It left the first trail at around 27,000 feet.
It appears to be an aerodynamic contrail. It's made of ice, and is reflecting IR in a similar way to other clouds.
Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830
It left the first trail at around 27,000 feet.
It appears to be an aerodynamic contrail. It's made of ice, and is reflecting IR in a similar way to other clouds.
spacebrother
New Member
Hello,
Excellent work. I am a licensed private pilot and can follow most of the issues raised here.
I have a couple of questions. If I have missed something in this long thread that would answer them, I apologize in advance.
1: The Navy personnnel first said that the UFO was observed coming in over the ocean. None of the videos show this. Did they turn on the FLIR after the object had flown over land?
2: Where did the pilot ask ATC to look for the object, and how did this contribute to any error when looking for its location on radar?
Thank you.
Excellent work. I am a licensed private pilot and can follow most of the issues raised here.
I have a couple of questions. If I have missed something in this long thread that would answer them, I apologize in advance.
1: The Navy personnnel first said that the UFO was observed coming in over the ocean. None of the videos show this. Did they turn on the FLIR after the object had flown over land?
2: Where did the pilot ask ATC to look for the object, and how did this contribute to any error when looking for its location on radar?
Thank you.
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
I'm not sure about that, but it might depend on the particular sensor. Water/ice has very high emissivity (black) as far as my IR thermometer is concerned..
Anyhow, the rest looks good..
Can you quote what they actually said? It does not make sense because the land is on the right, and the plane is moving to the left.
Mine too. Perhaps it's not reflective, but it is like the clouds. Since the plane engines are so small in the frame it's adjusting the exposure for the whole picture. So sometimes the clouds and the contrail appear black because they measure warmer than the clear sky or background haze emissions.
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
As the satellite images suggest (the Terra image of the area was taken about hour and half before and the Aqua image was taken one hour after the video), flying far ahead of the chopper, IBE6830 was under clear skies. At the time the plane and the Sun were on the same (northern) side of the sky relative the camera. We know for visible sunlight that, due to Mie scattering, backlit contrails are brighter than front-lit ones. Would the Sun's IR radiation cause a similar effect on 'backlit' contrails, making hem look bright to a FLIR camera?
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
I don't have an IR camera but I have quite a reasonable IR thermometer. I spent quite a lot of time with it looking for heat losses from my house. It takes a bit of experience to get accurate results. For instance, You can't get a good reading off a widow as it stands. You need to tape a sheet of paper to it otherwise you get the effect of a reflection of the sky or your own body heat. Interestingly, you can get quite an accurate measure of cloud temperature, providing it is optically thick and physically thin.. The field of view makes it useless for contrails, but clear sky is usually of the scale, below -40 C. when vertical. We neeD to know more about the camera to understand what it shows. as 'IR' covers a wide range!
While this is true, I think it's reasonable to simply note that it shows the same thing as the denser clouds, and contrails are dense clouds, so it's consistent with a contrail.
If it ever stops raining here I'll see what my IR camera shows.
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
I don't know, but it sounds possible. Some near-IR might leak in.. Guessing now..
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
Just add a telescope with a gold? mirror and you might be able to measure the temperature of contrails.
spacebrother
New Member
The original HuffPo article states:
"At 1:52 pm, while filming the terrain, the technician observed a strange object flying to the left over the ocean. Soon both men observed it with the naked eye. They noticed that the velocity and the altitude of the object appeared to be about the same as the helicopter, and estimated that the object was approximately 35 to 40 miles (55-65 km) away. It was traveling W/NW, according to the Captain."
Actually, this doesn't make sense, seeing as their GPS placed them at the coast (or near it) and the coast curves to the N/ NW. They stated that the object was traveling W/ NW, which would actually leave it out over the water, if it was there to begin with.
I took it to mean flying to the left which would take it out over the ocean (i.e. northwest) assuming that it was relatively nearby, where they thought it was.
If you look at the aircraft track, the early part is heading northwest, before the plane turns to the right and heads northeastwards, staying inland. The plane never flies over the sea but its initial heading would have taken it out to sea if it had continued without turning.
spacebrother
New Member
Looks like the quote about first seeing it over the water is wrong. Correct?
