https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6s5RwqnnLM

What the hell is this thing, /sci/?

Date/Location: April 25, 2013, just before sunset over Rafael Hernandez Airport, Aguadilla, Puerto Rico.
Captured by: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) aircraft using FLIR technology.

It flew at 120mph. It ppeared cold in infrared. Flew low without a heat signature typical of jet or propeller engines. Seemed to split into two separate objects (or merge into one) during the video. Was capable of entering and exiting the ocean without losing speed or leaving a splash. Several scientific and skeptical reviewers, including the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) and independent analysts, have evaluated the footage, and the best answer anyone could come up with is a chinese lantern (which would have appeared hot on infared, and can't go under water and re-emerge at the same speed).

>>16731554 (OP)
Here is a link to scientific analysis of the incident:
https://www.explorescu.org/post/2013-aguadilla-puerto-rico-uap-incident-report-a-detailed-analysis

bump

That's just a bumblebee flying relatively close to the helicopter (50-250 m)

>>16731554 (OP)
el chupacabra

>>16731554 (OP)
those niggas send a black dot that barely waste energy to scout this whole planet leaving almost no trace on its path. meanwhile genius niggas over here first have to build a rocket with a drone inside and then send it to mars and the moon with the hope that the clumsy ass drone doesnt fall inside a crater. cant wait for one of those hypertechnology black dots to malfunction and fall in hands of genius niggas over here. imagine the face they would make, it would be like a medieval mf looking straight to a lamborghini

>>16731554 (OP)
It's a magnent that will inside your ass and make you die a violent horrible death once it finds you someday

>>16731596
it wasn't a helicopter it was a CBP reconnaissance plane with a FLIR camera

>>16731952
Ok but that thing it's recording still is 20 times closer than the background (5 km away) and probably moving way slower than the aircraft (400 km/h).

>>16731970
Dude did you even read the study or are you just using your eyes and assuming that? Go to the link posted here
>>16731560
It shows precise location of the aircraft vs the UAP and the precise speeds lol

>>16732009
Yes anon, it only show the bias of the "researcher" to turn bad data (thermal imaging is heavily post processed and have more glitches than badly encoded videos) into some UFO.
His main point, the distance estimation and the reliability of a thermal camera to display a sub-pixel object is comically bad.

>>16732029
Your argument doesn't make any sense, as in the beginning of the video and in the end of the video you can clearly see with your eyes the camera zoomed out and is miles away from the object.

Secondly, the highly expensive FLIR camera captures the object near perfectly. Calling it sub-pixel is a huge stretch. What are you expecting?? This is literally the most expensive camera in the world.

>>16732031
>the highly expensive FLIR
1. you don't even understand why are those gimbals sensors so expensive
2. the resolution of that FLIR is 640x512 and even in a correctly encoded video you're still seeing a heavily post processed to make it easier to interpret and remove noise
> near perfectly
I see a lot of visual glitches in that object and ground lights.

>t and is miles away from the object.
angular size =/= size

>can clearly see with your eyes the camera zoomed out
Zoom affects all the objects in the FoV in the same way, it doesn't alters the angular size that is the only thing you're seeing. So you can't estimate size by the background, your perception of movement and zoom.

That camera of the video is controlled by moving a virtual point on the ground, that works fine for objects far away and/or moving on the ground but if you add a object way closer then it creates illusions, a better tracking method would be simple visual tracker that ignores the geo coordinates.

>>16732031
>the highly expensive FLIR
1. you don't even understand why those gimbals cameras are so expensive
2. the resolution of that FLIR is 640x512 and even in a correctly encoded video you're still seeing a heavily post processed to make it easier to interpret and remove noise
> near perfectly
I see a lot of visual glitches in that object and ground lights.

>t and is miles away from the object.
angular size =/= size

>can clearly see with your eyes the camera zoomed out
Zoom affects all the objects in the FoV in the same way, it doesn't alters the angular size that is the only thing you're seeing. So you can't estimate size by the background, your perception of movement and zoom.

