It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: baddmove
Anything linked by OpenMinds does not work onATS.
i did a thread a couple of weeks ago and had the same problem..
Try and find another link as I would really like to read about this..
As a MULTIROTOR (drone) builder and flier, it's not one of the ones we fly..
Could be military but it sure seems big and fast...
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Bloodydagger
Because balloons aren't sentient.
You say that it never does, yet it completely disappears.
The report states: “The object was between three to five feet in length and its speed varied between approximately 40 mph to 120 mph. Its median speed was roughly 80 mph.” The report goes on to note that an interesting characteristic at the end of the flight was when it apparently submerged into the ocean, traveled for over half a mile, and then flew back out. According to the report: “Its speed through the water reached a high of 95 mph and average 82.8 mph.”
One suggestion has been that the object was merely a balloon. However, the researchers reject this idea for several reasons. They say the wind speeds at the time were 8 to 13 mph at ground level and 12 to 18 mph at 400 to 3200 feet. This means the object was moving too fast to be carried by wind currents. It also changed directions from heading south back to the north, and it went underwater with minimal loss of speed. Another possibility is that the object was actually a bird. The object appears dark on the screen, and for this type of thermal imaging that would mean it was warmer than the ambient air. This is how a bird would appear. However, the researchers note that the object was moving much too fast to be a bird. They note that peregrine falcons, which do occasionally visit Puerto Rico, have an average horizontal speed of 40 to 56 mph, and a maximum of 65 to 69 mph. The researchers also examined the possibility that the object was a drone. Their research did discover that the Navy is working on a drone that can fly through the air and dive into the ocean and become a submarine. It is called a “Flimmer.” They found that current Flimmer drones have not been tested underwater and have an airspeed of 68 mph. They also noted that the fastest known underwater battery powered torpedo travels at 50 mph. The researchers do acknowledge that it could be possible that the Navy is secretly testing a Flimmer drone that is much more advanced. However, they question why the military would so recklessly test it over a civilian area and airport runways. In conclusion they state: “There is no explanation for an object capable of traveling under water at over 90 mph with minimal impact as it enters the water, through the air at 120 mph at low altitude through a residential area without navigational lights, and finally to be capable of splitting into two separate objects. No bird, no balloon, no aircraft, and no known drones have that capability.”
originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: chunder
Then please refute the (what appear valid to me) reasons given in the report as to why it can't be a balloon - primarily speed and change of direction.
The only reason I can see why they say it isn't a balloon is the estimated speed they believe the object was traveling.
It's pretty obvious to me the object does not enter the water but the expert panel seem to think it does , they estimate the speed it enters the water at about 109.7 mph but there is no splash on entry , at 109 mph ! , they think it might of made a slight wave or movement in the water looking at the video frame by frame but that seems a bit suspect to me for a supposedly scientific panel , it's a body of moving water how can you identify a slight ripple in a sea of waves from FLIR footage , or are they just seeing what they want to see.
Frame by frame analysis indicated that there might be a slight wave or movement of the water as the object entered the ocean. It is unknown at the time of this report if the U.S. or another nation has developed the ability to diminish water displacement caused on impact. it is more difficult to explain the lack of significant deceleration as it entered the water despite the absence of an identifiable power supply.
If they are wrong about it entering the water then they may be wrong about the speed the object was traveling and their claim it wasn't a balloon , I believe they are wrong and that it is a balloon.
Contributors within SCU include individuals from organizations around the world in the UFO/UAP field, militaries, governments, private industry and media. All work SCU conducts is presented objectively and scientifically to the public through peer review. All contributors are appointed based on professional and educational background, no membership exists no dues are collected.
So , what makes you think it isn't a balloon other than this suspect report ?
originally posted by: Dr X
I don't think it splits in two, that is the reflection of its infrared light from the water.
Towards the end of the video, how can you tell whether the object splits in two or whether a second object joins it?
We broke the video apart frame by frame and looked at the thermal signature of the object prior to the split. We saw no indication of a separate object coming from the water but instead saw the primary object double in size, along with the development of two heat zones within the object, and then finally a splitting of the object into two separate objects. Our analysis is detailed on pages 30-39 of the report.