Aguadilla: Decide for Yourself
I’ve been posting this as a comment. It usually is well received so I thought I should make a post…
Reports I know of
Here’s SCU’s analysis
Here’s John Nagle’s analysis (contributing member of the SCU)
Here’s Flarkey’s report link
Here’s Ruben Lianza’s Report (Retired Argentinian Air Force, Director of Aerospace Identification Center) and a blog discussing Lianza's report
SunLITE UFO Magazine: Pages 5-7
And here is Metabunk’s ongoing discussion. Feel free to contribute. There are both debunkers and UFO people on there.
A recreation/ simulation and how the simulation was made
The Aguadilla Video stabilized on the object
Witness Summary (I’m probably missing some details here)
The airport was temporarily closed due to some objects out off the coast that were blinking on and off the radar and weren’t transponding data. The customs and border patrol aircraft was given the go ahead to take off but early in their flight, the witnesses reported an orangish pinkish light floating in the area. The light went out just before pointing the IR camera at it. What you’re seeing is an IR image.
UFO Summary
This argument doesn’t attempt to identify the object. It only suggests unconventional propulsion with the object moving at relatively high and varied speeds, turns, greater distances traveled, and “transmedium” behavior as it went out over the water and in and out with out losing speed. All this with no apparent evidence of propulsion. Then the object splits in two shortly before it vanishes.
Debunker Summary
This argument suggests the object wasn’t moving fast or varied or changing direction. It was moving in a nearly straight line at the reported wind speed and direction that night. There are weather reports documented in the investigations. This argument contends the object doesn’t get very close to the water.
The parallax effect is causing the illusion of speed and movement seen. It was the plane circling the object at high speed with the camera zoomed that gives the impression the object was moving fast. The object never got close to the water. The apparent dipping in and out of the water is a result of the heat dissipating or video technicalities.
Debunkers found a wedding venue known for releasing lanterns directly up wind from the area. It was also prime time (~9:30PM) for wedding reception lantern release.
Here’s a video of what looks like a Chinese lantern that was allegedly filmed in Aguadilla a few months after the incident in April. It’s evidence there might be a pattern of lantern activity in Aguadilla that year.
Here’s a clip showing the object “entering” the water rear first: https://imgur.com/aNaJ63z
This is very well put together, and I love that you included all the sides.
I was initially impressed by the Aguadilla video and I didn’t understand what it could possibly be. Then I saw Mick West (on Unidentified Celebrity Review I think) go over the details.
The hotel confirmed they were releasing the lanterns that night, the wind direction was correct, the location where they appear to go in the water is actually a steep slope visible on maps that only gives the impression of being over water from the viewing angle, the hotel does sometimes tie two lanterns together and that may have been the apparent splitting…
It shows how fast something compellingly put forward as inexplicable and incredible can be immediately rendered profoundly mundane by adding more information to the analysis.
the location where they appear to go in the water is actually a steep slope visible on maps that only gives the impression of being over water from the viewing angle,
This isn't quite accurate. According to the balloon hypothesis the object is still over the airport when it is alleged to have entered the water. The disappearing and reappearing of the object can't be accounted for by the presence of the small ridge-line north of the airport, which is nowhere near the field of view by that point in the video.
It shows how fast something compellingly put forward as inexplicable and incredible can be immediately rendered profoundly mundane by adding more information to the analysis.
SCU did account for and in their estimation rule out the balloon/lantern + parallax hypothesis: see thread here.
Same thing with the Gimbal video honestly. I was blown away when I first saw it, an actual rotating saucer, 100% aliens no doubt. Then the debunk came and I felt silly.
And to add to the above - from my notes:
For reference, there is a 3D simulation of this event and the 'how it was made' video is well worth watching: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1cfxw2ycn6xmdo/How%20the%20Simulation%20was%20Made.mp4?dl=0
It goes into great detail about the assumptions and choices made.
The simulation itself can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/-dNOd8QDG5c - it starts at the 2 minute mark.
The simulation is compatible with the object being a balloon (probably a couple of balloons tied together). As to it going underwater, you have to remember that this is an IR video. e.g. when the object appears to disappear, it could simply be that it was occulted by a cloud that doesn't show up in the IR. Or an artefact of video compression.
Have the initial radar detections which shut down the airport been confirmed and if so what was the explanation for them?
My opinion:
The unknown objects miles off the coast are only part of the story because this explains why the airport was temporarily closed.
I consider them unrelated or at least not related to the object in the video. There’s little evidence we have been presented to support the unknown objects blipping miles off the coast are related to the object in the video.
In fact, we have evidence to refute the objects off the coast are related to the one in camera…That the object in the video was not captured on radar. Why would it blip on the radar out there in the ocean then not show up even as a blip or two when it was being recorded by the aircraft?
Edit: I remember reading the argument that the object was simply too low to be caught on radar, but the altitude of the object should be able to be deciphered using those line of sight analysis… but, there’s major disagreement about where the object falls in that line of sight.
I may have some misunderstanding here, if I do please let me know.
Nice post /u/fat_earther . Thanks for the mention. Here's some other links...
A blog discussing Lianza's report https://www.uapsg.com/2017/07/an-exemplary-work-aguadilla-case.html
A video that tests the balloon theory using a software simulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dNOd8QDG5c
How the simulation was made https://youtu.be/2WvQIAzH87U
SunLITE UFO Magazine: Pages 5-7 http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite8_4.pdf
The Aguadilla Video stabilized on the object, showing that it doesnt move in anything other than a slow, constant velocity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bajBLE3zAI8
IMO there is literally 0 doubt left about it being those wedding lanterns. Literally everything is accounted for. The only thing that is not, is the insistence of UFOlk to not look at the evidence presented.
Metabunk is so full of wordy pretentious stuff its hard to read sometimes. Like dictionary definitions of pareidolia. A lot of discussion of lanterns, a few alternate path recreations (that don't necessarily agree). Interesting.
I have always been on the fence as to whether this one is interesting, so I'd like to give the debunking its best shot.
The SCU path recreation looks thorough. So why is it wrong? Not just "well I got something different" but what exactly is wrong about it? It's not readily apparent from the Metabunk thread but maybe I missed it.
I see what you mean about metabunk, but remember it’s a collection of many different people posting their ideas and analysis.
The SCU report is pretty “wordy” too, at 162 pages. (To be fair, there are several authors in that report too.)
One flaw in SCU’s estimated flight path
The SCU completely ignores any parallax effect. I searched for the word in the report and there isn’t one mention of parallax in there.
Members
Online