That camera of the video is controlled by moving a virtual point on the ground, that works fine for objects far away and/or moving on the ground but if you add a object way closer then it creates illusions, a better tracking method would be simple visual tracker that ignores the geo coordinates. Tip: if you were able to remove the background then you (and the researcher) would interpret the video and object in a very different way.

>>16732045
How did the object disappear under the waves then reappear above the waves? that would easily tell us how far away it is. You assume it is closer than it appears and that we can't estimate size by the background, but you literally can determine both distance and size the moment it went into the ocean and reappeared above the waves.

>>16732050
>>16732047

>>16732050
>>16732047
Furthermore, you can also determine distance and size because other than going underneath the waves and reappearing, there were multiple points in the video where it dissapeared behind a treeline. All you would have to do is determine how far away that tree is. I am beginning to think you didn't even watch the full clip

>>16732050
For the same reason as >>16732047 and picrel have a white halo: the pixels of the video don't represent an absolute measurement, instead they depend of the bright of neighbor original pixels (of the camera).

If you gonna use a visual glitch as a criteria to interpret that video YOU'LL HAVE TO USE THE SAME CRITERIA FOR THE REST OF THE VIDEO WITH NO EXCEPTION, and that includes the rest of "disappearances" and change of size*** of the object, otherwise you be selecting with a bias to back the hypothesis of UFO at long distance.
Even with the mediocre quality of the yt video you can see that if the object's background changes from something 'homogeneous' to 'heterogeneous' (forest, waves) the object itself is affected because as I said, you're seeing a post-processed image, the nearby pixels will affect how the display shows the too-small object. And the problem is even worse if the object is bright but sub-pixel in size, the blurring (punctual "light" source spread) means you're watching a few pixels of the changing background + object brightness at the same time, if the background gets 'brighter' the object will be represented as smaller (affecting less pixels because its blurred bright now is negligible in more pixels).

>>16732063
Yes, post-processing artifacts can create blending effects, especially near heterogeneous backgrounds. But the Aguadilla video contains specific events, such as the object splitting into two, that are consistent across frames, persist spatially, and are dynamically tracked by the FLIR system. This kind of behavior isn’t the result of momentary rendering or brightness blending. Glitches don’t move in formation, persist, and then recombine with clear trajectories and symmetry.

If we're to argue for artifacts, those artifacts would have to coherently simulate physical motion, not just temporary occlusion or bloom. That goes far beyond background blending and ventures into highly coincidental system-wide synchronization between optical sensor, tracking logic, and terrain context.

When an object moves over a more textured background, its pixel representation can degrade or change in perceived size. However, this does not explain the specific moment where the object seems to disappear over open water, where the contrast actually favors detectability. Nor does it explain why the object continues to be tracked by the FLIR camera's gimbal smoothly, even when it vanishes from the visual spectrum.

If it were simply a matter of pixel blending, the gimbal would likely lose track or behave inconsistently. But instead, the gimbal tracks the target with precision, even during partial or complete vanishing, suggesting this is not a visual error, but an actual modulation of IR signature or occlusion by an unknown mechanism.

This is not a low-grade CCTV or home camera. FLIR pods like the one used by the CBP Dash-8 aircraft in Aguadilla are calibrated to reduce IR noise, discriminate sub-pixel targets, and minimize blooming. They are used to track human-sized heat signatures at long ranges in cluttered environments. Arguing that the camera is simply “confused” by a small object over waves or trees ignores the engineering and purpose behind the sensor itself.

>>16731554 (OP)
it's an obvious balloon, you dolt

it’s using a mass drive

>>16732073
balloons would not produce a heat signature, go into and then out of the water, and then split into two, you dolt

>>16732075
it didn't do any of that.

>>16732075
it’s in a higher dimension and projecting down twice into 3D

>>16732076
Did you even watch the video? It literally did all of that.

