• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

161 Page Report On UFO Video From Homeland Security (DHS)


Paranormal Maven
Here's an article from Chriss Pagani, who says she's solved the case.
I'm sure feathers will fly over this!
Homeland Security UFO Video Analyzed | U Debunked It
Without ruffling any feathers I disagree with her assessment. At no point of the video do I see wings flapping, even when the camera operator zooms in. I also disagree with her belief of the objects speed, among many other things.

"Debunked. It's a pelican." Someone give this woman an award damn it! Where is her award!!

Someone claiming he works as a visual artist gives his 2 cents of the video. I quoted him down below.

As vfx artist, i have to say this would be a nightmare shot to create. the motion tracking would really suck to do, being its a long ass shot with a super long lens (and TONS OF ZOOMING smh)..although its a floating object so that would make it easier to hide slipping. i dont know of too many filters that will turn an image into the thermal look that does it CORRECTLY, (there are tricks for creating a thermal look, but they are cheesy and mostly try to go for the "predator vision")so if the thermal effect was fake, it would be obvious, so it may be truly shot from a thermal camera, (most certainly from a plane of something flying). all of the hud graphics could easily be faked by someone who really know their homeland security hud visuals (an aviation expert? could tell you if they're really fake). as for the flying object in question, it would have to be roto's behind all the tree elements, which is certainly possible. the object, if its fake, would have to rendered in 3d since it appears to have reflection. what makes it crazy tho is that its a very long video by visual effects standards and would require many months of work of frame by frame quality control. looking at it closely i don't see any flaws that would be cause by human error, (misplaced roto, bad rendering, cheesy fake thermal image, tracking erros, made up hud data). all the elements appear flawlessly integrated, which even with big budget vfx movies mistakes can be easily spotted. its most likely real, but what it is, is the real question. thats my 2 cent vfx analysis...my other vfx friends say it looks real. if someone (or a team made this) they are vfx gods.
Source Leaked UFO video from Homeland Security • /r/UFOs


Paranormal Maven
I'm a birder, and at first I thought the whole thing about calling this or that UFO 'pelicans' was just a witticism. However, I gather it's not? Pelicans are among the most distinctively shaped of birds; they have unique and striking flight and diving behaviors. They are also fairly large and thus noticeable even to non-birders. It's pretty hard to mistake a pelican for something else, even if you only see them once as a tourist somewhere. If I had to nominate a species to be confused with UFOs, I would go with snow goose or turkey vulture.

It might be worth asking a knowledgeable birder their opinion about the video. The Cornell Ornithology lab could probably recommend someone willing to comment. Or, as a lark (*cough*) one could cross-post the video to bird watching forums, claim it's a bird, and then just sit back and watch.


Paranormal Maven
This thread has gone fairly quiet, but in case anyone is still seeking to critically evaluate the SCU report and Puerto Rico footage I'll just briefly post a few links to a few resources shared by PRRR (the "Puerto Rico Research Review", mentioned by Curt Collins in the 23 August 2015 Paracast episode) that may help with any analysis or the sharing/discussion of results:

(1) Video, with frame numbers:
The version of the Puerto Rico "UFO"/"UAP" video below is annotated with frame numbers and a time code, to assist with more accurate analysis and sharing of data. It has been helpfully created and shared by PRRR member Lance Moody:

You can also download an AVI copy of this version of the video from the link below, for ease of analysis:

(2) Frame set (online set)
A set of the relevant frames is online, so that anyone with a frame number from the above video can directly link to it.

The numbered set of the 7027 frames in the above video can be found online at:
Index of /frames

(3) Frame set (downloadable sets)
Lance Moody's frame set is also available as a zip file for ease of downloading by anyone wishing to do their own analysis. (The zip file is rather large, being approximately 1.4GB):

Lance Moody's frame set has also been made available in two relatively small sizes PDF files (about 200MB combined) - allowing you to scroll quickly through the frames (particularly using Adobe Reader) and/or use PDF software to jump to a specific page etc.

Some other tools and resources are currently being produced.
Last edited:


Paranormal Maven
I thought it would be a good idea to post Alejandro's interview with the researchers here. It might answer some of the questions some people might have. Cheers!



Paranormal Adept
Thanks. I wasn't aware of their youtube site. Do you think it's likely that one of the ufo conferences in the coming year might present a half-day event focusing on this case? If so, that could draw broader public attention to the case and to the ufo subject in general.


Paranormal Adept
There's no one on the program at this month's MUFON Symposium, but I'm sure it'll get mentioned here and there.
Chances are good it'll be featured at the UFO Congress, too.


Paranormal Adept
Update on Puerto Rico video, additional expert commentary.

Home / Featured / Experts chime in on Puerto Rico UFO video

Experts chime in on Puerto Rico UFO video

Posted by: Alejandro Rojas September 4, 2015 0

Since the release of a report analyzing a UFO video allegedly captured by a Customs and Board Patrol (CBP) aircraft using a thermal imaging camera, online UFO researchers have shared a lot of opinions. Several have come up with alternate theories. However, the few experts that have shared an opinion support the findings in the report.

