Aguadilla IR Video ( 2013-04-25 · Aguadilla, Puerto Rico )

Quick facts

• Date / time: April 25, 2013, approximately 9:20 p.m. local time [S1][S2][S3]
• Location: Rafael Hernández Airport (IATA: BQN / ICAO: TJBQ), Aguadilla, northwestern Puerto Rico; object subsequently tracked over the adjacent Atlantic Ocean [S1]
• Witnesses: Crew of a US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) De Havilland Canada Dash 8 turboprop aircraft airborne in the vicinity; airport tower personnel (indirect — delayed departure of commercial aircraft indicates awareness at ground level) [S1][S2]
• Shape / description: Unknown aerial object approximately 3–5 feet in length; appeared as a pinkish or reddish light to the naked eye; recorded on infrared thermal video. Later in the footage the object appears to separate into two distinct objects [S1][S4]
• Duration: Approximately 3 minutes of recorded infrared video footage [S1][S2][S3]
• Classification: Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP) — trans-medium (aerial and apparent aquatic behavior); referenced by AARO; classified by the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) as the best documented case of an unknown aerial and submerged nautical object exhibiting advanced technology in their experience [S2]
• Status: Disputed / Officially explained by AARO as likely commercial aircraft; assessed as unexplained by SCU investigators [S2][S14]

Media

Media here is presented as source/context material, not as proof of an extraordinary explanation. Captions preserve provenance and distinguish contextual visuals from direct evidence.

Rafael Hernandez Airport Aircraft Rescue Firefighting.jpg — wikimedia commons; CC BY-SA 2.0; relevance: direct/high-context. Attribution: Tomás Del Coro. Source page.

Aguadilla airport.jpg — wikimedia commons; Public domain; relevance: direct/high-context. Attribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Erniefr&action=edit. Source page.

Aguadilla - Borinquen Point, Army Air Base No. 1.jpg — wikimedia commons; Public domain; relevance: context. Attribution: Published for Jose Ferrari, Inc., Aguadilla by Tichnor Brothers, Boston. Source page.

Narrative

At approximately 9:20 p.m. on April 25, 2013, an unidentified object flying at low altitude traversed the active runway area of Rafael Hernández Airport in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico [S1][S2][S3]. The object bore no transponder signal and emitted no communications recognized by the airport tower, creating what investigators later described as a dangerous situation for aircraft departing and arriving at the facility — one commercial aircraft departure was directly delayed as a result [S1][S2]. The object was not intercepted by or coordinated with air traffic control, and its origin and operator remained entirely unknown.

Operating in the vicinity at the time was a US Customs and Border Protection Dash 8 turboprop aircraft, whose crew observed a pinkish or reddish light moving over the ocean nearby [S1][S2][S3]. The crew activated their onboard infrared thermal imaging system and recorded approximately three minutes of continuous footage. During this period, the object was documented crossing into northwestern Puerto Rico from the direction of the Atlantic Ocean, traversing the airspace over the airport on two separate passes, and then returning toward the Atlantic [S1][S2][S3]. The object's speed during its aerial phase varied considerably, ranging from roughly 40 to 120 miles per hour, and its length was estimated at 3–5 feet [S1][S2].

The most dramatic and controversial segment of the footage occurs near the end of the recording, when the object appears to enter the ocean. According to the SCU analysis, the object submerged into the Atlantic and continued moving through the water, reaching speeds of up to 95 mph beneath the surface [S1][S2][S3]. This trans-medium behavior — seamlessly transitioning between aerial and aquatic environments at high speed — became the centerpiece of the case's claim to anomalous status. Additionally, late in the footage the object appears to divide into two separate objects, a feature that both advocates and skeptics have scrutinized intensely [S4].

The footage remained outside public knowledge for some time before copies were obtained by civilian researchers. In 2018, a team of six analysts led by chemist Robert Powell, operating under the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU), published a detailed technical report concluding that the video represented the "best documentation of an unknown aerial and submerged nautical object exhibiting advanced technology" they had encountered [S2][S3]. However, the case also attracted sustained critical attention, with skeptical analysts publishing counter-analyses — most notably in the journal SUNlite — arguing that balloon drift, atmospheric optics, and infrared camera limitations could account for the observed phenomena [S4].

