Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Chilean Navy releases unseen UFO footage


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

Looks like a Duck to Me ! But It could be a Trump add being towed across the Sky ! You member ? All Smoke and Mirrors, Behind the Curtain !

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What if the is an extremely small object that is really hot but too small to be seen on RADAR or visual but because it is hot shows up on IR. Perhaps marble size rock flaming off material as it entered the atmosphere, eventually shedding all it could but was still solid and very hot? I am of course just guessing...

Or, it could just be a visually cloaked UFO passing through the atmosphere and finally slowing down to where there was no thermal trail.... I prefer my first guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

according to this....its explained!
 

Quote

 

Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flights IB6830 and LA330

This looks like a plane, flying away from the camera considerably higher than the helicopter (somewhere around 15,000 to 25,000 feet), that briefly creates an aerodynamic contrail.

Based on analysis by @Trailblazer, @Trailspotter, myself, and others, There are likely TWO planes involved IB6830 and LA330. The plane that initially seems to fit best is LA330, a two engined A320, which was reported to be climbing through 20,000 feet at that exact visual position at 14:01:39. It was actually 65 miles away, not 35-50. This explain why it was not seen on radar (the actual plane was on radar, just not where they thought it was)

https://www.metabunk.org/explained-chilean-navy-ufo-video-aerodynamic-contrails-flights-ib6830-and-la330.t8306/

 


 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So Chilean military personal, a helicopter crew themselves, cannot recognize another helicopter let alone a chinook?

On 1/7/2017 at 11:45 AM, Farmer77 said:

Man is it just me or is there some racism in this thread? I mean these videos were taken and analyzed by military professionals yet the analysis from our members thus far seems to be that they just dont know how their equipment works or what conventional aircraft look like. 

Im not trying to be a SJW here but I have to think if it were Americans with the same credentials the analysis might be different. Am i wrong? 

It's a bit like slander and libel - a good defense is simply that it is true...  This region's air forces do not have a very good reputation - remember the Mexican Air Force, who madly chased (and were chased by) those speedy and cunning alien craft.. that turned out to be flames atop some stationary ground-based oilwells at Cantarell?  Or the way the Chilean Air Force 'experts' managed to convince themselves that the El Bosque Airfield was under attack, but in fact the videos that caused the kerfuffle simply showed insects flying by?

Even the CEFAA is a hamfisted organisation that was created as a golden handshake for one of their elderly generals, Ricardo Bermudez - and I'll bet he's behind this...  I'm really hoping they release a 'report' (I found it, see below!!) - that will be worth a good long look...  I see there's some analysis at the Huffpost, but some of the proclamations by the CEFAA are laughable, even taking into account translation issues..  I shall be back later ...

And to top it off the source is Russia Today????  Does it get better?

It's interesting that the video is now a dead link...  but I did get a look, and it looks a lot like a short contrail or a fuel dump as an aircraft passes through a 'shear' layer.

 

That metabunk site has an excellent coverage here - if you haven't taken a look at some REAL analysis, please do so...

 

UPDATED! And finally (here come the nails..)  I found the report:

http://www.ipaco.fr/ReportChileanNavyCEFAA.pdf

And it concludes:

Quote

The object observed in the video was most probably a medium-haul twin jet airliner

So the report itself identifies the object!!!  Seriously, Russia Today?  Could you have misrepresented this in a worse way?

 

OOps - that isn't the CEFAA report, despite it's labelling - but I've left my text there so I can wear the error on my part!

It's a subsesquent analysis by another group..  I'll be back later when I've had time to digest further.  But it seems abundantly clear that the footage is of two different aircraft, creating short contrails in a region of air conducive to intermittent contrailing.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weird.  Maybe I'm going blind but I cannot find the case even mentioned on the CEFAA site, let alone the report itself..  I did find some other stuff that I might start a new thread on, including some classic comments and unbelievable excuses about the interminably drawn out El Bosque bug investigation (yes, it's still going on, and no they won't release any of the other videos), from the well-known UFO=alienz pusher, Leslie Kean..  She's hilarious!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had no success in finding the original CEFAA report - the huffpost article has the most 'extracts' from it but there is no backlink, gee I wonder why.

I'd be delighted to go over the full report with a fine toothed comb, but forgive me for being cynical when i see stuff like the following that was reported on the huffpost article - I've just picked out two issues, but there are more...  usually I laugh when I hear about people being 'baffled', but in this case, given the apparent standard of the investigators hand-picked by the CEFAA, well, it's no wonder they are baffled.  They haven't got a clue..

Quote

French analysts proposed that the object was a “medium-haul aircraft” .. {but} Chilean experts knew that this would have been impossible, for a number of reasons: This plane would have been seen on primary radar; it would have had to be cleared for landing in Santiago or at another airport; it would likely have responded to radio communications.

If you examine all the analysis at the metabunk site (which you can verify for yourself using multiple online tools like FlightAware, the two aircraft that are most likely responsible for these trails WERE on Santiago's airport radar.  They were much further away than the Chilean 'experts' were guessing - they simply didn't expand their radar view enough.  The planes WERE, verifiably, both cleared for landing/take-off at Santiago airport - the times and locations match up perfectly!  And commercial airliners will respond only to ATC comms - they would generally ignore (if they even heard) a hail from a very distant military helicopter unless they were clearly identified or it was a 'mayday' call.  You don't just 'hail' a commercial airliner when it is in controlled airspace - that is the job of the air-traffic controllers.

How could these 'experts' not know basic aircraft operations?  Why didn't they consider that the aircraft was further than their guess, and CHECK?  Why didn't they examine airport traffic movements - they would have immediately seen that these two commercial aircraft matched the 'objects' perfectly.

