Aguadilla Infrared Footage of 'UFOs' - Probably Hot Air Wedding Lanterns

[AmberRobot]

We do it so that others don't have to

You could skip to the shoot-yourself-in-the-foot moment at 1722s - 1745s (youtube vid ID 001fbB5BMNw):
"You know it's that weird light. It's just going to show up. Even here, look, you see this super-bright light not making any weird reflections in his phone. This thing [pointing at the dot of the UAP] makes this blue light."

Cue facepalmeing chez FatPhil.

Watch the position of the super-bright light and that blue light as the phone pans around, and notice that they are always diametrically opposite in the frame (except when they coincide in the centre obviously) and moving in lockstep. The superbright light is *precisely* the thing that's causing that blue light due to the reflections in his phone.

It's hard to be more wrong in so short a statement.

I forwarded to that spot. Wow! That light is so obviously a ghost of the bright light in the scene that it's hard to even think of a response to him. He's not even wrong.

 

[Tomer]

Windspeeds at ground level were recored as 4 kts = 4.60312 mph (albeit in San Juan, which is 100km away, but close enough).

From page 86 of the SCU report...
View attachment 45813

100km seems like a long way away...is there some metric you're using on wind speed and how much it changes over distance? Otherwise it doesn't seem like a relevant point.

 

[flarkey]

100km seems like a long way away...is there some metric you're using on wind speed and how much it changes over distance? Otherwise it doesn't seem like a relevant point.

No real metric, it was the closest weather station I could find, and it was what the SCU used for their weather. However, post 1 of this thread also says this...............

 

[Tomer]

No real metric, it was the closest weather station I could find, and it was what the SCU used for their weather. However, post 1 of this thread also says this...............View attachment 45870

I saw that, that's where I got the 13km/h number from originally

 

[Luis Cayetano]

I noticed in the SCU report that the Airforce conveniently refused to give them radar data from the airport itself. It seems like this case remains conveniently ambiguous until we can get that radar data (if indeed the unit was capable of resolving such a small object). As usual, the organizations that are supposed to serve us aren't transparent and allow the myth to live on in the murky low information zone created by classification of information.

This is rather odd logic. You're implying that the Air Force should be obliged to release radar data whenever UFO researchers ask for it - as though military radar isn't one of the most sensitive pieces of technology and as though American adversaries wouldn't be interested in learning about its operational parameters, blind spots etc. Apparently, a one-size-fits-all commitment to "transparency", in which American technology and its potential limitations are made openly available to the entire world would be more to your liking?

 

[flarkey]

Nice close up of the Digital Video Compression Artefacts seen around the Aguadilla object as it "submerges" from Twitter User Caitgaist. This further suggests that the weird things seen in the video are artefacts rather that genuine high-strangeness caught on camera.


Source: https://twitter.com/caitgaist/status/1535111411285823495?t=71WT2d-42jNprmu8kniW6g&s=09

 

[flarkey]

Not sure if this has been posted before.. here's a video of multiple Chinese lanterns flying over the Aguadilla airport taken just a few months after the IR video.

Source: https://youtu.be/ObveydkSXgU

 

[Mick West]

Not sure if this has been posted before.. here's a video of multiple Chinese lanterns flying over the Aguadilla airport taken just a few months after the IR video.

Source: https://youtu.be/ObveydkSXgU

At El Meson Sandwiches (Borinquen).

Looks like they are flying to the SW. Did you look up the wind on that day? Great illustration.

 

[Mick West]

At El Meson Sandwiches (Borinquen).

Site note, geolocating this was interesting as it's from 2013. The most recent satellite image looks like:

But if you turn on 3D buildings, you get:

Which is similar to what you get by rolling back to 2016:

In the video they are standing near the yellow arrow circled, looking over the blue container (up and right from there, which is SE)

Two points. Firstly the 3D Buildings capture seems to coincide with a HD satellite image (i.e. they are using that capture). Secondly, don't rely on current images - then can change quite a bit. This would have been impossible find with just current images.

 

[flarkey]

At El Meson Sandwiches (Borinquen).

Location relative to the Rafael Hernandez Airport.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/searc...la/@18.4657877,-67.1532055,375m/data=!3m1!1e3

Looks like they are flying to the SW. Did you look up the wind on that day? Great illustration.

According the the YouTube Video Description the time was November 1, 2013 at 9:32.

Wind was from the east:

https://classic.nullschool.net/#201...thographic=-64.39,17.98,2612/loc=7.689,16.351

 

[Mick West]

My Liminia talk on this topic:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BahEq46t3Uo

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

My Liminia talk on this topic:

Interestingly, the Society for UAP Studies has placed Mick's presentation right at the bottom of their list of videos (clicking "Load More" to reach the end).

