Further dates released is said to show the tower tracked on radar an “unknown object” minutes before the DHC-8 took off which was offshore to the north and north waist of the airport from 8.58pm to 9.14pm.
The report states: “The object was between three to five feet in length and its speed varied between approximately 40 mph to 120 mph. Its median speed was roughly 80 mph.”
It said the object “apparently submerged into the ocean for over half a mile and flew back out.”
The authors determined it came in from the ocean, north or northwest of the airport, flew the airstrip, then turned back to the north and headed back to the ocean.
The “researchers ruled out a theory the object was a balloon as wind speeds of “eight to 13 mph” at ground level and 12 to 18 mph at 400 to 3,200 feet”, meaning the object “was moving too fast to be carried by wind currents,” plus it seemed to submerge in water.
Another possibility they looked at was it being a bird, but said a peregrine falcon’s top speed in stoop was 69 mph.
One option given most credence was a secret Naval test of a “flimmer” drone which can fly and dive under water, but has an air speed of 68mph.
But they questioned why this would be done in civillian areas near an airport.
The report concluded: “There is no explanation for an object capable of traveling under water at over 90 mph with minimal impact as it enters the water, through the air at 120 mph at low altitude through a residential area without navigational lights, and finally to be capable of splitting into two separate objects.
“No bird, no balloon, no aircraft, and no known drones have that capability.”
UFologist ALEJANDRO ROJAS, editor of Open Minds Magazine, who was not involved in the research has called the case “remarkable.”
He said: “Is alien technology being demonstrated in this video? This careful report, which the researchers say took over 1,000 man hours to complete, indicates that whatever took place, it is certainly unusual.
“The entire report is 161 pages long, and thoroughly explains their work, and how they came to the conclusions they did.
“Even if the report had come to a mundane conclusion, the effort put into the investigation is remarkable.
“However, the fact that they could not determine what the object was, and have determined that it displayed characteristics that cannot be explained, makes the report remarkable.”
JON AUSTIN - EXPRESS