Aguadilla Incident

Analytical Deep Dive

26 April 2013

Executive Summary

The Aguadilla incident involved infrared footage recorded by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection aircraft near Rafael Hernández Airport in Puerto Rico.

The video shows one or more small infrared objects as the aircraft circles the airport. The target appears to move rapidly across the ground, pass near the airport, enter the sea and divide into two objects.

A civilian Scientific Coalition for UAP study argued that the target travelled at high speed, demonstrated transmedium movement and split into two. Alternative analyses proposed that parallax, clouds, range uncertainty and image overlap created those impressions.

In March 2025, AARO published a formal resolution. It assessed with high confidence that the objects did not demonstrate anomalous or transmedium performance and with moderate confidence that they were a pair of sky lanterns. AARO estimated an altitude of approximately 656 feet and a speed of about eight miles per hour, drifting with the wind.

1. Historical Context

In 2013:

• Rafael Hernández Airport shared a region with civilian, military and federal aviation activity.
• Customs and Border Protection operated infrared-equipped aircraft for surveillance.
• Infrared video can obscure depth, distance and ordinary visible-light characteristics.
• Small warm objects can be tracked against cooler backgrounds.
• Aircraft circling a target create strong parallax.
• Sky lanterns were used in celebrations and could drift in pairs or groups.

The video became public through unofficial release rather than an immediate formal government UAP announcement.

2. Timeline

Evening of 26 April 2013

A CBP De Havilland Canada Dash 8 aircraft operated near Rafael Hernández Airport.

Crew members detected an infrared object or objects.

Initial Tracking

The object appeared near the airport and was followed by the aircraft's sensor.

The video shows:

• A small dark or bright thermal target depending on polarity.
• Apparent rapid movement relative to the landscape.
• Intermittent changes in shape.
• Occasional fading.
• Passage toward the coastline.

Apparent Water Entry

The target appears to cross the coast and continue over or into the ocean.

Its infrared image fades and reappears.

Supporters interpreted this as entry into and exit from the water without slowing.

Apparent Division

Near the end, the target appears as two separate thermal images.

This was interpreted by some analysts as one object splitting or duplicating.

Civilian Analysis

The Scientific Coalition for UAP reconstructed the event and argued that:

• The object travelled rapidly.
• It crossed airport airspace.
• It entered the water.
• It divided into two.
• Ordinary aircraft, birds and balloons were inadequate explanations.

AARO Reassessment

AARO used the aircraft's curved flight path, clouds, sensor line of sight, wind and target geometry.

It concluded that:

• Two objects were probably present throughout.
• They drifted at wind speed and direction.
• The aircraft's motion created apparent high speed.
• Clouds intermittently obscured the targets.
• The objects did not enter the water.
• Image overlap and changing visibility created the apparent division.

AARO assessed the objects as likely sky lanterns with moderate confidence.

3. Principal Witnesses and Analysts

A. CBP Aircrew

Detected and recorded the infrared targets.

Publicly available information about individual crew observations is limited.

The video is more important than later witness narration.

B. Rafael Hernández Airport Personnel

Some accounts stated that airport operations were affected by an unidentified object.

The extent of any closure or disruption has been disputed.

C. Scientific Coalition for UAP Analysts

Produced a lengthy technical study.

They interpreted the target as one object demonstrating extraordinary movement and transmedium capability.

D. AARO Analysts

Reconstructed the aircraft's orbit and target positions.

They concluded that two slow, wind-driven objects best explained the imagery.

4. Physical Evidence

Evidence includes:

• Infrared video.
• Aircraft sensor data displayed on the footage.
• Flight-path information.
• Weather records.
• Airport geography.
• Wind estimates.
• Civilian and government geometric analyses.

No physical object was recovered.

No independent visible-light video exists publicly.

No radar track conclusively demonstrates high speed.

No underwater sensor detected an entering object.

The video's diminishing quality was affected by increasing distance, aircraft altitude and scattered clouds.

5. Official Investigation

AARO's 2025 resolution concluded:

• High confidence that no anomalous performance occurred.
• High confidence that the targets were not transmedium.
• Moderate confidence that they were two sky lanterns.
• Assessed speed of approximately eight miles per hour.
• Assessed altitude of approximately 656 feet.

This represented a major change from earlier popular interpretations of the footage.

The moderate-confidence lantern identification leaves some uncertainty about exact object type, while strongly rejecting the extraordinary-performance claims.