>went into the water
2:04
>came out of water
2:10
>went back into water
2:13
>came out of water again very breifly then resubmerged again
2:24
>came out of water and then split into two
2:30

>>16732069
"Thanks" slop GPT. But if you need mental clutches you shouldn't be discussing something, especially if you don't understand something as basic as "measure" =/= object being measured.

>This is not a low-grade CCTV or home camera.
You clearly know nothing about thermals. No thermal sensor is perfect, at very least you need some calibration matrix to normalize each pixel, and ideally the calibration will vary with the 'input'.

>blooming
Cameras are affected by far more than its optics, crosstalk is a serious problem in thermal cameras.
Pic rel to save time and show something more factual.
(b) is the real output
(c-e) post processed image that will add processing glitches

> by a small object over waves or trees ignores the engineering and purpose behind the sensor itself.
Lets see the Hubble ST...
https://i.imgur.com/1anqkGh.jpg

>>16731554 (OP)
this is by far the best evidence of disclosure I have ever seen. Way better than the navy vids, we actually have something to work with here

>>16732083
Do you claim that someone is using chat GPT every single time you are losing an argument?

The object in the Aguadilla video:

>Changes direction without inertia-like curves

>Splits into two synchronized targets that track in formation

>Recombines in a way that is smooth and preserved by the gimbal tracking

>An object disappearing into the ocean and continuing its trajectory underwater

>No thermal plume or diffusion from water entry

>Preserved shape, velocity, and tracking despite environmental occlusion

If this were simply the result of post-processing anomalies or thermal bloom, we wouldn’t expect consistent relative velocity between two targets, nor a clean reintegration. These aren’t brief glitches. They span multiple frames and spatial locations. That’s not trivial crosstalk or heat blooming; that’s an emergent behavior that looks like control and intent.

>>16731560
>https://www.explorescu.org/post/2013-aguadilla-puerto-rico-uap-incident-report-a-detailed-analysis
I found this:
>any wind born object must be traveling a minimum of 16 mph, and this is typically too fast a wind, for a lantern to remain airborne
Does this make sense? As long as the lantern follows the wind it doesn't experience the wind directly. That is teh same with hot air balloons.

>>16732088
>chat GPT every single time you are losing an argument?
slop gpt is the perfect sophist, all plausible and unsubstantial statements. Especially when it can't address points. -LIKE APPLYING THE SAME CRITERIA TO EACH VIDEO FRAME EVEN WHEN IT GOES AGAINST YOUR HYPOTHESIS-
Tell me, did you use it ? :^).

>Changes direction without inertia-like curves
Meaningless when the estimation of movements is based on a incorrect assumption only applied in a inconsistent manner.


>Splits into two synchronized targets that track in formation
Again, you're assuming that you know well the object using a post-processed measurement restricted to a representation (image). Tell me why the objects also dissapears or changes of shape for 1-2 frames...


>No thermal plume or diffusion from water entry
>An object disappearing into the ocean and continuing its trajectory underwater
I don't have argue against your flawed conclusions.

>Recombines in a way that is smooth and preserved by the gimbal tracking
That things are unrelated, and the video "UFO" is someone trying to manually track the object using the x-y control (an error***), there's no lock-on at all of the auto-tracker, vidrel shows an object being tracked by an equivalent system. Always on the center before losing lock on.

>expect consistent relative velocity between two targets,
You only know the speeds of the aircraft and the ground spot of the camera, you and that "researcher" have no idea of the real movements of the object because neither of you did your photogrammetry properly.

>>16732115
That’s exactly why glitch-based interpretations fall short. If you assert that the object only "splits" due to blooming or processing error, why doesn't that same artifact appear constantly throughout the video? Why is the “double” phase confined to a specific segment with stable contrast, no visual masking, and no loss of signal elsewhere in the frame?

In other words: the "artifact" explanation doesn’t scale consistently across the video. If I apply your standard evenly, we should expect repeated “splitting,” ghosting, bloom expansion, or tracking loss, none of which we see except in that one event at 2:30.

You’re welcome to challenge the photogrammetry, but dismissing it outright without presenting your own reconstruction isn’t a refutation, it’s just a handwave.

