5-OBSERVABLES GAP REPORT
Aguadilla, Puerto Rico (CBP Thermal, 2013) — 5-Observables Gap Analysis
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection aircraft recorded mid-wave infrared video of a small light-emitting target near Aguadilla. Two rigorous analyses reach opposite conclusions: the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies argues anomalous low-altitude performance including an apparent split and water entry, while AARO's case-resolution report assesses two small ordinary objects, attributes the disappearance to thermal-contrast loss, and finds no trans-medium event. The divergence exists precisely because a single thermal turret on a moving platform does not preserve the ranging, altitude, and parallax data needed to settle the question.
Scoreboard
This release supports evaluation of 0 of 5 observables in the Pentagon framework; two expert reconstructions diverge on the same footage.
Per-observable analysis
Sudden / instantaneous acceleration
Cannot evaluate- Required to evaluate
- Object range and altitude over time to convert apparent angular motion into real acceleration.
- Released data
- Single thermal turret on a moving aircraft; bearing and apparent size only, no independent range or altitude on the target.
- AeriTrax live capture would have provided
- A ground witness would contribute a second, geographically separate bearing line; two AeriTrax captures of the same target enable triangulated range and a real-acceleration estimate instead of an angular one.
Hypersonic velocity without signature
Cannot evaluate- Required to evaluate
- A velocity estimate anchored to range, plus an acoustic record.
- Released data
- No range anchor; thermal video carries no audio.
- AeriTrax live capture would have provided
- Device audio correlated to timestamps plus a sensor-derived velocity envelope at the observer, grounding any speed claim in a measured baseline rather than a scaled-from-pixels estimate.
Low observability
Partial data- Required to evaluate
- Continuous coverage at a known frame rate plus a record distinguishing sensor dropout from genuine subject loss.
- Released data
- Frame rate is recoverable from the MWIR record, but the key 'disappearance' is contested — thermal-contrast loss versus water entry — and the clip cannot adjudicate it.
- AeriTrax live capture would have provided
- A frame-timestamp ledger plus a continuous AR-overlay track that flags loss-of-frame, sensor blink, and subject disappearance as distinct events, removing the exact ambiguity the two analyses disagree on.
Trans-medium travel
Cannot evaluate- Required to evaluate
- Continuous tracking across the air/water boundary plus altitude ground truth and water-context confirmation.
- Released data
- No altitude reference on the target; whether it entered the water or merely lost thermal contrast over land is the central dispute, unresolved by the footage.
- AeriTrax live capture would have provided
- GPS and barometric altitude at the observer, a water-presence indicator from location metadata, and a continuous track that separates 'subject crossed a boundary' from 'subject left the frame' — the distinction on which SCU and AARO diverge.
Anti-gravity lift / propulsion without visible means
Cannot evaluate- Required to evaluate
- A range-anchored motion envelope comparable to known flight and surface-craft envelopes, plus a conventional-traffic elimination chain.
- Released data
- Apparent rapid motion at unknown range; no traffic-correlation data, no kinematic record beyond the turret's pan.
- AeriTrax live capture would have provided
- A trajectory record plus an ADS-B / Remote ID elimination chain at the observer, enabling comparison against ordinary aircraft and surface-vessel envelopes rather than against a scale-free thermal blob.
Method note
This report addresses only the released CBP thermal clip and the data classes it preserves. The forensic claim is narrow: the footage does not preserve the data classes required to evaluate the Pentagon 5 observables, and notably it does not preserve the data required to settle its own central dispute.
Why this case is instructive
Two careful, technically literate analyses — SCU and AARO — examined the same clip and reached opposite conclusions about whether the object split, entered water, and performed anomalously. That is not a failure of either team; it is a property of the artifact. A single thermal turret on a moving platform records bearing and apparent brightness, not range, altitude, or parallax. Without those, scale, speed, and “water entry” are all reconstructions that depend on assumptions the footage cannot constrain.
What an AeriTrax live capture at a ground witness would have added
AeriTrax is a ground-observer instrument. A credible witness on the Aguadilla shoreline would have contributed a bearing-stamped sensor stream, GPS and barometric altitude, a water-context indicator, a frame-timestamp ledger, and an ADS-B / Remote ID correlation — anchored to a signed manifest. A second AeriTrax observer would add a triangulation baseline that converts the contested angular motion into a measured one. The release is sufficient to show that a CBP sensor recorded something; it is not sufficient, on its own, to choose between the two published explanations.