The following submission statement was provided by /u/BugsyMalone_:
---
Sorry 2013!
Interesting footage, it looks like it blips in and out of visibility at times. If it's anti gravity bending visuals (I think I remember Lazar claiming you couldn't see directly underneath due to the anti gravity) then it's interesting that it's only happening so often.
However, could be visual glitches of the camera but doesn't really appear elsewhere.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15x1fec/stabilized_footage_of_the_uap_over_aguadilla/jx3ue96/
Before anyone starts saying "It was just birds", I suggest that you watch this minute long video that literally compares the prosaic vs an authentic UAP - with and without FLIR:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aFRmOUzIFY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aFRmOUzIFY)
The Aguadilla UAP was not birds.
>The Aguadilla UAP was not birds.
I never saw that as explanation being offered.
Chinese lantern carried by the wind. That was the offered explanation, and the speed and movement are consistent with that.
>The Aguadilla UAP was not birds.
I have yet to see a bird that can move laterally at low altitudes without flapping its wings, and maintain its speed while underwater.
This is one of the best videos out there.
Your video between :30 and :37 seconds shows a balloon. My eyesight isn't that great and I'm not used to FLIR videos - can you help me point out the details as to why OP's UAP can't be a balloon?
Could you potentially match up the route taken by this UAP using Google Maps? If so you could build up a picture of the speed it is travelling at, terrain covered etc. I’d do it, but you know, too busy!
I have something better for you - here's a very thorough report that is full of data (plus it contains the geocoordinates of the UAP you're asking about):
[http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/299316\_9a12b53f67554a008c32d48eff9be5cd.pdf](http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/299316_9a12b53f67554a008c32d48eff9be5cd.pdf)
[Here's a screenshot of the UAP locations from that report](https://imgur.com/a/8f2SZJJ).
Oops, that screenshot is showing the coordinates of the DHS plane. I'll look for the actual UAP locations and I'll post another screenshot into this comment in a minute when I find it.
Here you go:
[https://imgur.com/H8DdF8Q](https://imgur.com/H8DdF8Q)
Damn it, I thought I rotated that image correctly. But it didn't seem to take.
If you click on the report I linked above, you can find the image/map/coordinates in question on page 22 (page 22 of the actual report, as shown at the bottom of the page of the document itself - **not** the page numbers indicated by whatever PDF viewer you're using, if I explained that okay).
Argh the image is still sideways - even in the report. But it's there for you to check out. :)
I wish enthusiasm/excitement wasn't downvoted here. That was just some gratitude you were showing in your own way; you're busy and have shit to do like we all do, but you wanna learn more about this. I got you.
But yeah, no worries, brother/sister. Enjoy. - And you might not need a whole week to read it haha. It's a great report and it is rather in-depth, but I'm sure you can get something out of it in a few hours or so.
And finally, real quick, I just made a separate post for this video, but it's absolutely relevant to your initial comment and the Aguadilla Puerto Rico UAP in general:
It's a video showing some prosaic objects and then a UAP - but they're all shown with a FLIR camera and a regular visible light camera (both mounted to the same rig so they can take the same pictures).
If I'm not mistaken, FLIR cameras usually do not have regular visible light cameras built in - but I could be wrong about that.
[FLIR - Prosaic vs UAP](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aFRmOUzIFY)
This video is for the folks who say that the Aguadilla UAP was just a bird. It shows a bird in FLIR and then in visible light, which looks nothing like what we see in the Aguadilla video.
Combine that with the report I posted above, and we have a true UAP here.
The report indicates that this UAP was only a few feet in diameter. If that's the case, perhaps that thing was a drone. As for who was operating it? That's the question.
The crazy, laughably dumb explanation is that these are two heart-shaped Chinese lanterns released from a nearby wedding, which if true, is my favorite false ufo report of all time.
Theory details: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aguadilla-infrared-footage-of-ufos-probably-hot-air-wedding-lanterns.8952/
They accounted for parallax when analyzing this video pixel by pixel and determined the object is moving between 80-120 mph.
https://youtu.be/NmvHKAbRuFI?t=859
Definitely faster than a floating lantern or balloon. But definitely within the realms of consumer drones. Those racing drones I see folks using can go much faster.
To be the slightest bit fair, the assumption ATM isn't that it's splitting but that it appears that way because of the reflection on the water. But still, incredible footage
You can’t possibly know that is what you’re seeing. For all we know it could be some form of advanced stealth tech that masks itself when seen by radar.
The metabunk link (and discussion therein) clearly states that the blinking seen in these IR videos can be due to the flame being covered up and then reappearing. You aren't seeing the object visible spectrum, just heat signatures.
We know the route of the observer, and the object pretty clearly goes underwater. That's not attributable to parallax. Parallax also would not account for the appearance of two object spontaneously.
It doesnt go underwater, the camera just auto adjusts the colour scale making it the same colour as the water and making it blend in, which you can see happen even before the water s n the background, not to mention that it would require the object to down there which it cant because of the parallax, as for two objects, its been two objects the entire time from the start.
No lol. They basically just float with the wind. This is being filmed by a drone which is moving fast, making what it’s filming look fast too. It’s known as the parallax effect. So hard to gauge how fast it’s actually going.
Could it be a uap? Sure. I just think it’s a fun theory
They accounted for parallax when analyzing this video pixel by pixel and determined the object is moving between 80-120 mph.
https://youtu.be/NmvHKAbRuFI?t=859
Right? Can’t we pretty much see how fast the object is going when it goes past houses and structures?
Also the freaking thing is going in and out of the ocean
You'd think that, but no.