Also: you’re calling it a "manual tracking error," but the object stays dead-center through multiple environmental backgrounds, including trees, ocean, and even partial occlusion, with no noticeable human overcorrection. That’s far cleaner than what you’d expect from a handheld stick adjustment in real-time. If it's not tracking-locked, it’s one of the smoothest manual tracks I’ve ever seen on uncooperative terrain.

>>16732115
Furthermore, You didn’t refute this, you just said

>I don't have argue against your flawed conclusions.

But the point stands: no splash, no plume, no thermal diffusion, no obvious thermal trail or turbulence. And the object keeps moving underwater at the same velocity and direction. In thermal footage, you’d expect something from a high-speed entry. Especially if the object is warmer than the background water (which it clearly is during its flight).

>Tell me why the objects also dissapears or changes of shape for 1-2 frames...

Like you are implying, the answer would be FLIR resolution + contrast interference + post-processing noise. I don’t dispute that. But here’s the point you keep missing: those momentary shape distortions don’t explain the behavioral patterns, like the coordinated motion of two objects, the recombination, or the submersion and continuity of trajectory. You're focusing on image fidelity, but the core of the analysis isn't the pixels. It's the behavior those pixels imply.

>hmmm what could this bird size and speed object that appears to be flapping it's wings be

>>16732143
>r tracking loss
> one event at 2:30.
No loss, the camera was centered on a specific spot on the ground, like cameras of any surveillance aircraft usually do.
And during all the gif (and video) there's no auto-tracking, no lock-on, just someone incorrectly using the x-y (Cartesian) control to follow that thing.

>Also: you’re calling it a "manual tracking error," but the object stays dead-center through multiple environmental backgrounds,
Pinpoint when the object is locked-on center? now compare that gif that with >>16732115 and stfu.

>>16732147
>But the point stands:
are a consequence of a wrong assumption.
No need to discuss something that is simply wrong.

>>16732149
>what could this bird size and speed object that appears to be flapping it's wings be

Birds aren't cold. They are warm blooded. When a bird dives into the water they don't come flying out at the same exact speed then split into two.

>>16732154
>Birds aren't cold
darker means "relatively hotter" in that video.

>>16732152
> there's no auto-tracking, no lock-on, just someone incorrectly using the x-y (Cartesian) control to follow that thing.
The footage was recorded using an MX-15 sensor pod. The system is designed to track airborne targets with gimbaled optics, and its ability to smoothly pan and center the object over such a long time is consistent with some level of assisted stabilization, even if not full auto-lock. It is not the same system used by the Russians. If the object’s motion was due to operator movement, you’d expect jerkier transitions, inconsistent frame spacing, and misalignment with background parallax. But the movement of the object, particularly as it splits into two. It is smooth, steady, and consistent with real angular motion, not human error.

>the camera was centered on a specific spot on the ground
This is clearly false. The video shows: The object enters the frame, is centered, tracked across a wide expanse, and eventually disappears beneath the horizon line, entering the water. The background shifts continuously during the object's movement, indicating the camera is following the object, not a fixed point on the ground. If the camera were fixed on the ground, the object would move out of frame, not remain consistently in center view. Additionally, we observe the object split and recombine within this centered framing, something that can’t be explained if the camera is passively watching a ground location.

You are ignorant. You keep claiming my assumptions are wrong, but you haven’t shown which ones, or why. The camera clearly follows the object across terrain, and even if it’s not in full auto-lock, the sensor still records angular motion relative to the aircraft. The split and recombination behavior, water entry without thermal splash, and cold signature all remain unexplained by your interpretation. If you’re going to dismiss these as camera quirks, then explain how those quirks account for all these behaviors at once.