My question #2 has not been addressed yet.
Thank you
spacebrother
New Member
I'm thinking this is an error in reporting, as it is never anywhere over the water in the videos and the observed and video-recorded track would never have taken it over the ocean.
jim oberg
New Member
"At 1:52 pm, while filming the terrain, the technician observed a strange object flying to the left over the ocean."
I wish we could see the original Spanish. It's possible this is a clumsy translation where the clause "flying to the left over the ocean" was actually modifying the technician/helicopter. The subject of such clauses can be tricky to determine in translating, especially with machine-aided tools.
I wish we could see the original Spanish. It's possible this is a clumsy translation where the clause "flying to the left over the ocean" was actually modifying the technician/helicopter. The subject of such clauses can be tricky to determine in translating, especially with machine-aided tools.
The wider view here shows the ocean on the left (the coastline curves around to the left/north in the distance).
So if the object was heading left then it would be reasonable shorthand to say it was "heading left out to the ocean" or something similar, when they first saw it.
Remember at this point the crew are looking roughly northeast, so the plane on a NW heading is moving roughly straight across their path from right to left. The plane then turns left and heads more to the northeast, away from the helicopter, without ever crossing the coast (as you quite rightly say).
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
How do you explain the same elevation indicated (~0 deg.) for all three images, if it is not at the same elevation as the chopper? What is the range, and altitude of IB6830 for these positions?
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
By the round Earth!
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
Lacking here is a line on the trails. I propose to add something like:
- The apparent lengths of the trails are consistent with the distances IB6830 traveled in the corresponding time intervals and match the apparent lengths of the modelled contrails for a given high-altitude wind direction and speed.
Edit:
As an afterthought, it can be summarised shorter as:
- Contrails derived from the IB6830's track would have the same apparent size as the video.
Last edited:
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
By the round Earth!
It's not THAT round!
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
The crosshair heading and elevation scales are in 10° units, not degrees.
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
Ah, whoops.. At least they are not radians. Even so..
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
I know professionals are just people that get paid to BS, but you would think that they would notice in a couple of years if the IR camera and gyro were junk!
Bruce M
Active Member
The degrees here are relative to the mount frame of the aircraft.
ie, you could be at 0 degrees the whole time, and could be looking into the ocean if the helicopter did a steep pitch forward, and looking into space if it did a steep pitch back.
Given that most helicopters dont fly dead level, you cant use this number to mean anything. The helicopter would be pitching different amounts during the flight.
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
The relevant part of IB6830 track fits within an area of 5° horizontally and 2° vertically when seen from the chopper's altitude. I've use the chopper position near the end and added a frame with the vertical FOV of 4° (HFOV 5.1°) to Google Earth:
If we take the helicopter's movement into account, deviations of the camera's elevation and heading from the initial values of the object tracking will be even smaller.
Last edited:
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
If the altitude of the plane was 5km. above the chopper and 50 km. away it should show up as ~5/50*60 = 6 degrees elevation and it shows nothing like that.
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
Wot no gyro!
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
Yes, it is about right. For the added frame in my previous post, tilt is 93.00° (from nadir), so the elevation of the top edge is 5° (relative to the horizontal plane at the helicopter position). For the reference, the heading of the frame is 36.85°, which is greater that the helicopter and camera headings combined (17°+11°). The camera just was not set up properly. Its actual heading and elevation were determined here by matching wide angle frames with the ground features to Google Earth.
Last edited:
Consider this shot, the camera reads 0°
And yet if we geolocate it using the bay and the hills on the right as reference then the camera angle comes out as 1.86°
And that's where the plane is (I did not force this result, it's just from the bay/hill fitting)
There appears to be some image distortion here though that makes the fitting a bit tricky.
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
You need a known object position to calibrate the camera, not just adjust to fit your track..
Edit: I posted before seeing the above.
Edit: I posted before seeing the above.
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
But a whole ground fitting in #13 shows clearly that the camera was offset by a few degrees both vertically and horizontally.
[compare]
View attachment 23831
View attachment 23832
[/compare]
The fitting elevation and heading values are -7.63° and 19.37°, respectively.
Although now I just noticed the chopper height was wrong there.
A better fitting gives it 2.5°.
