FBI-UAP-D006 is a Federal Bureau of Investigation record released in PURSUE Release 03 on June 12, 2026. Designated FD-1057-05, it is the fifth in a series of FBI investigative communications pertaining to UAP activity reported in the northeastern United States. The document records a formal site survey carried out by Special Agents during November 2024 at a civilian property where the subject reported observing unidentified anomalous phenomena repeatedly over the previous three years. The originating agency is the FBI; the incident location is the northeastern United States.12
Provenance and Document Form
The FD-1057 is the FBI's standard electronic communication form used to document investigative activity. Form revision 5-8-10 is cited in the header of this record. The communication runs three pages and is accompanied by 24 enclosures consisting of photographs and a photo log. The drafting agent, approving official, and all subject identifiers are redacted throughout. The specific calendar day of the November 2024 survey date is likewise withheld. Despite the extent of the redactions, the document's structural metadata and the enclosure inventory are sufficiently intact to reconstruct the scope and sequence of the site visit.3
The Department of War's official blurb establishes the broader investigative series: subject matter appearing in FBI-UAP-D004 through FBI-UAP-D008, along with video footage designated FBI-UAP-PR001 through FBI-UAP-PR003, corresponds to reports originating from the same general area of the northeastern United States.1 FBI-UAP-D006 sits at the midpoint of that document series and represents a physical, on-the-ground response to evidence that had already been submitted to the Bureau through earlier stages of the investigation.
The Site Survey
Special Agents traveled to the subject's property in November 2024 to conduct a structured site assessment. The purpose, as the record indicates, was to evaluate the geographic and environmental context of the location from which the subject had reported observing UAP activity over a three-year span. This involved a walkthrough of the property itself and the surrounding terrain, anchoring previously submitted photographic and video evidence to actual topography.
The subject guided agents through the property and into a wooded area situated approximately 200 yards west of the residence. This wooded zone is the focal point of the investigation: it is where the subject has positioned a trail camera oriented toward the west, and it is the area from which the subject reports observing UAP. Agents noted two features within the wooded survey area: signage prohibiting hunting and fishing, and a stone wall aligned on a north-to-south axis running through the trees. The subject clarified that a hiking trail encircles the property but does not pass through the specific zone where UAP activity has been documented, defining the observation area as a contained, discrete location within the broader property.3
Sightline and Adjacency Assessment
A key component of the site survey was a sightline analysis. Agents assessed that multiple residential structures situated along the eastern boundary of the subject's property would have direct line-of-sight visibility into the zone where UAP observations have been recorded. The record documents this geographic relationship without drawing a conclusion from it. The notation is consistent with standard investigative practice: establishing who else might have observed the same area, whether from a position to corroborate the subject's account or to offer an alternative explanation for what has been seen.
The subject also provided agents with a video recording made during a hiking excursion along the northern perimeter of the redacted location. The video shows the subject traversing the vicinity of the primary observation zone on foot, giving agents an on-ground perspective of the terrain, vegetation density, and environmental conditions under which the UAP observations have occurred.
Photographic Enclosures
The 24 enclosures attached to the FD-1057 are catalogued in the document's enclosure list. Items 1 through 10 are photographs of the treeline located west of the subject's home, the direction toward which the trail camera faces and from which phenomena have been reported. Items 11 through 14 are trail camera photographs from the subject's primary property. Item 15 is trail camera imagery from a second property location, suggesting the observation area may extend beyond a single parcel of land. Items 16 through 19 are four photographs described in terms that are heavily redacted. Items 20 through 23 are four photographs taken from the subject's back deck, capturing a vantage point oriented toward the area of reported activity. Item 24 is the photo log, an indexed reference to all photographic evidence submitted with the communication.3
The content of the photographs themselves is not described in surviving unredacted text. The record documents what was photographed and from where, but not what the photographs show.
Cooperation and Proposed Monitoring
The subject demonstrated active cooperation with the investigation. Beyond providing the property tour and video recording, the subject gave agents a copy of redacted material and offered to permit FBI equipment installation on the property. The nature and purpose of the proposed equipment are redacted, but the context of an ongoing UAP site investigation suggests monitoring capabilities such as directional video recording, time-lapse documentation, or environmental sensing.
The subject also proposed coordinating the timing of future site visits with FBI personnel, noting that UAP activity at the location is observed most frequently during evening hours. This temporal pattern -- evening observations over a three-year span -- is a substantive investigative detail, as it provides a time window against which any future monitoring effort could be structured. The subject's offer to be present during evening monitoring visits indicates an ongoing relationship between the subject and the investigating agents, and a degree of confidence in the investigative process.3
Three-Year Observation Timeline
The November 2024 site survey is anchored to a three-year history of UAP observations at this location. The FD-1057 does not reconstruct that history in detail -- earlier documents in the FBI-UAP-D series are presumed to address the prior reporting -- but the three-year span is explicitly cited as the period over which the subject has reported observing phenomena and accumulating photographic and video evidence. The trail camera installation facing west, the structuring of the property tour, and the subject's knowledge of when and where activity occurs all reflect sustained, deliberate observation and documentation rather than a single incident report.3
What The Record Supports
FBI-UAP-D006 establishes that the FBI conducted a formal, in-person site survey of a northeastern United States location in November 2024 in response to a civilian subject's multi-year account of UAP observations. The record documents the physical geography of the observation zone, the positioning and field of view of the subject's trail camera, the sightline relationship between the subject's property and adjacent residences, and a coordinated plan for future monitoring with FBI equipment and personnel.
The record does not identify or characterize any phenomenon. It does not describe what was observed, what the trail camera or back-deck photographs depict, or what conclusions the Bureau drew from the site visit. The extensive redactions -- covering all personnel names, specific addresses, equipment details, and investigative findings -- prevent any substantive assessment of what the photographs or video recordings show. The phenomena referenced throughout the document remain unresolved and unidentified. What the FD-1057 demonstrates is that the FBI treated the subject's reports seriously enough to dispatch Special Agents to conduct a structured site assessment, document the environment, catalog photographic evidence, and plan for continued monitoring. That institutional response is the primary evidentiary value of the document as released.1