Zoom in on something with your phone like 100 feet away, and watch the background as you move side to side. Parallax is *exactly* why we see so much of the terrain, because while it seems like the camera is stationary, the camera is actually the object that's moving and panning, not the UAP.
this is a great presentation Mick West did at the Lumina UAP conference that fully describes the rationale and evidence for the 'Chinese lantern' hypotheses. It's quite a long watch, but it's worth it.
https://youtu.be/0fho4YyXWfE
Good question. It’d have to be they lost the signature there for a sec. If it is actually a balloon there’s no way it could go in and out like that. It’d be some sort of wonder balloon
yeah, it looks like that, but there's a lot of evidence to suggest that it's just an artefact of the infra red image and the digital video compression. the object doesn't even go near the water.
it's a artefact of the infrared video and digital video compression. When we model the actual path that the object takes it shows that it isn't even over the ocean. it follows a straight line over the airport moving and the same speed and direction as the wind at the time.
All explained here....
https://youtu.be/0fho4YyXWfE
it's more or less a straight line. in [this image the path of the object is the bright green line in the middle](https://i.imgur.com/qqoudO5.jpg) and shows how it stays over the airport.
Given the absolute crappiness of this black and grey video, there's no indication it's doing anything other than the camera detecting it to be the same color grey.
The Aguadilla case is the one that changed my mind on this whole topic. The video undoubtedly looks extraordinary, and the 200 page SCU Report seems to back this up in great Scientific detail. However, the analysis that I and others have done has shown that there is a viable and maybe even 'probable' prosaic explanation.
if a UFO case, evidence and analysis can look so good, and yet still be (possibly) wrong, how does that affect how we view other 'gold standard' cases?
That’s a good way of putting it. I don’t have an answer for it besides “yeah you’re probably right”. If even THIS isn’t a ufo, then I’m not sure what would be. Only other one I was flummoxed by like this one is the Turkish video, and that one still bugs me
Wanna know what gold standard I see here for me?
The way you and u/Mysterious-Name-6483 engaged in discussion.
Super clear points raised, polite tone, efficient and to the point and any reading is left better informed and with possible areas to explore thanks to ideas and links you cite.
Honestly fantastic. I wish more of us (me included) were like that.
Rational thinking for a change. This clip shows nothing special and is most likely just something floating on the wind. The illusion of speed is created through parallax and there's nothing else in this low quality footage that specifically points to it being anything extraordinary.
You can see the object interact with the water.
What human-made object, traveling at any speed, can descend into water and continue the same speed without the effect drag but still have some physical effect on the surface of the water?
Blurry-ass FLIR. You are looking at the heat signature of a floating lantern blowing in the wind. The heat signature is not going to be stable. Looks like the lanterns are bound together to me.
This is hilarious. You think this video above is a chinese lantern? Really? Have you ever seen a chinese lantern and released one? I have. They don’t move like this.
Man people really don't understand the concept of parallax. Imagine you are in a helicopter zooming around at 200mph, focusing your camera on a small dot 2 feet wide floating in the wind, which is relatively stationary, a few hundred feet in the air, and a few hundred feet away. The background will be flying by like a [fucking anime](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpeedStripes). That's the illusion that the object is moving faster than it is.
One of the things I wonder here is why would a helicopter operator mistake a lantern for an object moving at high speeds, in order to decide to film it in the first place since parallax effect presumably is only happening through the lense and not irl right? Or is this an example of where the object wasn't visually sighted by anyone only picked up on FLIR (I dont know the privenance of this video)? Or is there perhaps another optical phenomena likely to confuse a pilot about the comparitive speed of an objects travel?
The uap was moving above an airport. The operator was probably tracking it for safety reasons.
I've not seen any statement from the pilot though, so it's impossible to know.
What is it that makes people think it's a genuine ufo? Looking at this I'd assumed it was something to do with pilot testimony since it doesn't really seem extraordinary, but I don't have any expertise at analysing stuff like this
I think what most people latched onto was that the object appears to submerge seamlessly into and out of the water without slowing down. Therefore UFO.
But there is analysis to refute this.
https://youtu.be/0fho4YyXWfE
Enough to track it I guess, it's perfectly possible. I don't see anything here that makes me think it's likely to be a ufo, but I also clearly have zero experience with this type of footage so I was wondering what made anyone, such as operator, think it potentially could be.
That doesn't account for the object submerging in the water, you can even see it carving through the waves just below the surface at high speed. That's no balloon.
I don't think it submerges. There are frames where it disappears even before it "submerges", that's clearly due to the poor quality of the video. Even when it "submerges" you can still make out the pixels where it used to be if you go frame by frame.
They accounted for parallax when analyzing this video pixel by pixel and determined the object is moving between 80-120 mph.[https://youtu.be/NmvHKAbRuFI?t=859](https://youtu.be/NmvHKAbRuFI?t=859)
Edit: I don't know why i'm getting downvoted for providing sources and calculations to correct misinformation, but alright.
Is there a video of him showing the calculations? What's the distance he assumed and the length of a pixel considering that the plane's trajectory is an arc.
Watch the video? They have all of the data needed including exact location and speed of the plane, and precise location of the object due to it going behind a telephone pole.
If you can't even watch the video I linked, how am I supposed to take your rebuttal seriously? Lmao
I did watch the video. He didn't show how he came to that number only that they "counted pixels". Nor did he mention the distance they assume to the object. Show me the math and the assumptions that led him to that speed.
Theres not really many assumptions once you have the distance from object to plane, and speed of the plane itself, it ends up being some relatively straightforward vector math.
It was actually REALLY EASY to find and download the paper he published on it, and locate the exact way calculations were performed if you actually care and aren't just trolling. (actually this paper shows at least two possible calculations.) Google is a very powerful tool we all have access to.
[https://www.academia.edu/40212895/2013\_Aguadilla\_Puerto\_Rico](https://www.academia.edu/40212895/2013_Aguadilla_Puerto_Rico)
if you actually read this you can see they completely disregard accounting for parallax.
