The Aguadilla UFO Incident: Data for scientists to examine

"Aguadilla UFO Incident - George Knapp - Mystery Wire." Published on Mystery Wire´s Youtube channel on February 12 2021. Duration: 22:02 minutes.

https://www.mysterywire.com/ufo/aguad...​ Aguadilla UFO Incident - George Knapp talks with UFOlogist Rich Hoffman about this sighting and the video recorded by the U.S. government.

The video clip/interview summarises a longer interview with Mr Rich Hoffman about the Aguadilla UFO case. You can find part one of that longer interview here. If you are not familiar with the Aguadilla UFO case, then you should look into it. I find it more compelling regarding data/evidence than the Tic Tac UFO case. The full report on the Aguadilla UFO case, which Mr George Knapp och Mr Hoffman refers to in the interview, can be found on Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) website. (Click on the link and scroll down to the second full report).

You can read more about Mr Hoffman´s background and credentials on SCU´s website (or listen to part one of the longer interview), so I will not say more about that here. Neither am I going to comment on what is said in the video clip above about the Aguadilla UFO incident, except for the following:

• Scientists have tangible UFO data to analyse if they feel inclined to do so. The crucial thing is not the result or conclusion such an analysis in a scientific context would arrive at, but rather the crucial thing is that a rigorous analysis by the scientific community is done in the first place. This goes not only for the Aguadilla UFO case but for similar cases with tangible data to examine (for example, the Gimbal video). Otherwise, we will keep having dismissals (balloons, birds, etc.) of tangible UFO data based on an inadequate insight into the context of a UFO case, the metadata, and so on. I think this is a highly relevant and important point that Mr Hoffman makes in the interview.
• In the case of the Aguadilla UFO/UAP, I think the most relevant aspect of trying to explain is when the "object" or the "entity" split into two identical (at least, it looks like they are identical) objects or entities. I use the word "entity" because I am not sure we see a physical object in the video. It is essential to keep one´s mind open to the question of "what" goes down in and comes up from the water and split into two (possibly) identical parts. If I understand Mr Hoffman correctly, it seems like he and the other authors of the full report (see SCU´s website) also seems to think that the splitting of the object (I assume Mr Hoffman thinks that it is an object) into two parts is a key aspect of the case to find an explanation for. 

There are other compelling pieces of data of the Aguadilla UFO. Still, the object/entity splitting into two parts seems to be an aspect that can rule out many other possible explanations (a balloon, birds, and possibly man-made technology). 

So what will it take for professional, active scientists and academics to take a serious look at the data and do an independent (US military/intelligence analysts have ruled out any mundane explanation for the Tic Tac UFO video, etc.) and rigorous analysis of tangible UFO data? Well, perhaps the problem is not to get scientists to actually do such analysis? The problem probably lies in the fact that few active (as in currently doing scientific work and publishing) scientists want to go public with analysing UFO videos/data. 

My guess is that more scientists than what seems to be the case are interested in and have analysed cases like the Aguadilla UFO, the Tic Tac UFO, and so on. But they are still hesitant to announce their interest in and work on UFO cases in public, especially if their conclusion points to something unknown or unidentified (because it would take more time and effort to defend such a conclusion compared to the standard debunking statements).

That is one crucial reason to keep pushing for more governmental transparency regarding the UFO phenomenon. We need more military witnesses and credible scientists to speak publicly about these unknown flying objects seen in our skies and oceans. This would help raise the status of the UFO phenomenon even more, and in the end, it would help put stronger pressure on the world´s governments to talk openly and candidly about what they know and do not know about UFOs/UAP. 

It is time to stop treating the citizens of the world as children. Even if parts of the truth of the UFO phenomenon are frightening, I think the "panic-argument" for official silence is by now invalid. Today's world needs some hope that there might exist technology and energy sources that could potentially solve many of our current and future existential threats. 

Take care!

Janne