The case subsequently entered the official UAP review pipeline. The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) has assessed the object as likely a commercial aircraft, attributing the apparent cavitation trail and submergence effect to a sensor artifact produced by video compression rather than to genuine trans-medium travel [S14]. This official determination is sharply contested by the SCU and by researchers who regard the video as among the strongest physical-evidence UAP cases on record.

Witness accounts

CBP Dash 8 flight crew: The aircrew aboard the US Customs and Border Protection De Havilland Canada Dash 8 turboprop are the primary sensor witnesses. They visually observed a pinkish or reddish light over the ocean in their vicinity and made the active decision to train their infrared thermal camera on the object, producing the foundational evidentiary record of the case [S1][S2][S3]. Their direct visual characterization of the object's color (pinkish/reddish) contrasts with the grayscale thermal rendering in the video, providing a cross-modal data point.

Airport tower / ground personnel (indirect): The delayed departure of a commercial aircraft from Rafael Hernández Airport implies that personnel on the ground were aware of an anomalous object in or near the runway environment, though no direct quoted account from tower operators appears in the available source material [S1][S2]. The absence of any transponder signal or radio communication from the object was noted as creating a hazardous flight safety situation [S1].

(No additional named individual witness accounts appear in this corpus beyond these two categories.)

Physical / sensor evidence

Infrared thermal video

The cornerstone of this case is the approximately three-minute infrared thermal video recorded by the CBP Dash 8's onboard camera system [S1][S2][S3]. The footage documents the following sequence of events, as catalogued by the SCU analysis:

1. Object enters frame from the direction of the Atlantic Ocean, crossing into northwestern Puerto Rico.
2. Object traverses the airspace above Rafael Hernández Airport twice.
3. Object returns toward the Atlantic and appears to submerge.
4. Object (or a secondary object) reappears and is rendered as two distinct thermal signatures.

Frame-rate and distance analysis: SCU researchers conducted frame-by-frame analysis combined with camera line-of-sight (LOS) path reconstruction and Google Earth Pro modeling to derive speed estimates [S5][S9]. The aircraft was estimated to be approximately 2 miles from the target for most of the footage, with the background being primarily land; as the aircraft began departing the area around frame 3500, the LOS distance to the target increased to 2.5 miles and beyond, at which point the target background transitioned to open ocean [S4].

The apparent submergence: As the object moved toward the ocean and the camera distance increased, the thermal signature faded. Skeptical analyst Lance Moody (cited in SUNlite) argued that this fade could be explained by the decreasing ability of the camera to resolve the temperature signature of a target at increasing range, combined with the object merging into the thermal background of the ocean surface, rather than representing literal submergence [S4]. The SCU countered that true submergence was demonstrated by the object's tracked trajectory and the continuation of a moving signature into the water.

The splitting phenomenon: Late in the footage, the object appears as two separate objects. Three explanations have been proposed in the literature:

• A refractive atmospheric layer creating a false dual image (proposed by Viktor Golubic) [S4]
• A second, independent object entering the field of view [S4]
• Two objects that were physically connected (e.g., balloons tied together) separating after the fact [S4]

Speed in water: The SCU report derived a maximum submerged speed of approximately 95 mph, a figure that, if accurate, would far exceed the performance of any known unmanned underwater vehicle [S1][S2].

Weather data: Weather history for TJBQ (Rafael Hernández Airport) on April 25, 2013 was obtained by researchers via Weather Underground as part of the analytical dataset, to assess atmospheric and wind conditions that might support a balloon hypothesis [S5][S9].

Radar / transponder

The object produced no transponder signal and made no radio communication with the airport tower [S1][S2][S3]. Whether the object appeared on primary radar is not explicitly addressed in the available source excerpts; this remains a notable evidentiary gap.

