If Our Military Is So Advanced…Why Is the Video So Bad?

With hundreds of billions of dollars invested in the most advanced military on Earth, this is the best image the public gets to see? My phone, which cost less than $1,000, seems capable of producing a better picture.

My first thought was that the military was intentionally degrading the released footage. That would make sense if they wanted to avoid revealing just how capable their imaging systems really are.

Then I came across one of the government-released documents discussing a specific UAP incident.

It made me stop and reconsider that assumption.

For this post, we’re going to focus on one of those officially documented encounters and, more importantly, what it reveals about military infrared imaging. Along the way, we’ll separate what the evidence actually shows from what people often assume it shows.

2013 Aguadilla Puerto Rico UAP: The Detailed Analysis of an Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon Captured by the Department of Homeland Security

Who knows? By the end of this post, the tinfoil hat may still be sitting on the table… or I may have it cinched down a notch tighter.

Again, this is a government released document, not something from a conspiracy site. So, that means the video and the explanations provided are either what the government wants us to believe, or what they actually believe themselves.

“This report is a detailed analysis of a Homeland Security thermal video taken from an aircraft as it tracked an unidentified object. The authenticity of the video was verified through radar data that correlated to the metadata in the video. The three-minute video was taken by a Wescam MX-15D IR camera that operates in the 3-5 micron region of the infrared. The video was broken into individual frames for study. The object in the video traveled at night without lights through an urban area, at times below tree-top altitude, at speeds approaching 100 mph, and apparently without risk of impacting objects as it passes by. The object enters the water toward the end of the video with minimal impact. It exits the water and begins to enlarge before splitting into two equal parts. The two objects then re-enter the water at different times before the video ends.”

In summary, the following is why this captured so much attention and why it made it into the UAP files.

• Multiple sources of data: The object was not just seen on video. The infrared footage was correlated with radar information and the aircraft’s metadata, allowing investigators to reconstruct its flight path.
• Infrared video: The object was recorded by a Wescam MX-15D forward-looking infrared (FLIR) camera operating in the 3 to 5 micron infrared band. Because it was nighttime, the video shows heat rather than visible light.
• Flight characteristics: The object traveled through an urban area at night without visible navigation lights. It appeared to maneuver at low altitude, at times below treetop level, while avoiding obstacles.
• Estimated speed: The report estimated speeds approaching 100 mph during portions of the flight, although the exact speed varied throughout the encounter.
• No visible propulsion: Investigators reported seeing no wings, rotors, exhaust plume, or other obvious means of propulsion in the infrared imagery.
• Water interaction: Near the end of the recording, the object appeared to enter the water with little or no visible splash or deceleration. It later appeared to exit the water and continue moving.
• Apparent splitting: After emerging from the water, the object appeared to enlarge and then separate into two similarly sized objects, each continuing independently before both eventually re-entered the water.
• Unable to identify the object: After comparing the observations against known aircraft, balloons, birds, drones, and other conventional explanations, the authors concluded they could not confidently identify the object, leading them to classify it as an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP).

I do think our military personnel are highly qualified individuals who fully understand how to use the advanced tools we provide them. But come on… can you imagine the people observing this going, “WTF is that?”

Based on the detailed analysis that follows, including the correlation of video, radar, aircraft metadata, and other available data, the investigators were still unable to identify what they had actually observed and captured on multiple systems.

• They verified the video’s authenticity by correlating it with radar and metadata.
• They performed photogrammetry and frame-by-frame measurements to estimate the object’s position, altitude, and speed.
• They analyzed the infrared signature and noted the absence of characteristics expected from conventional propulsion.
• They evaluated and rejected several conventional explanations, including birds, balloons, aircraft, helicopters, drones, and atmospheric effects, based on the combination of observed characteristics.
• They modeled the object’s trajectory and concluded it appeared to move in ways they believed were inconsistent with known aircraft during portions of the encounter.
• They treated the apparent water entry and exit as significant because they found little evidence of the splash or deceleration they expected.
• They examined the apparent splitting event and concluded it was unlikely to be an imaging artifact, although that point has been disputed by later analyses.
• Based on all of those analyses together, they concluded the object remained unidentified, not that it was extraterrestrial.

So, after reading through all of this, I think we can all agree that this was a well-documented encounter recorded by multiple types of equipment operated by one of the most advanced militaries in the world. A thoughtful and thorough analysis was conducted using the collected data. It’s easy to see why the tinfoil hat crowd, which I can occasionally be part of, points to this incident and asks, “How can you argue that this wasn’t a genuine UFO encounter?”

As with most scientific investigations, the story didn’t end there. Later analysis challenged several of the original conclusions. While the object itself may still not have been positively identified, the newer analysis suggested that some of what was initially thought to have been observed may have been the result of perspective, camera geometry, and other factors rather than the object itself.

They argued that:

• The object’s speed was likely overestimated. Much of the apparent motion can be explained by the movement of the surveillance aircraft itself, combined with the camera’s changing viewing angle.
• The water entry may have been an optical illusion. Rather than diving into the ocean, the object may have simply passed behind the horizon from the camera’s perspective.
• The “splitting into two objects” may not have been an actual split. Later analyses suggest it could have been two objects flying in close proximity that became distinguishable only as the viewing angle changed.
• No extraordinary propulsion was required. If the object’s speed and trajectory are recalculated using the aircraft’s motion, its behavior becomes much more consistent with an ordinary airborne object.
• A balloon became one of the leading explanations. Some analysts concluded the object was most likely one or more wind-driven balloons, whose apparent maneuvers resulted from camera tracking and perspective effects.
• The infrared imagery itself has limitations. Because the camera records heat rather than visible light, estimating size, distance, and speed from a single infrared video is far more difficult than it appears.

Now, what do I think about the follow-up analysis or the different conclusions?

This is where the tinfoil hat comes out for me.

Are they covering up a real encounter and simply blaming faulty equipment or flaws in the original analysis? Or are their points valid?

If their analysis is correct, then they are basically saying our military is not as cracked up as we’ve been led to believe. To a point, I do think we oversell our military capabilities to keep those who wish us harm constantly wondering what we are truly capable of.

But I also think that, in many instances when the military regrets what has been released, they will come out with a different story to hide the truth.

And we know both of what I just described have happened with our government.

We don’t know what to believe. They tell us only what they want us to know. And if the truth slips out, they will change the story and expect us to ignore what they first told us.

And I will be honest. No matter what the real answer is, it’s concerning.

Is our military really not as capable as we’ve been led to believe? Can it be fooled that easily? Or was the encounter exactly what it appeared to be?

You make your own decision. As for me, I keep taking the tinfoil hat off, only to put it right back on again. I just can’t seem to make up my own mind.