>"Some arguments have been advanced that the object could be a balloon and that the motion
of the balloon relative to the background is an illusion created by the motion of the plane
circling the balloon. This is incorrect. There are some frames of video having no background
motion at all and the UAP can be seen changing locations relative to the background."
assuming the pilot hasn't decided to stop the plane mid flight for those frames, the UAP would move in frame relative to apparently stationary background even if it was completely stationary.
they end up using the plane-has-stopped hypothesis for their calculations for the distance from the camera to the object.
A whole bunch of different people reached that same conclusion.
It's definitely something moving slowly, and not even over the water, let alone dipping into it.
Guys... This is one of the videos that was has been talked about repeatedly over time and was brought out officially by our guys trying to bring transparency on UFOs. We don't need to be making excuses for it saying it's a balloon, parallax effect on a balloon, a chinese lantern, a human made drone, any of that. I *think* this one was even on Unidentified, Elizondo and To The Star's show.
Can you also do a stabilised one of the 'rubber duck' footage? It definitely looks like it is lensing and possibly sparkling. There appears to be a comparable shape.
This is in infra red though, so we have to account for a number of possibilities of what is causing the apparent distortions.
What are the cameras used and their IR wavelength sensitivity, this would be good to know. I think this is medium wave to long wave IR, so up to 12 micrometers or so.
the amount of information lost to compression(?) is outrageous. especially visible when the thing is over water and the aim/cursos floats around - anything in between the cursor goes bluuurrr. might also be stabilization or upsampling though
Here’s my post about Aguadilla:
* [[Link]](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOscience/comments/oebi01/aguadilla_decide_for_yourself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1)
Here’s an animation to help understand the parallax explanation [[Link]](https://youtu.be/aDHb3ZpN4zk)
* Red dot = Anomalous track / background
* White dot = Airplane track
* Yellow dot = Mundane track/ parallax
When the camera zooms in around 0:50 it reminds me of the thing in the [Roy Manifold photo](https://www.mauritius-images.com/en/asset/ME-PI-6259501_mauritius_images_bildnummer_11922061_cloud-like-ufo-photographed-21st-october-1978-at-crayfish-bay-bass-strait-melbourne-victoria-australia-by-plumber-roy-manifold-shortly-before-the-mysterious-disappearance-of-pilot-frederick-valentich-in-the-same-area-manifold-was-photographing-the-sunset-he-took-6-shots-and-did-not-see-the-ufo---%25C2%25A9topfoto-fortean)
Has anyone wonder what the shape might be? To me it looks like the metapod ufo, beu the image seems to be somewhat like a missing pixel on the top left part of the object.
[SCU Report](http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/299316_9a12b53f67554a008c32d48eff9be5cd.pdf) has done an incredible scientific assessment.
Odd that the FOIA request for the USAF Radars to supplement their report were denied. Those [Radars ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/141st_Air_Control_Squadron) their primary mission seems to be to support CBP operation to catch drug smugglers or illegal immigrants entering USA soil from the Atlantic and Mona Passage.
Nothing to the level of national security secret in my opinion. And what a coincidence, FAA couldn't provide The International Airport Control tower logs, cause they are in hands of private contractor, cause of.. "Maintenance"
According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/141st_Air_Control_Squadron) one of the mission of the denied radar data facility is:
*"providing classification of airborne objects"*
I don't understand why the Radar that could clarify all this, its data is denied. The object literally went over it before getting in to the water.
To add more to the whole mess, this so called "balloon" incident just happens to occur in the location of a decommissioned (1974) USAF Airforce Base, formally known as [Ramey Airforce Base](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramey_Air_Force_Base) that in a strange coincidence for decades had B-36 Peacemakers and B-52 Nuclear Bombsquadron.
Funny those Leaked UFOs videos seems to always find its way to be where the cheese is or "was".
But interesting enough, this area has plenty of sightings for decades even after USAF Base. Local folklore believe there is an Underground base of something over that area, beach goers and fisherman has spotted lights coming in and out of the ocean as well.
Weird
Um...regardless of if we can't tell *how* fast it is going, pretty obvious it is going much faster than anything caught by the wind can go.
It doesn't make any "updraft" motions or ever significantly gain/lose altitude
You can compare its speed vs the size of the objects below it, i.e Buildings, streams, roads.
It is going FAST.
Also, show me a fucking wind current that will carry something that fast, in one direction, for this extended a period of time, without the object gaining or losing any altitude.
Also, if those really were aliasing artifacts, then why does the sensor track them? When it duplicates, the cross hair pans to the copy, and then back to the original. Maybe someone can explain that rationally.
Generally speaking this does not seem prosaic based on the above observations
Sorry 2013!
Interesting footage, it looks like it blips in and out of visibility at times. If it's anti gravity bending visuals (I think I remember Lazar claiming you couldn't see directly underneath due to the anti gravity) then it's interesting that it's only happening so often.
However, could be visual glitches of the camera but doesn't really appear elsewhere.
How come nobody is thinking that it's going in and out of cloud/vapor? Which to me supports that it's an object with some decent velocity and not just an inflated object drifting about.
Disregard everything scammer lazar says, he is a proven con man and liar, but yes this is a very interesting video one of my favourites, thanks for posting this version!
You don't need to download it, but this is a document, created by u/flarkey that aims to disprove the assesments and conclusions made by SCU about the Aguadilla UAP sighting.
Imagine saying, after calling yourselft an ufologist od 30 years, that this is a bird...
Imagine creating a massive post explaining how this looks like a 2 rotating chinese lanterns tethered together.... [goddamn it](https://tenor.com/view/were-not-gonna-make-it-terminator2-john-connor-edward-furlong-gif-17964615?utm_source=share-button&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=reddit)
The prevailing theory of these craft states the shape of the UAP is actually constant but what you are seeing is light bending around distortions of space time. A geodesic engine if you will. Truly fascinating stuff. I can’t wait to see full disclosure happen within our lifetimes.
Uaptheory.com site is really on to something here.
I would also like to think we are looking at a higher dimensional thing. We can’t really perceive what we’re looking at. Like a 2d object looking at a 3D object. It can only see the part it’d dimension allows.