Visual / naked eye

The CBP aircrew visually described the object as a pinkish or reddish light [S1][S2][S3]. No electromagnetic effects on aircraft systems, ground equipment, or personnel are documented in these sources.

Investigations

Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU)

The primary in-depth investigation was conducted by the SCU, a civilian scientific organization. The lead investigator was Robert Powell, a chemist [S1][S2][S3]. Five additional SCU members collaborated on the analysis. Their report, published in 2018 and titled "2013 Aguadilla Puerto Rico UAP: The Detailed Analysis of an Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Captured by the Department of Homeland Security", represented the most technically comprehensive study of the footage [S2][S3][S5][S9]. The report ran to at least 158 pages and drew on:

• Frame-by-frame video analysis
• Flight data from commercial aviation in the region
• LOS path reconstruction using Google Earth Pro
• Camera technical specifications
• Weather history for TJBQ
• Frame set numerical data

The SCU's conclusion was that the video constituted the "best documentation of an unknown aerial and submerged nautical object exhibiting advanced technology" that the authors had encountered, and that no conventional explanation adequately accounted for all observed behaviors [S2][S3].

SUNlite / Skeptical Investigation

The skeptical journal SUNlite (Vol. 7, No. 6) published a counter-analysis that engaged directly with the SCU report. The SUNlite analysis argued:

• That the apparent ocean submergence could be explained by increasing camera-to-target distance causing thermal signal loss against the ocean background, rather than literal submergence [S4]
• That the balloon hypothesis (including mylar balloons or balloons tied together) was plausible, though the analyst acknowledged that balloons typically do not split [S4]
• That Viktor Golubic's atmospheric refractive layer hypothesis was one possible explanation for the dual-object appearance [S4]
• That Lance Moody provided additional email correspondence cited in the analysis [S5][S9]

The SUNlite analysis also referenced a "Balloon Alternative Hypothesis Response" document prepared by the SCU as part of an ongoing exchange [S5].

All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)

AARO, the U.S. government's official UAP investigation body, has assessed the Aguadilla case. After analysis of the full motion video, inclusion of additional footage with a longer focal length, and analysis of commercial flight data in the region, AARO assessed that "the object likely is a commercial aircraft and that the trailing cavitation is a sensor artifact resultant of video compression" [S14]. This determination is the current official U.S. government position. AARO's methodology included cross-referencing commercial aviation traffic data against the object's observed flight path and timing — an analytical step not available to the original SCU team.

Department of Homeland Security / CBP

The video originated from a DHS CBP platform (the Dash 8 aircraft) and was obtained by civilian researchers at some point after the event [S2][S3]. The DHS/CBP's own institutional position on the footage is not elaborated in the available sources. The case is one of relatively few in which a DHS-operated sensor system is the primary recording instrument.

Hypotheses & explanations

1. Unconventional / advanced technology (SCU position)

Claim: The object exhibits flight characteristics and trans-medium capability — aerial speeds of 40–120 mph, apparent ocean submergence, continued underwater movement at up to 95 mph, and an apparent mid-flight division — that exceed the performance envelope of any known aircraft, drone, or underwater vehicle, indicating an object of unknown origin and advanced technology [S1][S2][S3].

Pros:

• Based on detailed frame-by-frame analysis by qualified researchers
• Speed and trans-medium behavior, if measured correctly, are genuinely anomalous
• Object caused real operational disruption at an active airport
• No transponder signal eliminates most conventional aircraft

Cons:

• SCU analysis relies on assumptions about LOS path and camera calibration that skeptics dispute
• Submerged speed estimate depends entirely on whether the object actually submerged
• Small object size (3–5 feet) is consistent with an unmanned platform

2. Commercial aircraft (AARO position)

Claim: AARO determined after incorporating additional longer-focal-length footage and commercial flight data that the object is most likely a commercial aircraft, and that apparent cavitation/submergence effects are sensor artifacts from video compression [S14].