As yet, there isn't any update to the Scientific Coalition of UAP Studies detailed analysis page for the Aguadilla UFO in response to Mick's analysis (last update Nov 2, 2021).

 

[FatPhil]

Interestingly, the Society for UAP Studies has placed Mick's presentation right at the bottom of their list of videos (clicking "Load More" to reach the end).

As yet, there isn't any update to the Scientific Coalition of UAP Studies detailed analysis page for the Aguadilla UFO in response to Mick's analysis (last update Nov 2, 2021).

Purely for scientific reasons, I have to ask whether a completely nonsensical video that agreed with their presumptions would be given higher priority on their list? I'm definitely not suggesting anyone should make one in order to test this hypothesis, no, no, no.

 

[flarkey]

At the recent SOL Foundation inaugural symposium, Kevin Knuth included the Aguadilla event in his talk regarding the Physics of UAPs, using it as an example of their transmedium capabilities and thier affinity for water.


Source: https://youtu.be/HlYwktOj75A?t=1512

 

[jarlrmai]

At the recent SOL Foundation inaugural symposium, Kevin Knuth included the Aguadilla event in his talk regarding the Physics of UAPs, using it as an example of their transmedium capabilities and thier affinity for water.


Source: https://youtu.be/HlYwktOj75A?t=1512

Is Knuth on the SCU? I can't remember.

 

[flarkey]

Is Knuth on the SCU? I can't remember.

He is - he co-authored the paper "Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles" that used the radar data (people's accounts) from the Nimitz event to calculate the tic-tac's performance.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7514271/

https://www.3af.fr/global/gene/link...ent-3af-sigma2-webinar-1-on-uap-june-2023.pdf

 

[jarlrmai]

So SOL is just the same old people telling the same old deeply flawed stories, I saw something on Reddit with crazy energy numbers all extrapolated from what Kevin Day said he remembers seeing on the radar then it's made out like the calculations are from the actual RADAR data.

 

[JMartJr]

Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles? If they have not been identified, how do they know they are vehicles?

 

[Mendel]

Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles? If they have not been identified, how do they know they are vehicles?

They don't, it's science fiction. Kinda similar what nerds do when they talk about the performance of spacecraft seen in Star Wars or Star Trek.
(It's actually the "reality TV" version of science fiction.)

 

[flarkey]

Yesterday SCU published a response to AARO's Aguadilla analysis

https://www.explorescu.org/post/scu-announcement-on-the-aaro-investigation-of-the-aguadilla-videoA number of Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) supporters have inquired about the current status of our review of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office's (AARO) hypothesis that sky lanterns are the most likely explanation for the object observed in the 2013 Aguadilla (Puerto Rico) video. We want to provide a transparent update on where things stand. SCU has submitted a series of technical questions to AARO regarding their sky lantern hypothesis and specific claims made in their report. AARO has acknowledged our inquiry and responded that they are not currently prepared to provide answers to those questions but may address them in a future follow-up report.We remain committed to a thorough and evidence-based analysis. Once SCU receives the requested data and clarifications, we will be able to complete our review of AARO's sky lantern hypothesis.

In the spirit of transparency, we are publicly sharing the specific questions SCU submitted to AARO:

• Can AARO provide the reconstructed 3D flight path (x, y, and altitude) of the object identified as a sky lantern?
• What is the source of the data supporting the statement: "The aircraft entered a layer of scattered clouds as it passed 3,000 feet in altitude"? Can AARO provide that information for follow-up analysis?
• Could AARO provide the latitude, longitude, and altitude coordinates of the object based on the STK model's line of sight relative to the video frames? Please also include error margins where applicable.
• Was AARO able to obtain control tower logs or military radar data corresponding to the time of the incident?
• AARO's report states: "During specific frames, the objects seem to pass behind a utility pole, indicating that they were at a much lower altitude and traveling much faster than would be typical for objects of this size. AARO employed pixel analysis to investigate this alternative and found that the objects did not pass behind the pole, ruling out anomalous performance characteristics." Could AARO please share the results and methodology of this pixel analysis?

We hope this information helps clarify our current process. We will share any updates as they become available.

References
All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), (2025). Case: "The Puerto Rico Object", U.S. Dept of Defense, https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PD...orts/AARO_Puerto_Rico_UAP_Case_Resolution.pdf

Buettner, D.J., Griffiths, R.E., Snell, N., Stilley, J. (2024). Enhancing Space Situational Awareness to Mitigate Risk: A Single-Case Study in the Misidentification of a Recently-Launched Starlink Satellite Train as a UAP in Commercial Aviation, 4th IAA Conference on Space Situational Awareness (ICSSA), May 8-10 2024, Daytona Beach, FL, USA. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.08155

Powell, R., Beall, M., Cates, L., Paulson, C., Hoffman, R., Chaviano, D. (2015). Aguadilla Puerto Rico: The Detailed Analysis of an Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon Captured by the Department of Homeland Security, Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies. https://www.explorescu.org/post/2013-aguadilla-puerto-rico-uap-incident-report-a-detailed-analysis

I think some of those points have been clarified in this thread, the modelling of the trajectory certainly has.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

Yesterday SCU published a response to AARO's Aguadilla analysis


I think some of those points have been clarified in this thread, the modelling of the trajectory certainly has.