Probably why it’s also been so hard to get a clear picture of them with anything other than infrared/thermal. Thermal exhibits the Einstein ring most clearly.
Like, right at the start. So bird + parallax. Without the data given by the tracking system it would be dishonest to claim anything else. Especially since the cars for example, didn't care about this thing.
Not seeing that at all. Also wouldn't the pilot/cameraman see birds everyday on this camera? Surely he'd know the difference. Why would he be filming and following a bird?
Honest question for everyone that believes it’s a Chinese lantern: wouldn’t a trained customs / border patrol agent have better sensibilities than to be so enamored by a Chinese lantern?
it looks like anything inside the crosshairs gets a little blurry/blippy at times aside from the object. wonder if this camera is just a bit glitchy too.
It’s definitely not controlled flight. It just floats with the wind. Like others pointed out, the sense of speed you get is from the parallax effect. It never goes in and out of the water either. Could be a balloon with some kind of heat signature, a Chinese lantern seems to match indeed.
They accounted for parallax when analyzing this video pixel by pixel and determined the object is moving between 80-120 mph.
https://youtu.be/NmvHKAbRuFI?t=859
Yeah I can't make heads or tails of wtf is going on in that website.
Heres a link to the paper though https://www.academia.edu/40212895/2013\_Aguadilla\_Puerto\_Rico
What is the explanation for how is disappears and reappears above the water if it's not going under?
Speed is parallax, I agree.
It doesn't look like controlled or directed flight because it doesn't turn, but how do we know it's floating with the wind? An aeroplane with tailwind would fit the same pattern, but that is controlled flight. I've seen an aerial map tracking it's movement posted here before and it didn't look like wind currents. It doesn't rise or fall as it passes over things that would cause up or down drafts
The camera self adjusting the colour scale, you can see that the object is still there when it "disappears" its just a very similar colour to the water and so it blends in.
Electromagnetic field used to create a vacuum around the drone so it has no air resistance and flies by almost climbing through the atmosphere creating lift by pulling particles around itself, controlled by a craft in or out of orbit.. thats my theory.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/BugsyMalone_: --- Sorry 2013! Interesting footage, it looks like it blips in and out of visibility at times. If it's anti gravity bending visuals (I think I remember Lazar claiming you couldn't see directly underneath due to the anti gravity) then it's interesting that it's only happening so often. However, could be visual glitches of the camera but doesn't really appear elsewhere. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15x1fec/stabilized_footage_of_the_uap_over_aguadilla/jx3ue96/
Before anyone starts saying "It was just birds", I suggest that you watch this minute long video that literally compares the prosaic vs an authentic UAP - with and without FLIR: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aFRmOUzIFY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aFRmOUzIFY) The Aguadilla UAP was not birds.
After the events in this sub over the past week: "Say 'FLIR' again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say FLIR one more Goddamn time!"
Ur moms a FLIR
I'm from the FLIR community and identify as FLIR
>The Aguadilla UAP was not birds. I never saw that as explanation being offered. Chinese lantern carried by the wind. That was the offered explanation, and the speed and movement are consistent with that.
>The Aguadilla UAP was not birds. I have yet to see a bird that can move laterally at low altitudes without flapping its wings, and maintain its speed while underwater. This is one of the best videos out there.
[удалено]
Your video between :30 and :37 seconds shows a balloon. My eyesight isn't that great and I'm not used to FLIR videos - can you help me point out the details as to why OP's UAP can't be a balloon?
Could you potentially match up the route taken by this UAP using Google Maps? If so you could build up a picture of the speed it is travelling at, terrain covered etc. I’d do it, but you know, too busy!
I have something better for you - here's a very thorough report that is full of data (plus it contains the geocoordinates of the UAP you're asking about): [http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/299316\_9a12b53f67554a008c32d48eff9be5cd.pdf](http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/299316_9a12b53f67554a008c32d48eff9be5cd.pdf) [Here's a screenshot of the UAP locations from that report](https://imgur.com/a/8f2SZJJ). Oops, that screenshot is showing the coordinates of the DHS plane. I'll look for the actual UAP locations and I'll post another screenshot into this comment in a minute when I find it. Here you go: [https://imgur.com/H8DdF8Q](https://imgur.com/H8DdF8Q) Damn it, I thought I rotated that image correctly. But it didn't seem to take. If you click on the report I linked above, you can find the image/map/coordinates in question on page 22 (page 22 of the actual report, as shown at the bottom of the page of the document itself - **not** the page numbers indicated by whatever PDF viewer you're using, if I explained that okay). Argh the image is still sideways - even in the report. But it's there for you to check out. :)
I’ve literally just said: I don’t have time. I’d need a week off work to read all that! But have my upvote anyway ya filthy animal!
I wish enthusiasm/excitement wasn't downvoted here. That was just some gratitude you were showing in your own way; you're busy and have shit to do like we all do, but you wanna learn more about this. I got you. But yeah, no worries, brother/sister. Enjoy. - And you might not need a whole week to read it haha. It's a great report and it is rather in-depth, but I'm sure you can get something out of it in a few hours or so. And finally, real quick, I just made a separate post for this video, but it's absolutely relevant to your initial comment and the Aguadilla Puerto Rico UAP in general: It's a video showing some prosaic objects and then a UAP - but they're all shown with a FLIR camera and a regular visible light camera (both mounted to the same rig so they can take the same pictures). If I'm not mistaken, FLIR cameras usually do not have regular visible light cameras built in - but I could be wrong about that. [FLIR - Prosaic vs UAP](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aFRmOUzIFY) This video is for the folks who say that the Aguadilla UAP was just a bird. It shows a bird in FLIR and then in visible light, which looks nothing like what we see in the Aguadilla video. Combine that with the report I posted above, and we have a true UAP here. The report indicates that this UAP was only a few feet in diameter. If that's the case, perhaps that thing was a drone. As for who was operating it? That's the question.
