is not automatically sufficient to determine an object's identity or physical behaviour.

Did PR067 Show Impossible Underwater Speeds?

The PR067 recording does not establish that any object travelled underwater at extraordinary speed. Its public description provides neither a verified underwater trajectory nor the measurements needed to calculate such movement.
Claims about extreme performance require reliable distance, timing and sensor data. Without them, apparent motion in an infrared recording cannot demonstrate capabilities beyond conventional technology.

How Did the Recording Become Public?

The release followed a request made in March 2026 by eight members of the United States House of Representatives seeking access to 51 potentially UAP-related records.
AARO identified responsive materials held on a classified network, including the video later designated DOW-UAP-PR067.
The recording became publicly available on 22 May 2026.
The accompanying documentation also warns that many materials in the collection lack a substantiated chain of custody.
That warning matters because investigators must distinguish between the existence of a released file and the reliability of every claim attached to it.
The uploader's title, the original recording and AARO's assessment represent different levels of information.
A government release confirms that the material was made public through an official process. It does not automatically authenticate every interpretation of the event.

Does the Video Support Theories About Underwater Alien Bases?

The footage does not establish the existence of an extraterrestrial installation beneath the ocean.
Stories about hidden underwater bases have become a familiar part of modern UFO speculation.
Some suggest that unknown craft operate from deep-sea facilities, while others propose that an undiscovered intelligence may have lived in Earth's oceans for centuries.
These ideas are explored in our article on aliens living in the ocean.
However, PR067 does not identify an underwater structure, a hidden facility or a non-human civilisation.
Even if investigators eventually confirmed that an object crossed between air and water, that finding alone would not establish where the object originated.
Connecting this recording to an alien base would require evidence that is not currently available.

What Evidence Could Resolve the Mystery?

A stronger investigation would begin with the original video and its technical metadata.
Researchers would need to understand the infrared sensor, the recording platform's movement and the conditions under which the footage was captured.
Reliable distance measurements would help establish the size and speed of the moving features.
Independent radar, sonar or visual observations could provide additional information about whether physical objects were present.
The original uploader's account might also help explain why the video received its unusual title.
Was the description based on observations made during the event, information from another sensor or a later interpretation?
Without that context, the meaning of the title remains uncertain.
As explained in our guide to UAP evidence, reliable conclusions depend on original data, corroboration and careful examination of alternative explanations.

What Does the Submarine UFO Video Really Prove?

The PR067 recording is a genuine entry in the public collection of government-released UAP material.
It contains infrared imagery featuring a submarine and moving areas of contrast that attracted attention from investigators and the public.
Its uploader-defined title suggests objects moving between air and water, but AARO's published description does not independently verify that claim.
There is no confirmed evidence in the case demonstrating extraterrestrial technology, extraordinary underwater speed or a hidden alien installation.
The recording remains interesting because it offers a specific piece of evidence that can be compared with official documentation.
For now, its greatest value may be methodological: it shows why a dramatic title should never be treated as a substitute for careful analysis of what the underlying evidence actually supports.

Sources and Further Reading

AARO — Official UAP Report Documents and Video Descriptions
US Military Video Archive — DOW-UAP-PR067
RealUFO — DOW-UAP-PR067 Case Record
UFO Data — Objects Near a Submarine: Case PR-67
US National Archives — UAP Records Collection
DVIDS — DOW-UAP-PR067 Official Video and Case Description
AARO — Official UAP Reports and Video Records