6. Skeptical Explanations

Two Sky Lanterns

Strengths:

• Lanterns drift with wind speed and direction.
• Two lanterns can overlap visually and later separate.
• Warm flames produce strong infrared signatures.
• Lanterns may fade behind clouds.
• Their slow real movement can appear fast because of aircraft parallax.
• AARO's reconstruction matched the objects to the wind.
• Lanterns were reportedly released in the region during celebrations.

Weaknesses:

• Exact launch records for the specific objects may be unavailable.
• The target's changing appearance is difficult for casual viewers to interpret.
• Earlier analysts argued that the thermal pattern was inconsistent with simple lanterns.

Parallax

Strengths:

• The CBP aircraft flew a broad arc around the airport.
• The sensor viewed a nearby slow object against distant terrain.
• Background motion can create the illusion of high target speed.
• The same effect is common in airborne targeting imagery.

Weaknesses:

• Exact reconstruction depends on aircraft position and target altitude.
• Different assumed ranges produce different paths.

Cloud Obscuration Mistaken for Water Entry

Strengths:

• AARO identified scattered cloud layers.
• The aircraft climbed into or near those clouds.
• Infrared objects can fade behind thin clouds.
• The target's range from the aircraft increased substantially.
• Apparent disappearance near the coastline does not prove submersion.

Weaknesses:

• The video visually suggests interaction with the water.
• Civilian analysts interpreted brightness changes as partial immersion.
• Cloud depth and exact target position cannot be seen directly in the clip.

One Object Splitting

Strengths for the original extraordinary interpretation:

• The final frames appear to show one target becoming two.
• Both images seem to continue together.

Weaknesses:

• Two overlapping objects provide a simpler explanation.
• Changing viewing angle can reveal initially superimposed targets.
• Image-processing blur can merge nearby heat sources.

Bird or Balloon

Strengths:

• Both can move slowly at low altitude.
• Either can be difficult to identify in infrared.
• Their speed may match wind or natural flight.

Weaknesses:

• Birds would normally show active movement or wing signatures at sufficient resolution.
• Ordinary balloons may lack a strong thermal source.
• AARO considered lanterns more consistent than unheated balloons.

7. Arguments from UAP Researchers

Supporters of an anomalous interpretation emphasize:

• Federal sensor footage.
• Apparent transit across airport airspace.
• Apparent high speed.
• Apparent water entry.
• Lack of visible aerodynamic surfaces.
• Apparent division into two.
• Long tracking duration.

Critics respond that every extraordinary feature results from assuming one distant fast-moving object rather than two closer slow objects viewed from a circling aircraft.

8. Modern Historical Assessment

The Aguadilla incident was once presented as one of the clearest examples of transmedium UAP behaviour.

AARO's reconstruction substantially weakens that interpretation.

The most likely explanation is that:

• Two small warm objects drifted together.
• The aircraft's own movement produced apparent speed.
• Clouds caused fading.
• Perspective produced apparent water entry.
• Initial overlap produced the illusion of splitting.

The exact identification as sky lanterns remains moderately rather than absolutely certain.

9. Critical Analysis Guide

A. Identify the Number of Objects

Were two objects present from the beginning but superimposed?

Can separate thermal centroids be detected in early frames?

B. Reconstruct the Aircraft Orbit

How does the target appear when plotted in Earth-fixed coordinates rather than image coordinates?

C. Compare with Wind

Does the calculated target motion align with historical wind speed and direction?

D. Model Cloud Layers

When the image fades, is the sensor line of sight passing through mapped cloud?

E. Test the Water-Entry Claim

Does the target's position actually intersect the sea surface?

Or does it merely appear over the ocean from the camera's perspective?

10. Primary and Secondary Sources

Primary

• Original CBP infrared video.
• Aircraft flight and sensor data.
• Airport records.
• Weather and wind observations.
• AARO's 2025 case-resolution report.

Secondary

• Scientific Coalition for UAP report.
• Independent parallax and balloon analyses.
• Infrared-sensor studies.
• AARO's geometric reconstruction.

Overall Assessment

Aguadilla is a valuable example of how airborne infrared imagery can create dramatic but misleading impressions.

The video is authentic, but authenticity does not imply extraordinary behaviour. Current official analysis strongly supports two slow, wind-driven objects rather than one high-speed transmedium craft.

The precise identity remains somewhat uncertain, but the anomalous-performance interpretation is no longer persuasive.

---