>>16732155
It was determined by the FLIR system that the object was 55 degrees. A bird would be 100 degrees at a minimum. So my point still stands, birds are not cold. They can dive, but they sure as hell aren't going to be flying out of the water at the same speed. And they aren't going to split into two birds after going into the ocean

>>16731560
>https://www.explorescu.org/post/2013-aguadilla-puerto-rico-uap-incident-report-a-detailed-analysis
I checked the web site and found this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX-5FFYsYhA
Tracking starts 2:50 into the video. It is rather peculiar that the UFO maintains a course so that for most of the video the bearing is 90 degrees from the heading, and when the aircraft heads nearly straight south, the angular motion slows down.
I'd look more closely into what is at the centre point of that line of bearing.

>>16732161
Birds obviously do not have that hot surface temperatures, they would be boiled alive, they have feathers that insulate their bodies which get cold during flight.

>>16732220
Birds show up as warm on FLIR, dude. Even with the insulated feathers. They can be up to 120 degrees on FLIR. Even if I am wrong, the object did not behave like a bird once the video hit 2:04. Birds don't dive into the water and come out at the exact same speed, and they don't split into two after the fact

>>16732225
A bird won't show up as 50 degrees on infra red camera except on a pan or maybe if you are taking close ups of hummingbirds eye. Meanwhile there's an actual image of a bird in FLIR right there at toasty 5-10 degrees across the fast majority of the body and here
>>16731554 (OP)
that shows the opposite.
It doesn't dive into the water or split (though birds do do that all the time) nor split in two, you are looking at a reflection on the water if it's water.

>>16732160
>This is clearly false
in your gif there's no auto-tracking at all, WATCH YOUR OWN PIC.

>You are ignorant. You keep claiming my assumptions are wrong, but you haven’t shown which ones, or why.
You don't understand the limitation of a thermal camera or video you're watching. But you feel compelled to force a ill-applied criteria to only a few parts of the video. What's YOUR conclusion of first 5 sec of the video after the time 1:22:09? REPLY THAT OR FUCK OFF.
You don't know why are those gimbals expensive and how to operate them.
You don't even understand the concept of lock-on applied to an auto-tracker (a broken clock is right twice a day) and you're once again using your ignorance as an argument, that's even worse than ad ignorantiam, that's plain obstinate imbecility.

>It was determined by the FLIR system that the object was 55 degrees.
Source? even your pdf says
"Low pixel values reflect warmer temperatures (shown in black) while high pixel values correspond to cooler temperature"
and the object is darker than the background.
Also
"Temperature information from the thermal video indicates that the object was hotter than the ambient and the center of it was near 105 degrees Fahrenheit"
You're mentally disabled but you fell compelled to post your ignorance using mental clutched you don't even intent to understand.

>>16731554 (OP)
Neat + Neat = NNEEAATT

FLIR artifact that Raytheon or whoever made the pod won't admit to

>>16732227
The Aguadilla video wasn’t recorded in radiometric mode, so we’re not seeing true temperature readings. We’re seeing relative thermal contrast, and the object appears consistently warmer than the ocean but cooler than buildings and vehicles, suggesting a temperature range in the 50–85°F ballpark.

That alone is unusual. Birds at that range (over a kilometer away) are generally not resolvable in FLIR, especially without wing motion. And yet this object shows structured movement, no wing flapping, entry into the ocean, a split into two distinct heat signatures, and preserved trajectory underwater.

A bird can’t do that. A reflection certainly can’t. And we’re left with an object that doesn’t fit the profile of drones, birds, or thermal mirages.

>>16732251
>in your gif there's no auto-tracking at all, WATCH YOUR OWN PIC.
Like I said before, you're right that the camera doesn't lock on the object the way a weapon system would with hard track. But you’re also conflating manual XY control with a complete absence of tracking logic. This system (WESCAM MX-15) uses both manual slew and stabilized pan/tilt, allowing a sensor operator to keep a small object centered over long distances, which is exactly what we observe. Your point that it’s not “locked-on” is semantically correct, but the object is being tracked by the system. The evidence is on-screen: steady framing, re-centering after occlusion, and following into the ocean.
>What's YOUR conclusion of first 5 sec of the video after the time 1:22:09? REPLY THAT OR FUCK OFF.
the object is moving toward the runway, crosses it, and passes behind some buildings. What stands out isn’t just its motion, it's that it maintains thermal consistency before and after occlusion. It reappears in the expected location with no visible change in speed or direction, and still without evidence of propulsion, flapping, or a thermal plume. I’m not cherry-picking dude I’m following the entire motion sequence.
>Source?
55 degrees was me guesstimating from reverse engineering pixel data and calibration curves from known thermal references within the video, not from making up numbers. I could be wrong and it could be up to 85 degrees. It's warmer than the ocean surface (typically 25°C in Puerto Rico waters in April). But it's cooler than hot engines and people, which appear much darker in black-hot mode. Meaning it is less than 105° F. I guess a more accurate temp would be around 80 degrees, not 55.