The report was authored by a group of UFO researchers with backgrounds in science and technology who have posted their findings on a website called the Scientific Coalition for Ufology (SCU). You can read more about their findings in a previous story on OpenMinds.tv and in the video below.

Robert Powell, one of the authors of the report, who is also the Director of Research for the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), says the have heard from a French organization called The Aeronautical and Astronautical Association of France (3AF). They are an important mainstream organization in Europe, similar to the United State’s American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Powel says they have been impressed with the SCU’s findings, and have agreed with their conclusions.

Another expert who has offered an opinion on the report is Dr. Richard Haines, a former research scientist for NASA. He toldBilly Cox of the Sarasota Herald Tribune, “For a number of reasons, I don’t believe it is a hoax. It does deserve a lot more serious study for what it may tell us about small volume, generally globular (i.e., contained), dynamic, heat-emitting resources.”

Dr. Richard Haines

Haines is the founder of a non-profit organization called the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP). NARCAP examines UFO encounters from an air safety perspective.

Haines told Cox they received a copy of the video from a witness in 2013. However, NARCAP decided not to investigate due to questions about how the video was acquired.

“[Restricted access] has still not been determined by anyone as far as I know,” states Haines, “and that is one of the reasons we (NARCAP) did not proceed with any more than a cursory examination of the video long ago when we first learned of it. We wanted to (and still want to) play by the rules, so to speak, in this regard considering that it might have been classified information.”

Morgan Beall, another member of the SCU team, told Cox something similar to what he told OpenMinds.tv in a recent interview on Open Minds UFO Radio interview.

Cox wrote: “According to our witness,” says Beall, the Florida State MUFON director who coordinated the investigation, “Air Force intelligence kicked it back down, said ‘We don’t know what it is,’ and said to call the 800 number of a civilian research organization. Actually there are two to three witnesses, and when there didn’t appear to be any interest from the upper echelon, their attitude was, well, does that mean we’re free to talk about it? And that’s when the leaks started.”

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bombardier DHC-8Q200. (Credit: U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

The expert with the most experience with the exact type of thermal imaging system used to capture the video has asked that his full name and the company he works for not be printed. OpenMinds.tv did have access to his name and personal information, and we were able to confirm his identity and experience. However, he says he still works on government contracts and did not want to jeopardize his career, but he and his colleagues do find the video fascinating, so they wanted to share their expertise.

This expert’s name is Dave, and he says he is a “Depot Level FLIR Technician that is quite familiar with government FLIR systems, including the one in question. He says, “I have 10 years of experience with infrared systems and I have viewed thousands of hours of combined live and recorded video.”

He says, “The absence of any obvious propulsion system and the heat it generates is quite fascinating. The object’s movement is atypical to what I generally see in infrared video; it moves more like a projectile.”

Dave also doesn’t believe the video is fake. He writes: “It’s my opinion that the video is legitimate, it would be quite difficult to fake. The video is consistent to the manual tracking of an airborne object.”

Dave says he and his colleagues, who all have an interest in the video, don’t know what the object is.

The Wescam MX-15 thermal imaging system. The same system used to capture the video. (Credit: Wescam)

Marc D’Antonio, MUFON’s photo and video analyst says he thinks the object might be a balloon. One of the main arguments the SCU researchers make that they believe rules this out is the speed the object is moving. However, D’Antonio says they got the speed wrong. He says the object is closer than it looks, and when the object appears to go behind trees and other objects, it is actually a system “anomaly.”

D’Antonio says he works with thermal imaging systems and has seen these sort of video anomalies before.

Dave disagrees. “I’ve watched balloons in the sky with IR before and they act differently than what is presented in the video. They tend to “ride the thermals” and either rise – or fall – in a haphazard fashion. Of course, this is all determined by the winds at the time, the lift the balloon still has, and its size. This object seems to have a determined path and it is almost linear in the nature of its travel. Granted the plane is moving, along with the FLIR rotating continuously left, and it can be easy to lose orientation. But what is interesting to me is the apparent speed of the balloon and heat.”

Dave says compared to the other heat sources in the video, such as the cars and the planes on the tarmac, this object is much too hot to be a balloon.

A still from the video in which the unknown objects appears to be flying through trees.

He continued, “As far as the object fading in and out, I don’t quite get what the gentlemen is referring to. There is a hot object that is moving through the sky, with all sorts of fluctuating background heat scenes. There seems to be little to none of auto-gain or auto-level in which the IR camera will make subtle adjustments in gain/level to enhance the picture. It appears to be fairly consistent. Thus, I would think it would be safe to assume that if the object was to fade in and out, it was behind trees, fog, buildings, etc.”

Another argument has been that the object is actually a bird. The most thorough argument to this theory has come from a paranormal investigator by the name of Chirss Pagani. She posted her analysis on her website U Debunked It.

