Homeland Security Helicopter follows and records two UFOs over Puerto Rico

a reply to: weirdguy

the camera does lose focus now and then and there is also some heat haze

José A. Martínez, the man who posted the video on YouTube, has been involved in UFO and paranormal investigations from at least as early as 2005:

Martinez 2005 Investigation

And here's an "interview" with Martinez:

Martinez Interview

I put interview in quotes, because it seems like a cut and paste job. In the first answer, he refers to himself by name as if he's a separate person. I would guess that paragraph comes from another document. But the "interview" does include some interesting information about Martinez and the organization.

For example, it claims that he worked for the "Department of Justice’s internal security department". This may explain how he was able to get access to DHS material. However, I was unable to find any independent confirmation of him working for DOJ. José A. Martínez is quite a common name.

There's other information about Martinez and his investigations. But these seemed the most apropos.

Looks to me like a balloon carried on convection currents in the air, they can pick up some very fast speeds.

en.wikipedia.org...


"Convection is the concerted, collective movement of groups or aggregates of molecules within fluids (e.g., liquids, gases) and rheids, either through advection or through diffusion or as a combination of both of them. Convection of mass cannot take place in solids, since neither bulk current flows nor significant diffusion can take place in solids. Diffusion of heat can take place in solids, but that is called heat conduction. Convection can be demonstrated by placing a heat source (e.g. a Bunsen burner) at the side of a glass full of a liquid, and observing the changes in temperature in the glass caused by the warmer fluid moving into cooler areas."


Case closed.

originally posted by: ATSZOMBIE


Case closed.

Convection currents rise, they don't force balloons down 200ft into water and up again. Aside from that I can see nothing in the terrain that would cause air currents to blow anything in a circular route.

I have no idea what it is that is seen in the video but the movement seems to discount a balloon.

Case re-opened.

originally posted by: chunder

originally posted by: ATSZOMBIE


Case closed.

Convection currents rise, they don't force balloons down 200ft into water and up again. Aside from that I can see nothing in the terrain that would cause air currents to blow anything in a circular route.

How did you arrive at the 200ft into water figure?

First off.. the object doesn't spontaneously double. The bottom of the object drags on a wave and one part separates from the other- Read from right to left:



Next, you can see it's above the low-level cloud tops and slowly loses altitude as it comes closer to the water. It isn't traveling through the water, it's traveling through the clouds as it loses that altitude. Once it separates, it loses all momentum and quickly falls into the sea.

You can see the object is tumbling and rotating in different directions. It's not "flying" on a level plane. How effective of a design is one that tumbles and meanders through the air creating unnecessary drag and wasted energy? Who would design such an inefficient craft?

I've watched this video over and over and to me it's obvious that it's a group of balloons. The object has no direction or stability and is free-wheeling through the air. Acting exactly like balloons would and have on many posted videos on this forum. It's a stretch to say this is some type of intelligently controlled UFO, drone, or alien craft. If it was, it's tumbling out of control, flimsily constructed since it splits apart as it drags a wave, works independently from each other as it splits and both pieces float away, and ends with an uneventful crash.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Who would design such an inefficient craft?

Microsoft?

a reply to: conundrummer

I'm going by the indicated altitude of the target as shown by the FLIR system on the screen.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

To come to that conclusion you have to ignore what, I am assuming, are the targets co-ordinates and altitude as shown by the FLIR system on the video.

Going by those the object traveled 5km (a conservative approximation) in a circular route in approx 150 seconds which equates to 120 km/hr. If someone wants to accurately plot the coordinates this can be measured much more accurately.

It was moving (tumbling) on a fairly level height of approx 200ft (there is no cloud cover) before plummeting very rapidly to 0ft seemingly into water.

I doubt whether atmospheric conditions could cause a balloon to behave that way.

Not that I am proposing it is necessarily an intelligently controlled object but if it was then you cannot comment on efficiency of design without knowing either what it's purpose is or what the propulsion system is - drag may play no part in it.

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: conundrummer

I'm going by the indicated altitude of the target as shown by the FLIR system on the screen.

Which number is the altitude of the target? Can you give me a quadrant or screengrab or something?

a reply to: chunder

To come to that conclusion you have to ignore what, I am assuming, are the targets co-ordinates and altitude as shown by the FLIR system on the video.

Going by those the object traveled 5km (a conservative approximation) in a circular route in approx 150 seconds which equates to 120 km/hr. If someone wants to accurately plot the coordinates this can be measured much more accurately.

You're trying your best to search and grasp for something unusual by looking at the coordinates. Just look at the object. It tumbles and spins about, has no obvious direction, splits after dragging on a wave, loses momentum, and falls to the sea without so much as a wake.

It was moving (tumbling) on a fairly level height of approx 200ft (there is no cloud cover) before plummeting very rapidly to 0ft seemingly into water.

Where exactly in the video does it move at a fairly level height? The object is continually moving at a steady path downward from 1:22-1:25 into the water. There's no sudden drop or "plummeting" into the sea.

I doubt whether atmospheric conditions could cause a balloon to behave that way.

Have you ever seen balloons carried by a strong gust?

Not that I am proposing it is necessarily an intelligently controlled object but if it was then you cannot comment on efficiency of design without knowing either what it's purpose is or what the propulsion system is - drag may play no part in it.

So, we would have to make an assumption about an assumption in order for this to be a craft? First assume alien craft are here visiting Earth- That's the first unproven hurdle that we have to get over. Next, we have to assume that completely random tumbles and spins have no effect on this craft in our atmosphere. Movements that don't even have a pattern to them. Sometimes it flies even, sometimes it tumbles up, down, to the right, or to the left. No rhyme or reason. Or.... it's a really simple and mundane answer... It's a group of balloons caught on a wind.

