What the video records
A CBP Dash 8’s infrared sensor tracked one or more small heat sources near Rafael Hernández Airport. The image moves against terrain as the aircraft flies a curved path; later frames show fading and two visible thermal images. The footage records line-of-sight imagery, not a direct measurement of target distance, altitude, size or speed.
The original extraordinary reading
Civilian analysis interpreted the clip as one high-speed object crossing airport airspace, entering and leaving the ocean, then dividing. That conclusion follows only if the image track is treated as the movement of one distant object. It does not follow from the pixels alone.
AARO’s reconstruction
AARO used aircraft trajectory, target geometry, winds and clouds to assess two slow objects drifting together. On this account, aircraft parallax produces the apparent ground speed, clouds explain fading, the targets remain above the water, and initially overlapping heat sources later resolve into two. AARO assessed no anomalous or transmedium performance with high confidence and sky lanterns with moderate confidence.
What the record establishes
- CBP aircraft recorded infrared imagery of small thermal targets.
- Apparent motion in the image requires geometry before it can be interpreted as target speed.
- No public underwater sensor, recovered material or decisive radar track supports water transit.
- The official reconstruction strongly rejects the original anomalous-performance reading.
How the Aguadilla Story Developed
The event’s public importance comes from a later interpretation of video rather than a rich set of named witness descriptions. The case therefore turns on reproducible sensor geometry: distinguish what the clip shows from the Earth-fixed path inferred after assumptions about range and altitude.
CBP aircraft records infrared targets near Aguadilla.
Civilian reconstruction presents one high-speed, transmedium object that divides.
Alternative analyses emphasize parallax, overlap, clouds and range uncertainty.
AARO resolves the case as likely two sky lanterns, without anomalous or transmedium performance.
Evidence, Documents and Physical Record
Authentic thermal imagery
The footage is useful evidence of infrared targets, but a sensor image has no self-evident range or physical scale.
Aircraft motion matters
A turning airborne camera viewing a slow target against distant terrain can create an apparent rapid track through parallax.
Wind and cloud constraints
Wind alignment supports a slow drifting interpretation; cloud layers can hide or attenuate a thermal source without immersion.
No recovered or underwater evidence
No public physical sample, visible-light video, underwater track or decisive radar measurement confirms the extraordinary account.
Evidence Assessment & Hypotheses
Within the public record of the Aguadilla incident of 25–26 April 2013 there are few elements more central, yet more carefully bounded, than the authentic Customs and Border Protection infrared video of real thermal targets. Aguadilla is essentially a pure sensor-interpretation case. Whether those targets exhibited anomalous performance depends almost entirely on range, altitude and motion assumptions. The Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) analysis adopted parameters that produce high speed and transmedium claims; alternative and official analyses adopt parameters that produce slow drift consistent with wind-borne objects and explain apparent anomalies via parallax and contrast loss. AARO’s assessment favours the conventional (sky-lantern) reading while acknowledging residual uncertainty in absolute identification. The case illustrates both the value of multi-sensor aviation footage and the extreme sensitivity of UAP claims to geometric and radiometric assumptions in infrared data.
The infrared video
A CBP aircraft recorded infrared video of thermal target(s) near Aguadilla. The footage shows apparent motion, interaction with the shoreline, and an apparent split into two objects. The video itself is authentic. Absolute identification of the thermal sources and the interpretation of their kinematics remain open and highly dependent on assumed geometry.
Competing kinematic reconstructions
One family of analyses (exemplified by the SCU 2015 report) derives high ground speed and apparent water-entry behaviour under specific range and altitude assumptions. Another family, reflected in later official assessment, adopts lower altitude and speed parameters consistent with wind-borne objects; parallax from the circling platform accounts for apparent high speed, and thermal contrast loss at the waterline accounts for the apparent disappearance. The results of both approaches are highly sensitive to the geometric assumptions adopted. No recovered physical object exists.
Official assessment
AARO assessed non-anomalous performance with high confidence and identified sky lanterns (or similar small warm, wind-borne objects) with moderate confidence. The moderate rather than high confidence for the specific identification reflects residual limitations of video quality and geometry.