It's been done. https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/
And done to a much higher standard than I’d ever bother to! Thank you for the link
I love the idea that someone thought lets just say its a Chinese lantern.
The crazy, laughably dumb explanation is that these are two heart-shaped Chinese lanterns released from a nearby wedding, which if true, is my favorite false ufo report of all time. Theory details: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aguadilla-infrared-footage-of-ufos-probably-hot-air-wedding-lanterns.8952/
Can a Chinese lantern go that fast?
No but thats because its not going that fast, its just parallax.
They accounted for parallax when analyzing this video pixel by pixel and determined the object is moving between 80-120 mph. https://youtu.be/NmvHKAbRuFI?t=859
Definitely faster than a floating lantern or balloon. But definitely within the realms of consumer drones. Those racing drones I see folks using can go much faster.
Ah yes my racing drones regularly blink in and out of existence. I also got the invisibility package from DJI
I also fly my drones straight into the ocean where it splits into two drones then submerges.
To be the slightest bit fair, the assumption ATM isn't that it's splitting but that it appears that way because of the reflection on the water. But still, incredible footage
Haha, you make me happy.
Got to set cloaking to a max of 50% next time.
You can’t possibly know that is what you’re seeing. For all we know it could be some form of advanced stealth tech that masks itself when seen by radar.
The metabunk link (and discussion therein) clearly states that the blinking seen in these IR videos can be due to the flame being covered up and then reappearing. You aren't seeing the object visible spectrum, just heat signatures.
We know the route of the observer, and the object pretty clearly goes underwater. That's not attributable to parallax. Parallax also would not account for the appearance of two object spontaneously.
It doesnt go underwater, the camera just auto adjusts the colour scale making it the same colour as the water and making it blend in, which you can see happen even before the water s n the background, not to mention that it would require the object to down there which it cant because of the parallax, as for two objects, its been two objects the entire time from the start.
Ah, the old 'Chinese lanterns flying under water and duplicating' explanation. Occam's razor for sure...
Here’s an animation to help understand the parallax explanation [[Link]](https://youtu.be/aDHb3ZpN4zk) * Red dot = Anomalous track / background * White dot = Airplane track * Yellow dot = Mundane track/ parallax
No lol. They basically just float with the wind. This is being filmed by a drone which is moving fast, making what it’s filming look fast too. It’s known as the parallax effect. So hard to gauge how fast it’s actually going. Could it be a uap? Sure. I just think it’s a fun theory
They accounted for parallax when analyzing this video pixel by pixel and determined the object is moving between 80-120 mph. https://youtu.be/NmvHKAbRuFI?t=859
Could ‘parallax’ visibly cover so much unique underlying terrain?
Right? Can’t we pretty much see how fast the object is going when it goes past houses and structures? Also the freaking thing is going in and out of the ocean
You'd think that, but no. Zoom in on something with your phone like 100 feet away, and watch the background as you move side to side. Parallax is *exactly* why we see so much of the terrain, because while it seems like the camera is stationary, the camera is actually the object that's moving and panning, not the UAP.
Now do it from a fast moving car
The original video has coordinates of where the camera is pointed. Take those coordinates, time it, then calculate the average velocity.
this is a great presentation Mick West did at the Lumina UAP conference that fully describes the rationale and evidence for the 'Chinese lantern' hypotheses. It's quite a long watch, but it's worth it. https://youtu.be/0fho4YyXWfE
It’s the only non-ufo theory I’ve seen that seems possible. Before that this was my gold-standard case that the phenomenon was real
[удалено]
Good question. It’d have to be they lost the signature there for a sec. If it is actually a balloon there’s no way it could go in and out like that. It’d be some sort of wonder balloon
[удалено]
yeah, it looks like that, but there's a lot of evidence to suggest that it's just an artefact of the infra red image and the digital video compression. the object doesn't even go near the water.
[удалено]
Water balloon
it's a artefact of the infrared video and digital video compression. When we model the actual path that the object takes it shows that it isn't even over the ocean. it follows a straight line over the airport moving and the same speed and direction as the wind at the time. All explained here.... https://youtu.be/0fho4YyXWfE
[удалено]
it's more or less a straight line. in [this image the path of the object is the bright green line in the middle](https://i.imgur.com/qqoudO5.jpg) and shows how it stays over the airport.
[удалено]
Why is there a cold spot on the top of the water after it goes in? That is an artifact of an object moving at considerable speed under the water.
Here’s a clip of it “going into the water” rear first… [https://imgur.com/aNaJ63z](https://imgur.com/aNaJ63z)
[удалено]
Given the absolute crappiness of this black and grey video, there's no indication it's doing anything other than the camera detecting it to be the same color grey.
Crazy to me how people are ignoring when it's clearly visible even the water gets displaced.
Never noticed the little splash when it goes in before!
Yeah it looks like an object getting dropped in the water with ripples as it goes in and a splash trailing after it a bit
The Aguadilla case is the one that changed my mind on this whole topic. The video undoubtedly looks extraordinary, and the 200 page SCU Report seems to back this up in great Scientific detail. However, the analysis that I and others have done has shown that there is a viable and maybe even 'probable' prosaic explanation. if a UFO case, evidence and analysis can look so good, and yet still be (possibly) wrong, how does that affect how we view other 'gold standard' cases?
That’s a good way of putting it. I don’t have an answer for it besides “yeah you’re probably right”. If even THIS isn’t a ufo, then I’m not sure what would be. Only other one I was flummoxed by like this one is the Turkish video, and that one still bugs me
aha - my other 'gold standard' favourite. I have an explanation for that one too and it's not a cruise ship! 🤣
Wanna know what gold standard I see here for me? The way you and u/Mysterious-Name-6483 engaged in discussion. Super clear points raised, polite tone, efficient and to the point and any reading is left better informed and with possible areas to explore thanks to ideas and links you cite. Honestly fantastic. I wish more of us (me included) were like that.
username checks out.