So your claim that this is all post-processing bloom or crosstalk doesn't hold when the object behaves as a coherent, thermally consistent body over land, ocean, and even beneath the water surface.

>>16731554 (OP)
>Date/Location: April 25, 2013, just before sunset over Rafael Hernandez Airport, Aguadilla, Puerto Rico.
>Captured by: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) aircraft using FLIR technology.
>It flew at 120mph. It ppeared cold in infrared. Flew low without a heat signature typical of jet or propeller engines. Seemed to split into two separate objects (or merge into one) during the video. Was capable of entering and exiting the ocean without losing speed or leaving a splash. Several scientific and skeptical reviewers, including the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) and independent analysts, have evaluated the footage, and the best answer anyone could come up with is a chinese lantern (which would have appeared hot on infared, and can't go under water and re-emerge at the same speed).
spooky
>>16732075
>>16732079
lol. OP schooled anon

>>16732265
>>16732251
>>16732279
it doesn't matter how hot or cold the object was. From what I have just observed, it still broke our known laws of physics and you guys are getting all hung up on the damn temperature!

>>16731554 (OP)
one of the PSVs. akrij, tangent, sienna, etc...

>>16732074
The problem with data is that it can be rearranged into whatever configuration that you desire.

The entire uniiverse can be broken down into a singular lonnnnggg line of 10111010111011010...

Or as complex as optics, skin sensors, sound waves, scent, taste, 7 tones C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C, pointing, drawing, alphabet, rules, words, sentences, paragraphs, stories, songs, movies, memes.
How fast do you want it?
Do you need the data now?
Or whenever!
How much complexity or storage do you have built to transfer and observe huge quantities of data rapidly?

>>16732286
lmao no. Using the angular speed of the object you can estimate its altitude and position.
It was floating at ~250m +- 50m of altitude and never changed that much during the video. The only thing moving around is the camera and by using the object as reference you see the movement of the background
BUT normally you would use auto-track or row-yaw-pitch control, in that situation it would be obvious what's happening because the background would have an evident and constant rotational optical flow.

>>16732327
>It was floating at ~250m +- 50m of altitude and never changed that much during the video.
As the video progresses around one minute in, it does not maintain a fixed altitude. It tracks below the horizon line, disappears behind buildings, then over ocean at a lower altitude, and finally enters the water.
>The only thing moving around is the camera and by using the object as reference you see the movement of the background
The relative motion between the object and the background varies. Sometimes the background scrolls rapidly, other times slowly, which wouldn’t happen if the object were stationary. There is consistent lateral motion over land and then over water, even factoring in aircraft and camera panning. Parallax and occlusion occur. The object goes behind a tree line and later behind a building, which indicates independent object motion through 3D space.
>normally you would use auto-track or row-yaw-pitch control, in that situation it would be obvious what's happening because the background would have an evident and constant rotational optical flow.
The MX-15 FLIR turret is gyro-stabilized, and it tracks objects via manual slew or auto-track.The object remains centered even as the background changes. This implies the object is being actively tracked, and is not fixed in space. In the later part of the video, the object enters the ocean, continues movement underwater, and re-emerges. None of that can be explained by a fixed, hovering object with just camera motion.

>>16731554 (OP)
I wonder if this was the same thing as the Betz mystery sphere

bump

>>16732358
buga sphere