The object was recorded for several minutes using an infrared imaging camera. Image Credit: DoD
The US Department of Homeland Security has recorded a four-minute video of a mysterious object.
The footage, which was investigated and released online by a group known as the 'Scientific Coalition for Ufology', shows a peculiar object moving at speed over fields, roads and open water.
The incident is believed to have occurred on the morning of April 25 2013 at the Rafael Hernandez Airport in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. The thermal camera footage was recorded by the crew of a DHC-8 Turboprop aircraft from US Customs and Border Protection.
The group responsible for releasing the footage claims to have spent two years investigating it with the co-operation of several prominent scientists before finally making it available to the public.
"Assuming the video isn't a clever hoax - which is always a possibility these days - it's a fascinating piece of footage," said Nick Pope, former UFO investigator for the British Ministry of Defence.
"About the only conventional explanation that might fit the bill is that this is some new drone, but the entry and exit from the sea and the apparent splitting in two of the object makes even this explanation seem unlikely. I'll be watching developments on this one with interest."
Oh, yeah there I found some names.... BS Chemist, BS Earth Science, BS Math, Masters English, BS Physics, and BA Communications..... Not to dismiss these guys, as it does appear they did a lot of work... But my D&D buddies hold similar education, and I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering. But these guys are not exactly the Jet Propulsion Laboratories, or NASA. They appear to be hobbyists. Does the report include who their worldwide government and military and research contacts are? The implication was of a big, well funded, organized think tank. But what I see is a bunch of Bachelor Degree... [More]
I surmise by this that a copy of the Department of Homeland Security video could have been made using a device with somewhat different pixel counts. The scenario seems to be that a 'whistleblower' made an unauthorized copy and disclosed it to others. The circumstances surrounding the 'leak' could have made releasing a 'native' copy of the original video impractical.[...] Impractical to copy, but practical to re-encode? Don't think so... [...]Then again, might the discrepancy be due to the way the way in which the pixel count was described? I recall from the days of analog television, that the ... [More]
[...]Also, at , just after it "hits" the roof/tower. I think it hit the roof, personally. After it hits the roof, it seems to loose altitude, bringing it closer to the ground. I believe the shadow seen on the white area, is actually ripples being formed on a pond as the object regains control after striking the roof/tower.[...] When video have been reprocessed hell knows how many times (at least once, when it was uploaded on YT), all sorts of artifacts may appear.
Oh, yeah there I found some names.... BS Chemist, BS Earth Science, BS Math, Masters English, BS Physics, and BA Communications..... Well, frankly I'd want a real Chemist, Mathematician and Physicisist and so on rather than a BS one .... There's more than enough of those already.
Impractical to copy, but practical to re-encode? Don't think so... Each pixel costs a fortune, so to speak, so wasting resources on obsolete technology isn't an option. Discrepancies cast shadow on "whistblowers'" claims... I looked into the technical specifications of the video camera that was used. The WESCAM MX 15 has a display width of 640 pixels. As it turns out, though, the MX 15 D, which was reportedly what was actually used in this case, is a substantially different instrument. It has a selectable resolution of either 720 or 1080 pixels. The former setting was apparently what was used ... [More]
At least they agree with my estimate of 100 mph. I think this paper is WAY underthinking this. Taking facts and presenting them is fine, but to be blatantly ignorant of other variables, such as the UFO going behind breakers, and not into the water is pretty naive. It definitely seems like the writers had a bias. http://www.explorescu.org/ Basically they say they are scientists and experts, but not a single name is dropped. How can you verify expertise if you have not a single name to research? And apparently their website is ENTIRELY devoted to this one UFO video. Hummm... Definitely a world c... [More]
I looked into the technical specifications of the video camera that was used. The WESCAM MX 15 has a display width of 640 pixels. As it turns out, though, the MX 15 D, which was reportedly what was actually used in this case, is a substantially different instrument. It has a selectable resolution of either 720 or 1080 pixels. The former setting was apparently what was used in this case. Measuring the images, they appear to have an aspect ratio of ~ 1.5 to 1, which provides the height resolution of 480 pixels. It does not appear that there is a discrepancy in the Scientific Coalition for Ufolog... [More]
I'm far more concerned with the validity of the work the group has produced, than with questions of their prestige, or whether they drew salaries for doing the work, or if they hold advanced degrees or not. I'm not aware they they claimed to be particularly well funded (much worthwhile scientific work isn't), nor that they intended to pass themselves off as a large organization. Having some participants with communications or English degrees might not be such a bad idea, if, as it appears, they wish to communicate their findings to the public. Scientific prose is typically opaque to the non-sp... [More]
The validity of the work goes Directly to the credentials of those who publish the data. Would you trust this same data if it came from a 9 year old? They did claim to be a Think Tank of Scientists with world wide connections in government and the military. Which could technically be true, and just mean that one of the people has an uncle that works for the State as a contractor, and another has a brother in the Marines. And we all know that it doesn't take a Doctorate degree for someone to claim to be a scientist.... The report is straightforward. And that is to its favor, but that doesn't ma... [More]
I don't know what it is, but it looks like it could be some sort of debris flipping and turning as it moves. Perhaps even with a dark and a light side. That would explain why it seems to almost vanish at times over the trees and over the water. Anyway, I purpose that it never hits the water until the end. That it is very close to the water but rotating to it's lighter side only makes it appear to submerge. Then it does actually hit the water and the impact makes it split into two. One piece submerges before the other finally submerges at the end. That's what it looks like to me. As for size an... [More]
Please Login or Register to post a comment.