I can't believe this thread has gone on 7 pages. It really does show what lengths believers will go to in order to make this a UFO. This and the obsessive search for aliens in every Mars Curiosity- rover photograph.
Come on guys... Use some common sense!

a reply to: conundrummer

At the bottom of the screen you have ACFT (which I am assuming is aircraft i.e. the heli), below that you have lat and lon of, I assume, the aircraft. To the right of that you have bearing and altitude.

To the right hand side at the bottom you have TGT (which I am assuming is target i.e. the object) again with coordinates. You then havewhat I am guessing are bearing, distance in nautical miles from the aircraft and pretty much in the middle at the bottom a reading in feet which is what I am assuming is the altitude of the target.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I'm not grasping for anything, I'm looking at what evidence there is. You can just look at the object as much as you like but if you disregard the actual data then I suppose it doesn't matter if it was moving at 1000mph, it's a balloon.

It moves at a steady height for the bulk of the video - see post above and watch the targets altitude.

I have seen balloons moving in a gust of wind, as I guess would have the crew of the helicopter. I have never seen one blown around in a wide circle like that though and I guess the crew thought it was something a little unusual to track it.

Regarding the alien craft thing then as I have said I have no idea what the object could be, I gave a rhetorical answer as to why the tumbling motion doesn't necessarily signify it is uncontrolled flight. Admittedly the tumbling points to it being carried by the wind - but then the data shown contradicts that.

The thread is continuing in part because you keep stating it's a balloon without addressing the speed or circular route that makes that seem very unlikely.

If you ignore the data to provide a common answer then no UFO's exist, they can all be explained away.

a reply to: chunder
My Mk1 eyeball tells me that what is being seen here is a F16 being viewed by IR in the black hot mode. It changes shape when it rolls back and forth as it is maneuvering. Nothing exotic here!

a reply to: chunder

I'm not grasping for anything, I'm looking at what evidence there is. You can just look at the object as much as you like but if you disregard the actual data then I suppose it doesn't matter if it was moving at 1000mph, it's a balloon.

Your personal interpretation of the data evidence, supersedes the visual evidence. The unusual data you're talking about is this "plummet" of altitude? Do you actually see that plummet? If not, you have to question the accuracy of the data shown. The assumption that the object is traveling at high speed? Do you factor in distance, perspective, and the movement of the helicopter relative to the rotating camera? You seem to start off with a bias that this is an unusual object and work backwards to prove that it's not. In turn, grasping at things that support this.

Even though you admitted the tumbling points to this being an object carried by the wind, you still refuse to accept the common answer and want to stay on this same course of 'unusual'. You do this by saying we have no clue how a propulsion system might work on an alien craft. You've created a 100% fantasy based situation, to support your own argument. I could say it's a group of four fairies traveling in their interconnected balloon pods and heading for a day at the beach, but they lose control and crash into the sea. Okay, now prove it's not. Argument from ignorance.

It moves at a steady height for the bulk of the video - see post above and watch the targets altitude.

First, you can't accurately rely on the movement of the cursor for height when it can't stay steady on the object and doesn't stay locked. Towards the end it does become better. Nevertheless, using your own interpretation of the values on the screen, it still shows the object is clearly dropping consistently and steadily:


Notice in the screen grabs below, movement from right to left, that the cloud banks/reflections (area with white pointers in both frames) doesn't drop in altitude relative to the movement of the camera in the next frame. The height reading of the object (circled in yellow) does show a drop of 100 feet in altitude between frame 1 and 2 though. Although this altitude difference of the object isn't visually represented in the screen grabs, it is on the screen data. These frames are milliseconds apart and the level of the object is consistently downward on the same path as with the screen grabs above. The height readings continue to drop from 31 feet down to 0. This sudden drop in the height data shown, could be because of a misreading as the object goes behind cloud cover, or some other reason such as topography. The object clearly does not instantaneously drop 100 feet, if this is the plummet you're speaking of:

If you ignore the data to provide a common answer then no UFO's exist,
they can all be explained away.

I'm speaking on this one particular case.
If you give a realistic possibility of this being an alien craft, one of two things have been established-
A) A precedence has already been set, where at some point in the decades of this phenomenon, we have had 100% absolute proof and evidence that alien craft are visiting Earth and flying in our atmosphere.
B) The object in this video, in itself, shows details of an unexplainable craft, performing unexplainable movements.
Answer to A- There has been zero absolute evidence that alien craft are in our atmosphere.
Answer to B- We can see no obvious structure of the object and the movements are not out of the bounds of Earthly explanations.
The default answer will always be Earthly until we have that absolute proof and evidence of alien visitation. Then you can realistically suggest this may be an alien craft.

Another answer is a human created drone. If it is a drone, it was tumbling out of control and vanished into the sea.

The most likely answer is balloons. We have an object floating on a wind current while randomly spinning and tumbling through the air, coming apart with both pieces continuing to float off until they fall uneventfully into the sea.

Data for anybody who wants to work on it: http:///qKkVrpRE

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

My ATS debunker rule #1:

When they start posting graphics with arrows, they have lost the argument.

originally posted by: awakehuman
Data for anybody who wants to work on it: http:///qKkVrpRE

Linky no worky.

originally posted by: Moresby
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

My ATS debunker rule #1:

When they start posting graphics with arrows, they have lost the argument.

Also referred to as "Moresby's Law".

Another interesting video...