Pros:

• AARO had access to additional footage and aviation data not available to SCU
• Video compression artifacts are a known and documented phenomenon in IR camera systems
• Commercial aircraft operate in the area routinely

Cons:

• Commercial aircraft would have a transponder signal; the object had none [S1][S2]
• The object's reported flight path (crossing airport runway area, varying speed 40–120 mph, low altitude) is inconsistent with standard commercial approach/departure profiles
• The 3–5 foot size estimate from SCU analysis is incompatible with a full-size airliner
• AARO's full analytical methodology and supporting data have not been publicly released in a form that allows independent replication

3. Balloon(s)

Claim: The object is one or more mylar or latex balloons drifting with atmospheric winds; the apparent high speeds and trans-medium behavior are artifacts of camera movement and LOS path miscalculation; the splitting into two represents either two balloons that were tied together separating, or an atmospheric refraction artifact [S4].

Pros:

• Balloons are commonly observed on infrared cameras and produce glowing thermal signatures
• Mylar balloons can exhibit pinkish/reddish visual appearance when illuminated
• Wind direction and speed data from TJBQ weather records were used in the analysis

Cons:

• Balloons do not "split into two" in the manner observed, a point conceded even within the SUNlite analysis [S4]
• Airport crossing without transponder is equally unexplained under the balloon hypothesis
• Speed range of 40–120 mph is above typical passive balloon drift, though possible under wind gusts

4. Atmospheric / optical phenomenon

Claim: Viktor Golubic proposed that the dual-object appearance results from a refractive layer in the atmosphere bending the infrared image [S4].

Pros:

• Atmospheric refraction is a well-documented cause of anomalous infrared imagery
• The event occurred at night over a tropical coastal environment where thermal layering is plausible

Cons:

• Does not explain the primary flight behaviors, speed, or airport overflight
• A refractive layer would need to be implausibly localized to produce the observed splitting without affecting other image elements

5. Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV / drone)

Claim: The object is a small unmanned aerial vehicle operated without transponder or radio coordination, consistent with its 3–5 foot length and variable speed.

Pros:

• Size and speed envelope overlap with consumer and military-grade UAS
• Puerto Rico's proximity to drug trafficking routes makes covert UAV use plausible
• No transponder is normal for many small UAS platforms

Cons:

• Aquatic submergence at 95 mph exceeds all known UAS capability as of 2013
• Airport incursion by an uncoordinated UAV at night would be a significant federal offense with investigative consequences
• No subsequent follow-up investigation revealed a UAV operator

Resolution / official position

The official U.S. government position, as represented by AARO, is that the object is likely a commercial aircraft, with the apparent submergence and cavitation effects attributed to video compression artifacts in the sensor data [S14]. AARO based this on the full motion video, additional longer-focal-length footage, and commercial flight data analysis [S14].

The SCU has not accepted this determination and regards the case as unexplained. Their 2018 report, representing the most comprehensive civilian technical analysis, concluded that no known conventional phenomenon accounted for all observed behaviors [S2][S3].

The case therefore sits in a formally disputed status: officially explained by AARO but contested by the leading civilian scientific body that investigated it. No public release of AARO's full methodology or supporting data has enabled independent verification of the commercial aircraft assessment.

Cultural impact / aftermath

The SCU Report (2018)

The publication of the SCU's detailed technical report in 2018 elevated the Aguadilla case from an obscure regional sighting to one of the most-cited physical-evidence UAP cases among researchers worldwide. The report's claim that the footage represented the best-documented trans-medium UAP on record was widely circulated in UAP research communities.

AARO Reference

The case's inclusion in AARO's assessment workload signals that it is considered significant enough by U.S. government UAP analysts to warrant formal review — placing it in the company of a relatively small number of cases that have received official contemporary attention [S14].

Conference and Media Presence

Robert Powell, the SCU's lead analyst on the case, has presented at the UFO Congress, indicating the case has been featured in conference settings frequented by both researchers and the general public [S1][S2].

SUNlite Debate

The detailed back-and-forth between the SCU and SUNlite — including the SCU's published "Balloon Alternative Hypothesis Response" and the SUNlite counter-analysis — represents a relatively rare instance of adversarial peer review in civilian UAP research, and has been cited as a model (however imperfect) of how such cases should be contested analytically [S4][S5].

