CBP flight crew
The Customs and Border Protection crew observed and recorded the infrared footage later labeled the Aguadilla incident.
Who this witness was
This page concerns the Customs and Border Protection aircrew whose infrared system recorded objects near Rafael Hernández Airport on 26 April 2013. Public identities and separate first-person statements are limited, so the primary evidence is the recording and platform context rather than a group biography.
What is attributable to this witness
The crew's sensor operation, what they could see directly and interpretations later applied to the video are distinct. Analysts outside the aircraft have proposed both anomalous and conventional motion reconstructions.
- Their testimony is important because the video was recorded during an operational flight.
- The crew provides the context for what was seen visually versus only on sensors.
- This witness group anchors the case in a real mission environment.
How the account entered the record
The timing and form of a statement affect what it can establish. Contemporary records and independently preserved material normally carry more weight than later recollection.
- The infrared recording was made during an operational CBP flight and later entered public circulation, providing contemporaneous imagery rather than memory alone.
- AARO published a case-resolution report in March 2025 using flight geometry, wind and imagery analysis; it assessed non-anomalous motion and proposed two sky lanterns with moderate confidence.
- The public record still lacks a complete set of named crew statements explaining what each operator perceived during the capture.
Evidence Analysis
Directness and access
Crew members directly operated the platform and sensor, but the group label does not reveal which person observed the display, looked outside or later supplied each claim.
Relevant expertise
Operational sensor experience is relevant to acquisition and display behaviour. Object identification and photogrammetric reconstruction require additional data and should not be inferred from job title alone.
Consistency
Without separate dated crew statements, personal consistency cannot be assessed; the video itself is the stable contemporaneous record.
Independent support
The recording and platform flight data provide instrumental evidence. Public sources do not establish independent visual confirmation of transmedium movement or object splitting.
Limits and alternative readings
Range growth, cloud obscuration, parallax and image merging can alter apparent speed and behaviour; incomplete metadata and anonymous witnesses constrain further review.
Record cautions
- Much of the debate turns on video analysis assumptions rather than richly published witness statements.
Reasoned conclusion
The crew's strongest contribution is a genuine operational infrared recording. Current official analysis finds no anomalous performance, while its moderate-confidence identification leaves room for review of the methodology rather than a collective judgment about unnamed crew members.
Associated Case Research
Other witnesses in the record
These links identify people or groups associated with the same case. Their accounts should be assessed independently before being treated as corroboration.
No other witness dossier is linked to the same case record.
Methodology
UAPRAD witness dossiers separate a person's own reported role from case retellings, later commentary, and claims made by other people. Directness, expertise, consistency, corroboration, limitations, and cited source quality are evaluated independently.
Sources and Further Reading
Sources are ordered toward official records, contemporary material and institutional archives. Inclusion documents the record; it does not mean the publisher endorses every reported interpretation.