Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago

[Mick West]

The Discovery show "Contact", Episode 2 "Declassified Breakthrough" (aired Aug 14 2019) focuses on the Chilean Navy's "UFO" case which was completely and conclusively solved in January 2017. The object was identified without a shadow of a doubt as being Iberian flight 6830. And yet they present it as an unsolved case, seemingly pretending they don't know what it is, and that the temperature (the IR glare from the engines) and the trail (a contrail, black like the clouds, because contrails are clouds) are mysterious. Here are three shots from yesterday's show:







The idea that "there were no flights in the area at that time" is 100% verifiably false. It stems from the initial misunderstanding of the helicopter pilots, who though the object was much closer than it actually was. It was actually a plane departing from Santiago airport, far to the north of where the crew thought it was.

The reason they present this long debunked case as having any merit seems to be that the title of the episode is "Declassified Breakthrough" and the big deal is that they are getting access to files from CEFAA.

CEFAA is the organization that spent two years trying to figure out what the video shows. They failed, then released the video declaring it a "confirmed unidentified". The next day I posted that it looked like a plane leaving an aerodynamic contrail, a day later we had candidate planes, and within a week it was conclusively solved. The discussion thread is here:
https://www.metabunk.org/explained-chilean-navy-ufo-video-aerodynamic-contrails-flight-ib6830.t8306/

And I wrote about the process here:
https://skepticalinquirer.org/newsletter/curated_crowdsourcing_in_ufo_investigations/

Getting the files of an organization that failed so miserably with their flagship case would not have been such a compelling episode. So they had to make it look like the case actually was still unsolved, and the CEFAA was the real deal. It's not. If they got something like this so very wrong, a case with all the evidence easily available, then it seems unlikely they did any better with cases where far less information is available.

A short explanation of the various issues can be found in this one minute video:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bFfuIidCK0

 

[Mick West]

Oh, and the other video they show was also solved years ago.

It's the oil-rigs. Discussed here:
https://www.metabunk.org/mexican-ufo-video.t10837/

Debunked conclusively as far back as 2004.

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

Not a regular viewer of the Discovery channel, so I had to search "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough".

Currently Google's first result, for me, is this Metabunk page.

 

[Leifer]

It's too bad that "facts" are not the delicious basis for entertainment TV.
It seems that hypothetical ideas, run the script.

 

[itsthematrix]

I would say it was debunked big time on metabunk and it just goes to show that they won't even check the stuff you have found. To me the data shows it was a plane, its undeniable. As someone who wants to "believe", these guys do a huge disservice, they need to up their game.

 

[jim oberg]

"Oberg's law of commercializing credulity"

As commercial advertising transitions to internet platforms the selection of where to place such ads is influenced by estimation of where are the most vulnerably credulous viewers.

Websites seeking commercial ad revenue recognize the income advantages of being known as an attractant to gullible viewers who are easily manipulated by ego-boosting, who literally will believe anything they are shown if it makes them feel smarter than their peers.

These tales are the kind of conspiratorial 'woke' stories that have over the years been shown to attract exactly such a vulnerable audience for opportunistic exploitation.

 

[Gerard]

As commercial advertising transitions to internet platforms the selection of where to place such ads is influenced by estimation of where are the most vulnerably credulous viewers.

It seems not just to involve the internet. TV is now a major player in this type of thing with programs like Ancient Aliens and Unidentified.

 

[Corvus Black]

It seems not just to involve the internet. TV is now a major player in this type of thing with programs like Ancient Aliens and Unidentified.

Hasn't it been in existence since the days of the traveling circus/freakshow/medicine sales from medieval times through the 60's? And probably earlier (though I am not familiar with anything in like Roman times or something).

I personally remember seeing shows like In Search Of... or any of the shows about Bigfoot or UFO's (and a few others) on TV back in the 70's - so it isn't anything new as far as TV goes.

The only difference in the presentation is the medium through which the message is conveyed. If the internet ever becomes obsolete, whatever the new media format would look like also entails that preying and commercializing on gullibility and ignorance of people would follow into that format. I liked the "Oberg's law of commercializing credulity" - that dynamic exists regardless of format and that content will only adapt to new formats.

 

[Gerard]

Hasn't it been in existence since the days of the traveling circus/freakshow/medicine sales from medieval times through the 60's? And probably earlier (though I am not familiar with anything in like Roman times or something).

I personally remember seeing shows like In Search Of... or any of the shows about Bigfoot or UFO's (and a few others) on TV back in the 70's - so it isn't anything new as far as TV goes.

The only difference in the presentation is the medium through which the message is conveyed. If the internet ever becomes obsolete, whatever the new media format would look like also entails that preying and commercializing on gullibility and ignorance of people would follow into that format. I liked the "Oberg's law of commercializing credulity" - that dynamic exists regardless of format and that content will only adapt to new formats.

Yes, it's definitely not new as a phenomenon but I have the impression that it's becoming amplified in intensity. The History Channel has been running Ancient Aliens all day on Fridays and I know one person who watches it all day long and believes everything they say.

I think that the fact that the US Navy is now making claims about UAP's based on highly questionable evidence is certainly contributing to this.

 

[Rory]

Looks like The History Channel's 'The Proof is Out There' recently featured the Chilean case among it's "Top 5 UFO Sightings" (first one):


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwZZd2u9Pm4


Their conclusion? "No one can identify what the Chilean navy caught on video so we're going to call this a real UFO."

 

[NorCal Dave]

Looks like The History Channel's 'The Proof is Out There' recently featured the Chilean case among it's "Top 5 UFO Sightings" (first one):


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwZZd2u9Pm4


Their conclusion? "No one can identify what the Chilean navy caught on video so we're going to call this a real UFO."

Well, it is the History Channel , which is part of the Discovery networks. As I wrote in our discussion of the Patterson -Gimlin film:
The Discovery Network(s) prime focus is to deliver a reliable number of viewers in particular demographic groups to advertisers for the purpose of generating a profit. Not conduction good science.

That being said, I'm always interested in what the show's producer for stuff like this is thinking:
1. I was giving this as a good case and was unaware that there was a credible debunk. My job is to get eyes on screens, not look for debunks.
2. I was aware of a debunk but found it lacking so, that helps me get eyes on screens.
3. I was aware of a debunk and found it credible, but my job is to get eyes on screens, so I ignored it.

Which raises the bigger question, are people that watch and take shows like this for fact, more likely to buy my product? If so, I want to advertise my "uber tactical super flashlight" to people that think the Chilian UFO is unsolved and the Discovery Network is willing to oblige.

 

[FatPhil]

Well, it is the History Channel

ITYM The Hysterical Channel.

 

[RTM]

To paraphrase Lionel Hutz, there's history and there's "history".

 

[Mendel]

ITYM The Hysterical Channel.

Source: https://imgur.com/gallery/S4MJgnJ

 

[Rory]

What the heck - every time I see History Channel stuff I'm thinking, why don't they use Mick? And here he is, on one they didn't fall for:


Source: https://youtu.be/rB6OQV2gD-E?t=125