Four of the videos are marked as "featured" on the war.gov website.
The "featured" column is a new addition to the .csv for this release.

PR020 was released in tranche 1:

External Quote:

I missed this because I was only looking at videos, but that's a pdf containing one frame, I don't consider this as "released".

I'm guessing that whoever submits a UAP image/ video to AARO isn't obliged to consider the pattern of diffraction spikes that the imaging system might show. But I'm a bit disappointed that AARO doesn't comment on what are obviously diffraction spikes.

External Quote:

DOW-UAP-PR104, Unresolved UAP Report, Yellow Sea, 2025 https://www.dvidshub.net/video/1014101/dow-uap-pr104-unresolved-uap-report-yellow-sea-2025

The six-pointed star seems to be the focus of interest. It's a diffraction spike pattern.
If the original observer/ image analysts aren't aware of this, it poses questions about their training. If imagery like this is being submitted by other people who have access to the imagery but don't understand it, this also raises questions.

The description states that the report consisted of the image in its present state. I don't think there is more to it than what's been released.

A lot of hoopla's being made over these images of what appears to be a slender triangular-ish object Columbia captured.

But here's the thing, the mission Columbia was on (STS-80) was carrying payloads: 2 Satellites that they released, let float in orbit for a while, and then re-captured!

Photos taken from within the shuttle of a distant object when one of their objectives is to recover some satellites that they themselves deployed... hmmmm....

The fact that none of this is mentioned on any of the image's pages is great too, really keeping this gravy train going lads, good work.

Also, as relayed by one of the crew for this mission, they saw diddly squat.

A few minutes of googling was all it took! Hey DOW, hire me!

PR102 has a few frames you can almost read :

It all is insanely laughable. How can I "have an open mind" when we are fed with complete and utter nonsense videos? Ah, I suppose "the good ones are still being hidden from us!" Sigh (^3)

That's a good point.
It's the perfect camera setting for seeing weirdness where there isn't.

They will claim this the next 79 years, it's a never ending story...

Apologies if this was explained somewhere already, but was there some criteria given, for
the order in which these duds would be released?

I ask because I'm thinking that if the "best" ones had been prioritized in the first batch
(I gotta google a better synonym for that noun), it seems it would be hard to get many folks' attention
at this point, with a 4th batch, when loads 1, 2 & 3 failed to provide much sizzle...