1. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Skyvector shows no restricted airspace. Indeed the area where the plane was filmed is close to the intersection of several airways (green ellipse shows approximate area where flight was filmed, red is the area where helicopter was flying).

    • Like Like x 2
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Overlaid with the plane tracks

    You can see from the that the departure is based on the Santo Domingo VOR (DGO/SNO). After takeoff they get on a specific radial towards DGO/SNO, fly that way for a while, and then make a right turn on a departure radial. The first radial is pretty fixed, but the departure radial will vary based on the planned transatlantic route.

    Here I've added the radials from DGO/SNO for clarity.
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's the departure chart:

    So IB6830 is flying the ESLAR 3 - TABON departure
    • Like Like x 2
  4. spacebrother

    spacebrother New Member

    Ah. Good work.

    Were there any TFRs or NOTAMs that day (or the Chilean equivalent) near SCL since the military was out flying a helicopter (or maybe more?)

    Also, I am not familiar with the airspace markings on the skyvector map within the areas marked "SCR" and "SCD." On U.S. charts, the blue boxes with the hashmarks inside them are actually restricted, but that doesn't mean you can't fly through them, you just have to check with ATC in flight or flight planning beforehand to make sure they are not active when you will be transitioning through them. They are generally not in the arrival or departure paths of major airports, although they can exist along airways.
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2017
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Jan 13, 2017
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Like Like x 2
  7. vaccine papers

    vaccine papers New Member

    excellent debunk.

    Leaves one wondering why the Chilean gov/navy/whatever did not figure it out.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm going to do a little video explaining how the tracks match up with the video
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Leslie Kean admits it was IB6830, but not without some commentary, seemingly critical of Metabunk (which she does not mention).

    We solved the case in a matter of days and with minimal information, and she thinks that is a bad thing?
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  12. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    Actually, I expected a video explaining why the elevation and heading of IB6830, as seen from the moving helicopter, did not change significantly through the entire video. The camera was shown to be offset, but otherwise it probably was stabilised and a very narrow range of variations for both elevation and heading of the tracked "object" was real.
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    The thin white lines here connect the chopper and the plane at equal times, as you can see the heading angle between them does not change much.

    The altitude of the plane varies from ~5000m to 9000m, while the distance varies from 70km to 170km, the chopper is about 1400m, we can draw a diagram to see the angles

    As you can see there is very little change from the start (2.93°) to the end (1.94). Basically it should vary from about 3° to about 2° (appearing to be descending faster at the start)
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    I can see this and, actually, have done this kind of analysis myself using your KMZ tracks. I was thinking about a video, in which a camera view in motion is recreated on Google Earth. Something like the 3D button in FR24.
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, I kind of ran out steam yesterday. However this is something I'd like to experiment with in GE. It's unfortunate they removed the scripting ability a few years ago.
  16. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

  17. dannyboy

    dannyboy New Member

    People on this site are making out the Chile Military and the very experienced pilots of the helicopter are complete imbeciles. These people have probably seen literally hundreds and thousands of planes landing, flying, whatever in all weather and most definitely can tell the difference between a plane and a UFO. They are by no means the only pilots or military that have seen UFOs!

  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Not at all, they simply underestimated the distance. It has been proven which plane it was.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    How experienced are they? What are their names? What is their record? We don't know. I have yet to find any article written about this that does not link back to the Huffington post article. The quote from General Ricardo Bermudez says the Captain had many years flying experience but doesn;t say that about the technician who is "testing the camera". This suggests the camera operator at least is less experienced, at least with the camera. Earlier in this thread it is pointed out by someone familiar with the system that the camera is still aligning while they are taking the video, someone more experienced with the camera would have aligned it much earlier in the flight.

    The CEFAA does NOT list sightings they had explanations for, only those they haven't solved.
    It is interesting to me that if you go to the CEFAA website now you will notice that , although this 2014 case was on their front page a week or 2 ago, it now no longer appears on their website at all.

    This MIGHT mean they accept the explanation offered here and consider this case solved.
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 3
  20. Bruce M

    Bruce M New Member

    They had only taken delivery of those camera systems on those helicopters earlier that year. And this was quite possibly one of their first flights. The use of a zoomable IR camera is not at all related to years of flight experience. Its a totally different skill set, and this was probably the first time they were looking at distance objects with an IR imager, and didnt have the experience to know if that was normal or not.
    I also dont blame the pilots for this media spectacle that has arisen. They passed it up the chain, who passed it on to some 'experts' to analyse the footage. They obviously did a woeful job of it, given the results that amateurs have accomplished here. They couldnt even get the make of camera correct for the analysis(FLIR vs Wescam) and so all of their FOV calculations were wrong, and they probably didnt take into account the type of spatial processing done to the raw IR image that changes the fundamental shape of what you're looking at.

    There is no mystery here. Its solved.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There's some coverage of this case in the "SUNlite" magazine. Gets a bit into the politics and personalities involved, which I'm not particularly interested in stoking, but it's a fairly good overview from the perspective of an UFOology watcher.
    • Like Like x 4
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    An article I wrote about this for Skeptical Briefs wherein I tell the story of this thread, with some general thoughts about this type of thing.
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 2
  23. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    They were slipping. Must try harder.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. drugrelatedfailure

    drugrelatedfailure New Member

    Hi there

    I had previously seen no explanation for the footage and was impressed by the presumed credibility of the personel recording the footage and by the failure of the gov agency to explain it, I considered it highly anomalous, but the thread debunked it for me.

    But in retrospect there is one part of the debunk I missed or didn't understand: If either of the planes is a reasonable fit for much of the footage, isn't it reasonable to expect both to be on the footage for at least a few frames, and oughtn't they resemble eachother if so? I don't recall seeing anything remotely resembling the 'ufo' at any point in the footage.

    I admit I didn't read every word in the thread and I am sorry if this is addressed elsewhere.

    Was just hoping someone more involved in the thread could (order+ = effort+) 1) give me something to CTRL+F for in each page 2) link directly to the post that addresses the question 3) explain how only one might appear while both might fit.

  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The field of view of the camera is too narrow to ever see them both at the same time. That's essentially how we eliminated the other plane - with increased accuracy from new information it because apparent that the other plane was not in the shot.
    • Informative Informative x 2
  26. Christophe Isbert

    Christophe Isbert New Member

    Hi everyone,

    We are pretty lucky that the target was not a military aircraft since they don't show up on planefinder.

    Here is what Mark Daniels (CEO of Pinkfroot, the UK company behind the app) said about military traffic:

    Capture d’écran 2017-06-12 à 23.47.29.

    I know there are other ways to find out where some military aircrafts are in real time when their mode-s transponder is on and displays their position (which is not always the case) but I don't know (yet) if we can go back in time like in planefinder.

  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Dec 9, 2017
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 2