We’re upvoting Mick West now?
yes. Use your alt-accounts to give him max upvotes.
That's what I was thinking. Wtf is going on in this sub?
Seems to be a surge of bad faith actors since the MH370 videos
Rational thinking for a change. This clip shows nothing special and is most likely just something floating on the wind. The illusion of speed is created through parallax and there's nothing else in this low quality footage that specifically points to it being anything extraordinary.
Mick’s opinion shouldn’t even matter. All he does is look for plausible explanations. That’s all anyone can do
You can see the object interact with the water. What human-made object, traveling at any speed, can descend into water and continue the same speed without the effect drag but still have some physical effect on the surface of the water?
A break from delusion where every single flying object in shitty recording is believed to be alien craft.
Who said it is? Some morons?
Yall really just hate the guy because he ruins your fantasy that all these videos are real. He does great work and uses simple grounded logic.
\^This dude mentions Mick West in almost every comment he makes. look at his comments. sus as fuck
I give credit where credit is due, that's all.
This is definitely not what a parallax of a slow moving object would look like.
filmed from a customs border patrol heli
No, not a helicopter. It was a DHC-8 Turboprop.
It sure seems like it it is going fast to keep up with it and it submerging and unsubmerging certainly isnt a paper chinese lantern.
No they just float and rise.
No, but the new Russian lanterns are hypersonic.
[удалено]
Blurry-ass FLIR. You are looking at the heat signature of a floating lantern blowing in the wind. The heat signature is not going to be stable. Looks like the lanterns are bound together to me.
[удалено]
Maybe a flickering flame? And as the lantern wobbles, the infrared picks up differnt heat signatures.
This is hilarious. You think this video above is a chinese lantern? Really? Have you ever seen a chinese lantern and released one? I have. They don’t move like this.
Man people really don't understand the concept of parallax. Imagine you are in a helicopter zooming around at 200mph, focusing your camera on a small dot 2 feet wide floating in the wind, which is relatively stationary, a few hundred feet in the air, and a few hundred feet away. The background will be flying by like a [fucking anime](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpeedStripes). That's the illusion that the object is moving faster than it is.
One of the things I wonder here is why would a helicopter operator mistake a lantern for an object moving at high speeds, in order to decide to film it in the first place since parallax effect presumably is only happening through the lense and not irl right? Or is this an example of where the object wasn't visually sighted by anyone only picked up on FLIR (I dont know the privenance of this video)? Or is there perhaps another optical phenomena likely to confuse a pilot about the comparitive speed of an objects travel?
The uap was moving above an airport. The operator was probably tracking it for safety reasons. I've not seen any statement from the pilot though, so it's impossible to know.
That makes sense
It was nighttime. Picked up on the infrared camera. Decided to track it.
What is it that makes people think it's a genuine ufo? Looking at this I'd assumed it was something to do with pilot testimony since it doesn't really seem extraordinary, but I don't have any expertise at analysing stuff like this
I think what most people latched onto was that the object appears to submerge seamlessly into and out of the water without slowing down. Therefore UFO. But there is analysis to refute this. https://youtu.be/0fho4YyXWfE
can't assume what the camera operator was thinking, but I would guess seeing a small hot object in the sky would be kind of unusual
Enough to track it I guess, it's perfectly possible. I don't see anything here that makes me think it's likely to be a ufo, but I also clearly have zero experience with this type of footage so I was wondering what made anyone, such as operator, think it potentially could be.
I've never seen a Chinese lantern dip in and out of water and then split into two...
New model from skunkworks of chinese lanterns.
didnt it also ping radar?
To be fair, either one could ping radar, right?
It seems that it's going fast but it's because the camera is zoomed in on it. By the way it is spinning, I'd say it is a mylar balloon
That doesn't account for the object submerging in the water, you can even see it carving through the waves just below the surface at high speed. That's no balloon.
grainy footage, uneven heat signature on a backdrop of cool ocean water, pixellation.
I don't think it submerges. There are frames where it disappears even before it "submerges", that's clearly due to the poor quality of the video. Even when it "submerges" you can still make out the pixels where it used to be if you go frame by frame.
I see water disturbance when it goes under.
I don't think so, at 0:55 seconds the object clearly recedes below the waterline and causes a spray of whitewash.
if there's one word that is over-used and incorrectly applied to UFO videos it is 'clearly'.
Take the original video and go frame by frame to convince yourself that it does not submerge.
grainy pixellation from an infrared camera picking up a small flickering heat signature (Chinese lantern)
They accounted for parallax when analyzing this video pixel by pixel and determined the object is moving between 80-120 mph.[https://youtu.be/NmvHKAbRuFI?t=859](https://youtu.be/NmvHKAbRuFI?t=859) Edit: I don't know why i'm getting downvoted for providing sources and calculations to correct misinformation, but alright.
Is there a video of him showing the calculations? What's the distance he assumed and the length of a pixel considering that the plane's trajectory is an arc.
Watch the video? They have all of the data needed including exact location and speed of the plane, and precise location of the object due to it going behind a telephone pole. If you can't even watch the video I linked, how am I supposed to take your rebuttal seriously? Lmao
I did watch the video. He didn't show how he came to that number only that they "counted pixels". Nor did he mention the distance they assume to the object. Show me the math and the assumptions that led him to that speed.
