Documents / Document

Puerto Rico UAP Case Resolution

All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office · 2025-03-20 · 7 pages · text from the file's own layer

The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) issued this case resolution on 20 March 2025 for "The Puerto Rico Object," infrared video recorded on April 26, 2013 by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection aircraft over Rafael Hernandez Airport near Aguadilla. AARO assesses with high confidence that the video shows two objects drifting at wind speed over land, with no anomalous or transmedium behavior. It attributes their apparent vanishing into the ocean to thermal crossover and concludes with moderate confidence that they were sky lanterns.

  • p. 1 …Puerto Rico Date: April 26, 2013 Object Altitude (Reported): N/A Object Altitude (Assessed): 656 ft…
UNCLASSIFIED
5
UNCLASSIFIED
Observable Characteristics and Attribution
Size and Shape: AARO employed pixel analysis to estimate the objects’ sizes to be smaller than
one meter (three feet). Pixel analysis is a method of measuring an object’s size by comparing it
to an object of known dimensions. The objects’ shapes are indistinct.
Number of Objects: AARO assesses with high confidence that the video footage depicts two
objects traveling near each other rather than a single object splitting into two.
Attribution: AARO assesses with moderate confidence that the objects depicted in the video are
sky lanterns. AARO confirmed with local hospitality industry vendors that it is common
practice for hotels and resorts in the area to release sky lanterns during celebrations. The
objects’ size and thermal signature variability support this conclusion. Sky lanterns are typically
smaller than one meter in diameter and emit a flickering, weakening thermal signature as they
expend fuel, gradually losing distinctiveness against the background environment when viewed
through an IR sensor. However, the video’s poor quality reduces AARO’s confidence in
categorically identifying the objects.
IR signatures can appear to “vanish” when the thermal contrast between the object and
background becomes indistinguishable (Figure 4). The objects seem to disappear shortly after the
ocean appears in the background. The objects did not enter the water. Rather, the sensor could
not distinguish the objects from their environment due to a lack of thermal contrast between
them and the ocean.
Figure 4: IR signatures can lose distinctiveness when thermal contrast is low.

About this file

Document, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 7 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.