(No specific books, films, or declassification events beyond the above are documented in this corpus.)

Related cases

• USS Nimitz / Tic Tac (2004): The Aguadilla case is frequently grouped with military-sensor UAP cases in which IR/EO camera footage forms the primary evidence; the trans-medium element also invites comparison.
• USS Roosevelt FLIR footage (2015): Another DHS/Navy IR video case from the Atlantic region, offering methodological comparisons in sensor analysis.
• Aguada, Puerto Rico (September 1, 1976): A separate Puerto Rico case involving a circular glowing object observed near the ocean by a retired science teacher — it moved, hovered, nearly entered the ocean, then moved westward [S6][S7][S8]. The geographic proximity and ocean-interaction behavior invite comparison, though the cases are separated by nearly four decades and differ significantly in witness type and evidence quality.
• Long Beach object (date unspecified, NUFORC report): A witness report describing an object that "split into three separate things" after hovering over the ocean [S10] — thematically parallel to the Aguadilla splitting phenomenon, though far less documented.
• Pakistan / Dacca airport object (November 4, 1955): A historical case involving an airport and a large round object, noted by the Hatch database [S13] — a loose historical parallel in the airport-incursion theme.

Sources cited

Primary SCU report (cited within sources but not directly a graph source):

• Powell, Robert, et al. "2013 Aguadilla Puerto Rico UAP: The Detailed Analysis of an Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Captured by the Department of Homeland Security." Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, 2018. Referenced in [S2][S3][S5][S9].

Open questions

1. Radar data: Was the object tracked on primary radar at Rafael Hernández Airport or by any FAA/military installation? The complete absence of radar discussion in available sources is a significant evidentiary gap. Primary radar (as opposed to secondary/transponder-dependent radar) should detect a 3–5 foot object at low altitude, at least at close range.

2. AARO's commercial aircraft identification: Which specific commercial flight does AARO believe the object to be? The longer-focal-length footage mentioned in the AARO assessment [S14] has not been publicly released. Publication of the flight identification and supporting data would allow independent verification or refutation of the commercial aircraft hypothesis.

3. Chain of custody for the video: How was the original DHS/CBP footage obtained by civilian researchers, and when? The legal and procedural pathway by which a CBP operational infrared recording entered public circulation has not been fully documented in these sources.

4. The second object: Whether the dual-object appearance represents a true physical split, a second independent object, or an atmospheric or sensor artifact remains unresolved. Frame-by-frame kinematic analysis of both objects' trajectories after the split could potentially distinguish between these hypotheses.

5. Airport operational records: Are there official Rafael Hernández Airport records (tower logs, incident reports, commercial flight delay records) from April 25, 2013 that document the runway incursion and aircraft delay? Such records would independently corroborate the most operationally documented aspect of the case.

6. Underwater speed methodology: The SCU's 95 mph submerged speed estimate depends critically on accurate LOS path reconstruction and the assumption that the object actually entered the water. A sensitivity analysis of how LOS path uncertainty affects the speed estimate has not been publicly detailed in the available sources.

7. No transponder — DHS follow-up: Did CBP or the FAA investigate the runway incursion as an aviation safety event independent of the UAP question? A commercial aircraft without a transponder flying low over an active runway would normally trigger federal investigation regardless of the object's exotic characteristics.

8. Viktor Golubic's refractive layer analysis: The reference to Golubic's hypothesis [S4] is brief; a full treatment of the atmospheric conditions that night (temperature inversion data, radiosonde profiles) could determine whether a refractive layer of the required geometry was present.

9. Additional CBP crew testimony: Do affidavits or official statements exist from the Dash 8 crew beyond their implicit role as camera operators? Their observations of the pinkish/reddish light with the naked eye are cited only in summary form across the sources.

10. Longer focal length footage: AARO references "additional footage with a longer focal length" [S14] that was included in their analysis. This footage has not been publicly released and represents potentially decisive evidence — either for AARO's commercial aircraft determination or for refuting it.