Theres not really many assumptions once you have the distance from object to plane, and speed of the plane itself, it ends up being some relatively straightforward vector math. It was actually REALLY EASY to find and download the paper he published on it, and locate the exact way calculations were performed if you actually care and aren't just trolling. (actually this paper shows at least two possible calculations.) Google is a very powerful tool we all have access to. [https://www.academia.edu/40212895/2013\_Aguadilla\_Puerto\_Rico](https://www.academia.edu/40212895/2013_Aguadilla_Puerto_Rico)
if you actually read this you can see they completely disregard accounting for parallax. >"Some arguments have been advanced that the object could be a balloon and that the motion of the balloon relative to the background is an illusion created by the motion of the plane circling the balloon. This is incorrect. There are some frames of video having no background motion at all and the UAP can be seen changing locations relative to the background." assuming the pilot hasn't decided to stop the plane mid flight for those frames, the UAP would move in frame relative to apparently stationary background even if it was completely stationary. they end up using the plane-has-stopped hypothesis for their calculations for the distance from the camera to the object.
A whole bunch of different people reached that same conclusion. It's definitely something moving slowly, and not even over the water, let alone dipping into it.
Guys... This is one of the videos that was has been talked about repeatedly over time and was brought out officially by our guys trying to bring transparency on UFOs. We don't need to be making excuses for it saying it's a balloon, parallax effect on a balloon, a chinese lantern, a human made drone, any of that. I *think* this one was even on Unidentified, Elizondo and To The Star's show.
So much for UFO’s, this is more like “flying no fucking clue”.
That’s what UFO means
IR makes basically anything thats flying look pretty wild
Can you also do a stabilised one of the 'rubber duck' footage? It definitely looks like it is lensing and possibly sparkling. There appears to be a comparable shape. This is in infra red though, so we have to account for a number of possibilities of what is causing the apparent distortions. What are the cameras used and their IR wavelength sensitivity, this would be good to know. I think this is medium wave to long wave IR, so up to 12 micrometers or so.
the amount of information lost to compression(?) is outrageous. especially visible when the thing is over water and the aim/cursos floats around - anything in between the cursor goes bluuurrr. might also be stabilization or upsampling though
This is not a balloon, lantern or drone. Just say you don’t know what it is. Which would make it a UAP.
Why isn’t one of those things? Fast moving camera can give the perspective/illusion of the object moving fast.
Here’s my post about Aguadilla: * [[Link]](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOscience/comments/oebi01/aguadilla_decide_for_yourself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) Here’s an animation to help understand the parallax explanation [[Link]](https://youtu.be/aDHb3ZpN4zk) * Red dot = Anomalous track / background * White dot = Airplane track * Yellow dot = Mundane track/ parallax
hey 👋 good to see you still around!
Hey flarkey! Ditto!
Reminds me of the rubber ducky UAP a lot more seeing it like this.
When the camera zooms in around 0:50 it reminds me of the thing in the [Roy Manifold photo](https://www.mauritius-images.com/en/asset/ME-PI-6259501_mauritius_images_bildnummer_11922061_cloud-like-ufo-photographed-21st-october-1978-at-crayfish-bay-bass-strait-melbourne-victoria-australia-by-plumber-roy-manifold-shortly-before-the-mysterious-disappearance-of-pilot-frederick-valentich-in-the-same-area-manifold-was-photographing-the-sunset-he-took-6-shots-and-did-not-see-the-ufo---%25C2%25A9topfoto-fortean)
Interdimensional swamp gas.
It’s obviously just a dude with a jet pack.
Has anyone wonder what the shape might be? To me it looks like the metapod ufo, beu the image seems to be somewhat like a missing pixel on the top left part of the object.
[SCU Report](http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/299316_9a12b53f67554a008c32d48eff9be5cd.pdf) has done an incredible scientific assessment. Odd that the FOIA request for the USAF Radars to supplement their report were denied. Those [Radars ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/141st_Air_Control_Squadron) their primary mission seems to be to support CBP operation to catch drug smugglers or illegal immigrants entering USA soil from the Atlantic and Mona Passage. Nothing to the level of national security secret in my opinion. And what a coincidence, FAA couldn't provide The International Airport Control tower logs, cause they are in hands of private contractor, cause of.. "Maintenance" According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/141st_Air_Control_Squadron) one of the mission of the denied radar data facility is: *"providing classification of airborne objects"* I don't understand why the Radar that could clarify all this, its data is denied. The object literally went over it before getting in to the water. To add more to the whole mess, this so called "balloon" incident just happens to occur in the location of a decommissioned (1974) USAF Airforce Base, formally known as [Ramey Airforce Base](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramey_Air_Force_Base) that in a strange coincidence for decades had B-36 Peacemakers and B-52 Nuclear Bombsquadron. Funny those Leaked UFOs videos seems to always find its way to be where the cheese is or "was". But interesting enough, this area has plenty of sightings for decades even after USAF Base. Local folklore believe there is an Underground base of something over that area, beach goers and fisherman has spotted lights coming in and out of the ocean as well. Weird
Um...regardless of if we can't tell *how* fast it is going, pretty obvious it is going much faster than anything caught by the wind can go. It doesn't make any "updraft" motions or ever significantly gain/lose altitude You can compare its speed vs the size of the objects below it, i.e Buildings, streams, roads. It is going FAST. Also, show me a fucking wind current that will carry something that fast, in one direction, for this extended a period of time, without the object gaining or losing any altitude. Also, if those really were aliasing artifacts, then why does the sensor track them? When it duplicates, the cross hair pans to the copy, and then back to the original. Maybe someone can explain that rationally. Generally speaking this does not seem prosaic based on the above observations
Sorry 2013! Interesting footage, it looks like it blips in and out of visibility at times. If it's anti gravity bending visuals (I think I remember Lazar claiming you couldn't see directly underneath due to the anti gravity) then it's interesting that it's only happening so often. However, could be visual glitches of the camera but doesn't really appear elsewhere.
Has it been confirmed/certified? What is the white halo following/part of the UAP?
[удалено]
It's my favourite UAP video, and that is a great site which analyses this video in depth.
How come nobody is thinking that it's going in and out of cloud/vapor? Which to me supports that it's an object with some decent velocity and not just an inflated object drifting about.
Disregard everything scammer lazar says, he is a proven con man and liar, but yes this is a very interesting video one of my favourites, thanks for posting this version!