The SCU report still after years of feedback they've received contains simply incorrect arguments such as this one on page numbered 154 (page 157 of the PDF):

It would be nice, if they are revisiting this case, for them to make the necessary corrections to their own work before getting into the weeds on critiquing AARO's work.

 

[Mick West]

I think some of those points have been clarified in this thread, the modelling of the trajectory certainly has.

It's weird that they are asking for that, as it's been reconstructed many times. I've shown the Sitrec reconstruction directly to Robert Powell when we were in a chat room at the Limina conference.

 

[John J.]

It's weird that they are asking for that, as it's been reconstructed many times. I've shown the Sitrec reconstruction directly to Robert Powell when we were in a chat room at the Limina conference.

Perhaps a case of they "...want to believe" as opposed to "want to know".

The Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies won't be the first group of people interested in UFOs (or other claims of extraordinary phenomena) who, despite claims of scientific methodology and perhaps good intentions, have ended up rejecting evidence that conflicts with their hopes (or fears).

 

[jarlrmai]

It's weird that they are asking for that, as it's been reconstructed many times. I've shown the Sitrec reconstruction directly to Robert Powell when we were in a chat room at the Limina conference.

They want AARO to show it, I think it's "reasonable" from the viewpoint of the SCU.

The SCU claim to be academics doing serious academic work (no matter how wrong they get it all the time) they don't consider you or this forum to be "peers" and thus they can safely ignore us,

However AARO is another organisation of scientists and thus the SCU to be consistent have to take it seriously and part of that is going to be "show us your working" and AARO cannot just point to this forum or Sitrec etc, they have to produce their own actual analysis.

 

[FatPhil]

The SCU claim to be academics doing serious academic work (no matter how wrong they get it all the time) they don't consider you or this forum to be "peers" and thus they can safely ignore us,

That's fine, I don't consider them "peers" either.

 

[yoshy]

The SCU report still after years of feedback they've received contains simply incorrect arguments such as this one on page numbered 154 (page 157 of the PDF):

View attachment 79858

It would be nice, if they are revisiting this case, for them to make the necessary corrections to their own work before getting into the weeds on critiquing AARO's work.

Can you clarify the mistake being made in this screenshot? (My apologies if it's something obvious I'm missing.)

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

Can you clarify the mistake being made in this screenshot? (My apologies if it's something obvious I'm missing.)

The change in the position of the object relative to the background between these two frames is explainable (in full or in part) by rightward motion of the plane with respect to the line of sight of the camera.

In that section of the SCU report the author asserts incorrectly that if the background doesn't move (at least not easily perceptibly) but the object does move relative to the background, that can only be explainable by inherent motion of the object, and no portion of any component of this relative motion can be from parallax.

 

[yoshy]

The change in the position of the object relative to the background between these two frames is explainable (in full or in part) by rightward motion of the plane with respect to the line of sight of the camera.

In that section of the SCU report the author asserts incorrectly that if the background doesn't move (at least not easily perceptibly) but the object does move relative to the background, that can only be explainable by inherent motion of the object, and no portion of any component of this relative motion can be from parallax.

Thank you!!

 

[Mendel]

Can you clarify the mistake being made in this screenshot? (My apologies if it's something obvious I'm missing.)

@Kyle Ferriter is correct.

To be more explicit, does the observation that there are "some frames having no background motion" mean that the observer aircraft stopped? Of course not, it just so happens that that the camera turning motion cancelled out the observer aircraft traveling motion. But when the observer is traveling, you always have parallax, which means that objects at different distances travel at different apparent speeds. (See e.g. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/al...o-teleportation-videos-hoax.13104/post-299535 ) And that means that when the camera turning cancels out the apparent background motion, it does not cancel out the apparent lantern motion, because the lantern is closer and moves at a faster apparent speed. The video shows what we expect to see.

 

[Mick West]

It's weird that they are asking for that, as it's been reconstructed many times. I've shown the Sitrec reconstruction directly to Robert Powell when we were in a chat room at the Limina conference.

Here's where I ask him why that appendix has not been removed. He eventually said he'd look into it when he had time.

Source: https://youtu.be/UfVbiKWbo6w?t=2462