Similar to D’Antonio, she feels the SCU group got the speeds wrong. She believes the object is closer, moving more slowly, and she also believes that wings can be seen in the video. Her theory also explains a strange part in the video where the object appears to split in two. She says the bird most likely landed on the water and the water on the wings caused it to cool down and not be seen on the video. At that point two birds took off, making it appear as the object split in two.

An American White Pelican. Paranomral researcher Chriss Pagani believes the object was most likely a pelican. (Credit: Manjith Kainickara/Wikimedia Commons)

Dave disagrees with this theory also. However, he does think Pagani makes some valid points.

Dave wrote: “First, let me say that Chriss does point out that the FLIR is not tracking the object in question. That’s true. She says that it’s tracking the distance to the ground instead, with the distance at the bottom mid-right (in nautical miles). That’s true too. Even if the object was being tracked by the FLIR, I highly doubt [the object] would give a return to the laser rangefinder, which is used to compute the triangulation. A ship – yes. A plane – yes. This small of an object, moving at a different angle – no way. There really is no way to determine the speed of the object in this video, IMHO. To me, it really doesn’t matter how fast it’s traveling – that’s not relevant to what’s odd with this object.”

As for the wings, Pagani argues, “Some people have objected that you can’t see wings, but you can – only at certain points. You have to remember that this is infrared video; it’s reading heat signatures. Since wings are thin and have low vascularization, they have a very low heat signature. To infrared, they are almost invisible.”

Thermal image of birds using a system similar to one used by the CBP. Image provided by Dave.

“No. Here, she is wrong,” says Dave. “But, let’s say she was right. Wouldn’t the cool wings then in effect be blocking the heat of the body? How can she justify the circular appearance of the object if the big cool wings are in the way? This cool wing theory is just speculation on her part. The truth is that the wings of a large bird are clearly visible to an IR camera. I know this for a fact, because I see vultures, heron, osprey, and all sorts of birds in flight at work all of the time. The next time we run a system outside, I’ll see about getting some video for you. You can watch them riding the thermals, changing directions and body position accordingly. Knowing that the wings are indeed visible, this object would show them if it were a bird. Even if it was gliding the whole way, it then would not be circular in appearance, given the long wingspans of pelicans.”

Dave adds, “The first thing that pops out is the linear nature of the travel of the object. That’s not normal to any bird I’ve seen. There doesn’t seem to be any fluctuation in elevation, as most birds do while flapping wings. There’s no real change in direction. That’s the weirdest part of it. Then there’s the heat signature itself. What is circular, travels in a linear direction, and has no obvious moving parts or wings? At that heat – which is around the same heat as a jet engine or car exhaust? Not a bird.”

Another suggestion has been that the object is some sort of drone, but Dave has ruled that out also. He says, “I doubt the object is a human-made drone, due to the speed at which is moving and the lack of tilt. Not to mention that it’s being flown at night and the distance it’s covering.”

Dave says he and his buddy’s in “the shop” don’t know what the object in the video is. He says, ” Nobody knows FLIRs like we do and it’s nothing we’ve seen before.”

Matt McClure

Paranormal Novice
I am curious, could the 'splitting' effect be caused by the heat signature being reflected in the water, once the object was close enough to the water? The object only 'splits' over water, which reflects emitted heat. I have used thermal imaging cameras in construction, and recall that i could see people's reflections very clearing in front of glass and white boards. I think water would do the same...And though I haven't read the 161 page report I haven't heard anyone use this to possibly explain the splitting effect. And if the report didn't mention parallax, they possibly overlooked emissive reflections.

On another note, the way the object slowed down and disappears, seems like it could be a bird closing its wings once it floats on the water. The object takes a flight path like a bird, circling widely and landing near the breaking surf where a pelican or an albatross would rest. If it is a bird, I wonder which birds would hunt nocturnally.

Also, if it's a bird, the estimated speed can't be accurate. Birds don't travel at 100 mph, or even 80, unless they are diving. (or Jonathan Livingston Seagull?)

It would be cool to get an ornothologist to say what they see.

Matt McClure

Paranormal Novice
"Her theory also explains a strange part in the video where the object appears to split in two. She says the bird most likely landed on the water and the water on the wings caused it to cool down and not be seen on the video. At that point two birds took off, making it appear as the object split in two."

No way that's two birds flying togethor. The object's stay in perfect synchronization with speed and distance from each other. It's got to be two highly synchronized objects, or some sort of doubling of the one object (such as parallax or emissive reflection off the water).

In this article Dave asks,
"What is circular, travels in a linear direction, and has no obvious moving parts or wings?"
But that question was already answered:

“Some people have objected that you can’t see wings, but you can – only at certain points. You have to remember that this is infrared video; it’s reading heat signatures. Since wings are thin and have low vascularization, they have a very low heat signature. To infrared, they are almost invisible.”

Also, was it traveling in a straight line? It looks to me like a large circular arc. Hard to tell, though.