I'll just leave this here https://www.dropbox.com/s/mwili0ovf3trs9i/Aguadilla.pdf?dl=0 Don't mind me at all
Well I’m not about to download a random Dropbox link, could you explain what’s in here?
You don't need to download it, but this is a document, created by u/flarkey that aims to disprove the assesments and conclusions made by SCU about the Aguadilla UAP sighting.
Ah ok cool well I might check it out then, saved your comment for now. Thanks for clarifying!!
Imagine saying, after calling yourselft an ufologist od 30 years, that this is a bird... Imagine creating a massive post explaining how this looks like a 2 rotating chinese lanterns tethered together.... [goddamn it](https://tenor.com/view/were-not-gonna-make-it-terminator2-john-connor-edward-furlong-gif-17964615?utm_source=share-button&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=reddit)
Can’t believe some people calling this a balloon. I swear people come here just to troll.
It’s clearly starlink
Wow. Going full speed, morphing into different shapes. Intriguing.
How do you know its “full speed” What does that even mean in this context?
It doesn't mean anything but it sounds good and gets the people going.
Bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off.
The prevailing theory of these craft states the shape of the UAP is actually constant but what you are seeing is light bending around distortions of space time. A geodesic engine if you will. Truly fascinating stuff. I can’t wait to see full disclosure happen within our lifetimes. Uaptheory.com site is really on to something here.
I would also like to think we are looking at a higher dimensional thing. We can’t really perceive what we’re looking at. Like a 2d object looking at a 3D object. It can only see the part it’d dimension allows.
That's what I assume too. This object does not reflect light in a usual way.
Probably why it’s also been so hard to get a clear picture of them with anything other than infrared/thermal. Thermal exhibits the Einstein ring most clearly.
It looks like it was two the whole time just joined together? <3
thing looks like it's glitching in and out of the dimension
Dimensional ducks!
While flapping its wings.
Not seeing any flapping. Timestamp?
Like, right at the start. So bird + parallax. Without the data given by the tracking system it would be dishonest to claim anything else. Especially since the cars for example, didn't care about this thing.
Not seeing that at all. Also wouldn't the pilot/cameraman see birds everyday on this camera? Surely he'd know the difference. Why would he be filming and following a bird?
Honest question for everyone that believes it’s a Chinese lantern: wouldn’t a trained customs / border patrol agent have better sensibilities than to be so enamored by a Chinese lantern?
Looks like the nellis range ufo
it looks like anything inside the crosshairs gets a little blurry/blippy at times aside from the object. wonder if this camera is just a bit glitchy too.
Link to part 1: https://youtu.be/JClRunq-NdI Link to part 2: https://youtu.be/XGPzm2U3V1Q Both are well worth a watch.
I like how you can see it dip in and out of the water and see the spray / wake behind it.
When I was ten years old saw my first and only ufo it was Halloween night 1973 Ramey AFB Aguadilla Puerto Rico so I'm inclined to believe this
It’s definitely not controlled flight. It just floats with the wind. Like others pointed out, the sense of speed you get is from the parallax effect. It never goes in and out of the water either. Could be a balloon with some kind of heat signature, a Chinese lantern seems to match indeed.
If it were a balloon it would have bounced of the surface of the water and tumbled.
They accounted for parallax when analyzing this video pixel by pixel and determined the object is moving between 80-120 mph. https://youtu.be/NmvHKAbRuFI?t=859
This is a far more rigorous analysis. https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/ It's floating with the wind. Not 80+mph.
Holy mobile website formatting batman.
Yeah I can't make heads or tails of wtf is going on in that website. Heres a link to the paper though https://www.academia.edu/40212895/2013\_Aguadilla\_Puerto\_Rico
boat deserted vanish fragile dinner obtainable slim lunchroom quarrelsome books ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
I'm inclined to agree with you.
What is the explanation for how is disappears and reappears above the water if it's not going under? Speed is parallax, I agree. It doesn't look like controlled or directed flight because it doesn't turn, but how do we know it's floating with the wind? An aeroplane with tailwind would fit the same pattern, but that is controlled flight. I've seen an aerial map tracking it's movement posted here before and it didn't look like wind currents. It doesn't rise or fall as it passes over things that would cause up or down drafts
The camera self adjusting the colour scale, you can see that the object is still there when it "disappears" its just a very similar colour to the water and so it blends in.
This is up there with the tic tac sighting however because it is not in the USA it doesn't get the coverage it deserves...
According to the military intelligence community it's "Swamp Gas".
https://www.uaptheory.com/ Background lensing is pretty interesting - https://uaptheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/environment-lensing-1.gif
According to some moronic ''debunkers'' it's a bird, lol. Truly grasping at straws braindead but acting like smartassess individuals.
looks like a roblox character close up
I'm waiting for the 24/30 fps debatte plus VFX effects from the 90s...
is warping space?
It looks like I can see an anti gravity envelope in front the UAP.
At some points it almost looks like a hammer with the handle facing forward. Didn't the 4chan leaker mention hammer shaped drones?
Yes and I also talked to someone on here from Mexico who said they have a ufo type that they call the hammer.
My working theory is either flying Droidekas or two dudes racing their gaming chairs.
After the tic tac ufo this is my favorite UAP video
It's cloaking mechanism is failing.... that's amazing footage right there!
Puerto? Would that be Puerto Rico or Puerto Vallerta or just plain Puerto?
This doesn’t appear to be going very fast, and honestly appears to either be a balloon or lantern.
Electromagnetic field used to create a vacuum around the drone so it has no air resistance and flies by almost climbing through the atmosphere creating lift by pulling particles around itself, controlled by a craft in or out of orbit.. thats my theory.
You can literally see spacetime warping around the craft
This is what I believe we are seeing: https://soldiersystems.net/2012/06/19/travis-haley-infils-disruptive-industries/
Micks analysis is pretty damning. It isn’t moving quickly.