With the corresponding change in background, I think they were fiddling with the temp range, maybe narrowing it,  to get more contrast to show the object better.   I can't think of any other reason they would be changing range and extents than to try and pull out more detail of the floaty thing.  The backgrounds change with their white hot /black hot the same way, getting stronger and weaker but the  floaty thing seems really close to ambient or something to be nearly transparent to IR and stated to be invisible to naked eye, so good stealth.

That's the kicker in this if what we've been told is true relating the event.   Not visible to naked eye.  Barely visible on thermal travels a distance to go into ocean then back out (video no leaked yet I guess, sounds like i will be soon).  High Strangeness.

Sort of looks like the orbs on the jetliner vanishing video (alleged MH370 in IR and visual different thread here)

They sure like their adverbs:  allegedly, possibly, potentially and unexplainable  from questionable sources.   I guess they're at least writing about it  even if they use more weasel words than a lawyer.

At least they made this unequivocal statement in a paragraph on its own:

That wouldn't work.  Maxwell and Physics get in the way.  A perfect Black Body absorbs all wavelengths but also emits different photons (or electrons in the case of PV Solar for example) in same or shifted frequency and phase from what is absorbed.  Usually light-> heat as experienced by anybody with a black car in a sunny and warm climate.   Anything receiving is automatically transmitting, albeit at a lower power (e.g.  radar).

Same for electromagnetic waves, an antenna is emitting the waves it is receiving, but at a different phase - creating an interference pattern in local area, in addition to the receiver that is connected to that antenna pushing the IF frequency or ADC Sampling frequency back out the antenna it is receiving.   It gets into complex math but there isn't a material that can simply "absorb everything into nothing" that we know of.  It is emitted as photons at a different wavelength (Heat/IR/Light to RF frequencies) and by changing parameters of it the shift of emissions can be somewhat "tuned"/nudged, such as stealth coatings on aircraft, but cannot be eliminated entirely with the current technology and materials science we  know in mainstream

That is why I went into such detail, the amount of stuff we use as established approximations for what happens in millions of daily cases to the 12th decimal place is inadequate.  A ton of STEM types would refuse to even accept that, let alone all of the other implications NHI/UAP bring forward.  It would turn over the apple carts of most academia, not to find out they have been "wrong", but incomplete.   Sort of how all the physicists were against Planck/Einstein quantum mechanics view of world with mass and energy are interchangeable until they were convinced it was an enhancement of Newtonian Physics, not a 100% full drop inreplacement (e.g. mostly only applies to very small and very large, though Newtonian Physics could be derived but not the other way around)

The same sort of apple carts that are obviously nudged heavily when it comes to religion and spirituality, psychology  as well as the paranormal theories being "not wrong".

That big of switch has huge implications depending on what fundamental assumptions/laws we have been using which aren't exact, but extremely good approximations that get us by with a only few paradoxes like "Dark Matter" here and there.

By our understanding and extensive experiments, we can't get around mass or energy simply ceasing, only mass and energy changing forms.   Plausible ideas are the energy could be dissipated into a different realm/dimension or converted to matter by an advanced process making the object "cloaked" to photons (RF through light to X-Ray energies of photons).  We don't have a lot of sensors for other particle types built into our bodies so that would be a good enough stealth for up to the past 50 years.   The millions of black holes do not come close to matching the 2000 known pulsars (theoretical output of black holes) for energy going in but not out.  We're told somehow Black holes manage to either tunnel a wormhole or vanish mass/energy.  The amount of mass/energy a black hole takes in every second would create enough mass for a new star in short order, not just make that energy/matter vanish instead.  Could that be bumping the galactic vacuum/zero point energy a teensy tiny fraction by dissipating elsewhere slowly?

Is there hard science to say it's something we can do?   Well, No.  Only lots of edge cases that don't line up no matter how relations are shifted around.   There are many spots something could be jacked in and to disturb our view of physics if we can't detect it, it'd get lumped into unknown like the theoretical 'graviton' and cousin Dark Matter/Zero Point Energy.

We don't know what we don't know, so saying unequivocally something is impossible  is itself impossible at the philosophy edge.

Any time "constants" and "laws" are used, they're imposing a limit.  Many of these are valid, as they are tautological.    When measuring to give real world numbers to something, rather than a ratio of a different quantity integrated or differentiated, there is measurement error.  Even if there's 7 sigma (7σ) accuracy for those standard values, they're not 100% of them.  Examples are mass of elementary particles, energy between atomic shells, and speed of light.  The measurements we've made give us extremely good results, similar to our recording of lightning to hearing the thunder to get distance.  It's good for 999,999,999 cases, but that one in a trillion that is either discarded as measurement noise, fluke, or glitch might be a clue to something else.  

The same way the .gov demands (and gets) access to all personal information, percentage of income, and other benefits like eminent domain, the scientists demand and get people to strictly follow "established practice".   Most aren't as strict about it as archeologists and dates, but even in STEM fields, papers will be thrown out if something challenges a  base assumption that has been in use hundreds of years.   The amount of evidence they demand doesn't exist, which is why that value has been "good enough for our measurements" for centuries, there's not enough of the 1 in a trillion quirks to even guess at how often they occur, as vast majority of them do not happen in a lab, or even measured/observed.

Flatly stating "Impossible, it  violates the laws of thermodynamics".  When there is potential proof to counter that, it's ignored because they refuse to budge on conservation of mass/energy (which I almost entirely agree with, albeit I'd append between all dimensions to that definition.  That law needs to be broken if what we are seeing in some cases are actual physical craft in our physical world and shared timeline....  Unless we are in a simulation, and that is as likely as anything else.  Why else would particle behavior change depending on if somebody is or will be cognizant of that behavior (Double Slit Experiment and Delayed Decision Double Slit Experiment aka "Quantum Eraser")?