Comparison of the principal explanations
Anomalous high-performance or transmedium object(s) SCU kinematic reconstruction; apparent high ground speed; apparent water entry with continued motion; apparent fission; lack of conventional transponder. Results are highly range-dependent; parallax from a circling platform can inflate apparent speed; thermal contrast loss can mimic water entry; official assessment rejects anomalous performance with high confidence. Dependent on contested geometric assumptions; not supported by the current official assessment.
Sky lanterns (or similar small warm, wind-borne objects) plus parallax Official moderate-confidence identification; low estimated altitude and speed consistent with wind; local use of sky lanterns; parallax explains apparent high speed; contrast loss explains apparent disappearance at the waterline; two objects explain apparent split. Identification is moderate rather than high confidence; video quality limits categorical identification; some earlier analyses rejected balloons or lanterns under different range assumptions. Leading conventional and current official assessment.
Birds or other biological targets Small thermal targets; possible flock or pair behaviour. Official and independent analyses have considered marine birds unlikely at modelled distances (expected wingbeat signature); SCU also rejected birds under its parameters. Considered and largely set aside by major analyses.
Assessment SnapshotConfidence overview of the central propositions.
| Confidence grouping | Concise propositions |
|---|---|
| Established / very high | CBP aircraft recorded IR video of thermal target(s) near Aguadilla on 25–26 April 2013. The video shows apparent motion, shoreline interaction and apparent split. Multiple analytical groups have published conflicting interpretations. AARO assessed non-anomalous performance with high confidence and sky lanterns with moderate confidence. No recovered physical object exists. |
| Strong / moderate–high | Apparent high speed and transmedium behaviour are highly sensitive to range and parallax assumptions. Sky-lantern + parallax is the current official leading explanation. |
| Open / unresolved | Absolute identification of the thermal targets; residual uncertainty acknowledged in the moderate-confidence lantern assessment. |
| Low / very low | Claims of proven non-human craft with definitively anomalous transmedium performance independent of geometric assumptions. |
Claim LedgerEvidence dates, limitations and working assessments.
| Claim | Best evidence | Principal limitation | Working assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| CBP recorded IR video of thermal target(s) | Authentic video + metadata | Interpretation of content open | Established |
| Targets exhibited high speed and transmedium behaviour | SCU kinematic analysis | Range/parallax dependent; rejected by official assessment | Contested; not supported by official assessment |
| Targets were sky lanterns drifting with wind | AARO assessment | Moderate confidence; video quality limits | Leading conventional / official |
| Targets were non-human craft | Inference from high-performance reading | Dependent on contested geometry; no material | Low; not established |
The public record establishes authentic infrared video of thermal targets near Aguadilla and a range of competing kinematic interpretations that depend critically on geometric assumptions. The current official assessment favours non-anomalous performance and a moderate-confidence sky-lantern identification. Further resolution depends primarily on any additional sensor metadata or independent geometric reconstruction that can reduce the range uncertainty.
Open Questions and Next Steps
Future work should publish and test the reconstruction inputs, not infer performance from the screen path alone.
Question
Can separate target centroids be resolved earlier?
Answer
Frame-level analysis with sensor metadata could further test the two-target account.
Question
What raw aircraft and weather records can be released?
Answer
They would allow independent replication of the geometric and cloud reconstruction.
Question
Can a specific launch source be identified?
Answer
It could raise confidence in the lantern identification but is not required to reject anomalous performance.
Witness Deep Dives
The available public record centers on the CBP crew’s sensor operation rather than detailed named-witness testimony.
Source Library
Official technical resolution and original sensor material should lead; competing analyses are valuable when their geometry assumptions are stated.
Tier 1 Contemporary / Primary
- Original CBP infrared video, aircraft data and contemporaneous weather records.
- Airport operational records and any relevant radar material.
Tier 2 Institutional / Archival
- AARO Puerto Rico case-resolution report.
- CBP FOIA resources.
- Authentic CBP infrared video and associated metadata
- AARO formal assessment of the case
Tier 3 Historical / Critical
- Technical work on thermal imagery, parallax and airborne sensor geometry.
- Replicable critiques of both civilian and government reconstructions.
- Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) 2015 kinematic analysis
Tier 4 Claim-History / Position Sources
- Arguments for a transmedium craft—useful for tracing claims, not substitutes for a calibrated trajectory.
- AARO UAP case-resolution report index — Official case-report repository: Provides the report and related official case products where available; official assessment remains open to methodological scrutiny.