Quote

Airplanes do not throw out water when landing. In fact, in Chile a plane wishing to eject any material must request permission from the DGAC before doing so; that regulation is widely known and respected. And, it seems unlikely that this experienced pilot would not have recognized this as an airplane, or at least kept that option open afterwards if it were a possibility.

So, did they check the DGAC records?  Nope.  And the aircraft may have been at altitudes of 10-20,000 feet at the time, so aerodynamic/engine exhaust contrails are a distinct possibility.  Indeed that is exactly what the trails look like - the plane went though a small patch of air that was highly conducive to contrails, imo.

Why did they decide to ignore those possibilities?  It seems they are experts at ruling out anything that doesn't fit their desired outcome...

Quote

In fact, if - hypothetically - water was expelled, it would have immediately plummeted to the ground given the warm air temperature.

That is absolute hogwash!  First up, where did they get the 'warm air temperature' bit.  At 10,000 feet or more??? (that raises another issue I won't cover right now, but these 'experts' completely screwed up their altitude estimates - they even appear to believe in a flat earth.....).  Waste water expelled from an aircraft is generally done through a relatively small nozzle so it is sprayed out, plus, given the pressure differential it will expand rapidly into a fine spray/vapour, just like cloud vapour.  Do clouds 'plummet'?

Quote

According to NASA, “Contrails are human-induced clouds that usually form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km - about 26,000 ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40ºC). Because of this, contrails form not when an airplane is taking off or landing, but while it is at cruise altitude.” The plume ejected from the object must have been some kind of gas or energy, and was not something tangible like water.

Oh for heaven's sake - the aircraft has to descend to land!!  It starts out at probably 35-40,000 feet and descends through all of those feet finally before landing - is this all new to these people?.  Until these 'experts' actually show the altitude and calculate it correctly (and they can go the metabunk site to see that being done by people who actually know what they are talking about..), and until they tell us what the air conditions actually WERE at that altitude, this sort of handwaving dismissal is just more evidence that these clowns haven't got a clue and have an agenda.

 

Frankly, I am flabbergasted at this garbage.  I knew CEFAA was bad having seen their laughable work on the El Bosque case, but this is a whole new level of incompetence.

Edited by ChrLzs
refined altitude estimates
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Frankly, I am flabbergasted at this garbage.  I knew CEFAA was bad having seen their laughable work on the El Bosque case, but this is a whole new level of incompetence.

I don't know if CEFAA is to blame for this, excuse my language, garbage. 

I simply cannot find this CEFAA report the different news outlets are using as a reference.

One has to consider if this started as fake news and other "news" outlets simply didn't research their sources well enough. 

I cannot see why this so called report wouldn't be all over CEFAA's website. 

Do we know who were the first to publish the headline? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new york post's article video links to YouTube account which has the headline:

Navy clip final (see Leslie Kean's article for backstory)

Google Leslie Kean. She is also the journalist who wrote the huffington post article. She seems to be a quite known  UFO conspiracy theorist. 

I have to see the so called report from the government of Chile, before I even consider an analysis of the video. Until then my guess would be that this is fake news. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'll start a new thread specifically about Leslie Kean, the CEFAA and the unhealthy relationship thereof... It saddens me to see this sort of dreck being passed off as 'investigation', with Leslie Kean egging them on and writing books and hitting the tinfoilhat convention trail.

This is the same team who, ALLEGEDLY has seven (count'em, 7) videos showing fully triangulated alien ships buzzing the El Bosque airfield during an air show.  Only trouble is:

- only two segments of video have been released, at low res, with no reason given for withholding the others (remember this was a public event..)

- the objects are out of focus as well as motion blurred - like bugs are when relatively close to the camera

- they travel very fast across the field of view - like bugs do when relatively close to the camera

- the released videos do not show anywhere near sufficient details to successfully triangulate the objects, which look a lot like .. bugs

- not a single one of the attendees of the air show saw anything unusual, it was only on reviewing videos that they found them, which is pretty much what happens, peopel don't take much notice of bugs and flies doing what bugs and flies do..

- this happened in .. wait for it....    ....    ....   .....     ... . . ... .... 2010.

And we're still waiting to see the remaining videos and a finished report... Anyone else care to bet the remaining videos will be a disappointment, or have been somehow inexplicably lost or deemed to have information that er, umm.. would jeopardise national security?  Yeah, at a frigin public air show....

Leslie Kean, judging from her recent post poking fun at those who dared to (correctly) call those bugs BUGs, thinks it's all rather funny.  I think it's disgraceful, or perhaps pitiful is a better word.  But these self-proclaimed experts need to keep themselves in a job, of course...  

 

Forgive me for being a :devil:'s advocate here, but it seems to me that 'sensible' countries have now grown up and realised that yes, while there are some unexplained aerial phenomena that is yet to be fully understood, none of it is a threat ('cept maybe drones, for very different reasons), nor are they of alien origin or paranormal, nor are they worthy of Important Sounding Agencies to investigate them..  And if they were, why the hell don't they actually put qualified/experienced people into them?  Frankly the investigative skills of places like UM, and metabunk and others now run rings around these rather silly UFO investigative organisations - CEFAA seems little better than MUFON in that regard...

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm just waiting for the whole UAP are the result of "Climate change" to dominate the UFO scene.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is quite an interesting footage, but as much as i'd like it to be an authentic alien spacecraft, it's most likely a misidentified helicopter... That being said, its lack of presence on the radar and radio communications does leave me thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video was removed from Youtube. Probably nothing. But maybe...SOMETHING?!:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.