UFO in Puerto Rico Goes Underwater

Whatever it is, it never changed it's cardinal compass direction. So... It doesn't immediately appear to be a controlled craft. It could be debris or meteorite from space, munitions, missile, projectile, etc... Maybe even a mortar style firework that didn't explode. Tough to say. Would have been more interesting if it performed some observable turns and maneuvers.

a reply to: markymint
Well the thing is could you show a plot of its trajectory because to my eyes, whatever it is, the people doing the recording are not chasing it. The video clearly shows the object compared to the landscape is actually circling the videoer. Which smacks of a set up.

a reply to: Aliensun

When people have nothing to say of value, they criticize the posting of that image.
Criticizing that image is a poor tactic as a response, self-revealing of your main position.

a reply to: crayzeed

Hmm well here's the thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My image is on Page 4 but I think someone else made a better one. Personally not very interested in going back all over this myself so suggest reading the extensive comments and what not in that thread, there was certainly quite a bit of analysis into it back then!

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
Nowadays you can have a legit clip of a genuine alien craft and people will insist that it's either CGI, a "drone" or like one ATS poster claimed, a"jetplane."

Interesting hypothesis. Show us a clip of a genuine alien craft and we'll test it out.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Go ask the government. What I'm saying is that any legit clip that does sneak out will be dismissed by people as fake. Then, those that insist it's real, will be thrown under the bus, by people who think they have an answer for everything. Just think for a second if the researchers, who concluded: "No bird, no balloon, no aircraft, and no known drones have that capability" are correct. That the clip shows a genuine alien probe or craft of some kind. My hypthesis wouldn't be "interesting," it would be "spot on", based on the number of explanations we've already read from sceptics.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
Go ask the government. What I'm saying is that any legit clip that does sneak out will be dismissed by people as fake.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Maybe it wasn't water tight.
a reply to: tonycodes

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: Blue Shift

Go ask the government. What I'm saying is that any legit clip that does sneak out will be dismissed by people as fake. Then, those that insist it's real, will be thrown under the bus, by people who think they have an answer for everything. Just think for a second if the researchers, who concluded: "No bird, no balloon, no aircraft, and no known drones have that capability" are correct. That the clip shows a genuine alien probe or craft of some kind. My hypthesis wouldn't be "interesting," it would be "spot on", based on the number of explanations we've already read from sceptics.

On here and all over the net we get claims from ufo fans that an object defies physics , moves at an unbelievable speed or was huge things they can't possibly claim when they don't know a size or distance. Every bright dot in a night video/picture and every dark dot in daylight video/pic is Mog from Zog.

How a picture is taken the lens used distance to object can have an effect on how it looks so can exposure so here are a couple of examples.




So did the statue or the building Move




So is the paper white or black

Plenty on images and videos have been debunked on here because many members take video/pictures for a living or are long time amateurs with years of experience. Don't you think it strange that some idiot on youtube with a mobile phone sees ufo's all the time yet people on here with good to pro equipment don't, even when we have members doing this all over the world Calling all Astrophotographers, all skill levels

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Don't you think it strange that some idiot on youtube with a mobile phone sees ufo's all the time yet people on here with good to pro equipment don't, even when we have members doing this all over the world?

Even people who get video of UFOs that some call "undeniable proof" often have those UFOs often simply disappear when they get better equipment. I'm thinking in particular of Jose Escamilla and his "rods," and that dude in Turkey who claimed he filmed grays flying around in a convertible UFO with the top down. Once they got better cameras, the UFOs mysteriously vanished.

K, so i did a super analysis of the photos here.

Here is the photo zoomed in so close you can't even tell what you are looking at



Then i ran through a bunch of filters because that is what i've seen real UFO researchers do to prove its an alien.

IsaacKoi and Co. did quite a bit of analysis on this as I remember. All and all a great example of UFO research.

Here:

prrr.isaackoi.com...

The “Puerto RICO Research Review” (PRRR) .

A summary of the team:

“The Puerto Rico Research Review ("PRRR") is an ad hoc group of about 20 UFO researchers and skeptics from all walks of life and [?five] countries who came together to critically evaluate statements and conclusions made about the so-called Aguadila Puerto Rico “UFO”/“UAP” video which has been presented by some UFO investigators as “the best documentation of an unknown aerial and submerged nautical object exhibiting advanced technology" they have seen.”

Anyone serious about in-depth research of UAP/UFO and want an example of just that, take a look. IsaacKoi and friends are (where?) top of the field in my humble opinion.

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
Remote controlled Jetplane...runs out of fuel...capsizes in waterbody.

You do realise just how ridiculous that statement is, don't you? This object flew through a residential area and dipped in and out of the water without breaking its stride. Sure it was a remote controlled jet plane...it happens all the time. Nothing to see here.

a reply to: wmd_2008

There is a huge difference between what the Astro-photographers are doing and being caught on the hop by something in the sky when all you have is a mobile phone to hand...which is a more likely scenario than having your ultra hi-tech gear all set-up on its tripod etc. By the way, if something did appear in the sky, by the time the top-notch equipment was unmounted from said tripod in order to be less static, the ufo...or whatever...would be long gone. Chances are, the mobile devices would be reached for and the equipment would be left on its mount.

a reply to: Archivalist

Dipping under the water and then re-emerging does not imply some kind of control...either remote or on-board??

a reply to: gortex

I find it hard to believe that anybody would go through all that effort of filming balloons. Also, this was shot in IR...heat is dark...why would the balloons be hot?

a reply to: fromtheskydown

I find it hard to believe that anybody would go through all that effort of filming balloons.

They were close to the airport and the balloons could have caused a flight risk , Puerto Rican homeland security were keeping an eye on it.

Also, this was shot in IR...heat is dark...why would the balloons be hot?

Perhaps a result of the Mylar retaining heat within the balloons keeping them warmer than the surrounding area , I'm not a FLIR expert though.

a reply to: gortex

Perhaps a result of the Mylar retaining heat within the balloons keeping them warmer than the surrounding area , I'm not a FLIR expert though.

Does that mean that waves retain heat too? Because, there are waves that are dark in the video too.

a reply to: Phage

As I said Phage I'm not an FLIR expert , perhaps you could enlighten me ?
But yes I see your point.

a reply to: gortex

It was just an observation. Seems that shiny things may appear dark in whatever mode was being used.

In any case, the in depth analysis is pretty convincing that the thingy (balloons) didn't do anything particularly interesting. I'm not really interested in "relitigating" it.