Geolocation tip. With just a bare scene the misty mountains on the right are not really visible. But with the paths in there extended to the ground it isolated them. I added another small path as a kind of extra fog curtain to align some of the nearer hills.
Also there's a -0.92° roll there
A better fitting gives it 2.5°.
Geolocation tip. With just a bare scene the misty mountains on the right are not really visible. But with the paths in there extended to the ground it isolated them. I added another small path as a kind of extra fog curtain to align some of the nearer hills.
Also there's a -0.92° roll there
Bruce M
Active Member
See my other posts. The system was still 'ALIGNING'(bottom right). They hadn't done the correct flight maneuvers to align the INS.
Bruce M
Active Member
The radar on that helicopter is most likely the Telephonics 1700B(that's what they use in other aircraft in their fleet.)
According to this page, its max range is only 46km(and that's the product brochure. YMMV in real use)
http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/RDR-1700B_a002320001.aspx
Even if they had another radar type, its performance would be similar. Hence, cant see aircraft 65km away.
According to this page, its max range is only 46km(and that's the product brochure. YMMV in real use)
http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/RDR-1700B_a002320001.aspx
Even if they had another radar type, its performance would be similar. Hence, cant see aircraft 65km away.
Efftup
Senior Member.
I think it would REALLY help people understand what happened if the CEFAA actually released all the reports and all the conversations with the ATC etc.
For example: Did the Heli crew radio ATC and say " We have a craft NW of our position about 35 miles away at 4500ft. Can you see anything? " If so did the Santiago ATC say " Nope" or did they say" No, but at that heading there's one 65 miles away at 20,000ft?"
Basically NOBODY on this thread knows, and without knowing who said what we have no idea whether or not anybody was looking in the right place for a radar return or misinterptreted an answer or whether there really IS a mystery craft that is invisible to Radar but not IR.
Who exactly ARE the CEFAA anyway? They SEEM to be fairly official. Their website says they are officially a part of the DGAC, their website is a .gob.cl, their email is @DGAC.gob.cl and yet, as has been mentioned, their "partners" that they work with are very much people who lean towards the more fanciful explanations, (people like NARCAP for example)
It has already been shown earlier in the thread that they have been known to miss obvious things like Bugs close to the camera and the French analysts they used calculated the wrong camera and admitted they didn't even know what all the information on the screen meant but didn't think to ASK anyone. If I had been asked to investigate this I would certainly have phoned or emailed the manufacturers to ask what all these numbers meant.
For example: Did the Heli crew radio ATC and say " We have a craft NW of our position about 35 miles away at 4500ft. Can you see anything? " If so did the Santiago ATC say " Nope" or did they say" No, but at that heading there's one 65 miles away at 20,000ft?"
Basically NOBODY on this thread knows, and without knowing who said what we have no idea whether or not anybody was looking in the right place for a radar return or misinterptreted an answer or whether there really IS a mystery craft that is invisible to Radar but not IR.
Who exactly ARE the CEFAA anyway? They SEEM to be fairly official. Their website says they are officially a part of the DGAC, their website is a .gob.cl, their email is @DGAC.gob.cl and yet, as has been mentioned, their "partners" that they work with are very much people who lean towards the more fanciful explanations, (people like NARCAP for example)
It has already been shown earlier in the thread that they have been known to miss obvious things like Bugs close to the camera and the French analysts they used calculated the wrong camera and admitted they didn't even know what all the information on the screen meant but didn't think to ASK anyone. If I had been asked to investigate this I would certainly have phoned or emailed the manufacturers to ask what all these numbers meant.
I think we have pretty conclusive evidence in the match with IB6830.
I mean maybe there was a craft that was invisible to radar that also happened to create an IR signature that matched what we would expect from IB6830 at the correct place and time. But that's getting a bit silly.
Efftup
Senior Member.
I completely agree. You have found a plane that matches very well with what you would expect to see in the right patch of sky. that matches the behaviour of the object seen on the film. I would say IB6830 is pretty conclusive.
I WOULD like to know more about lack of radar returns and whether or not this ACTUALLY in the CEFAA report and if so where who was looking and when or whether this was made up by a reporter. I have seen claims elsewhere that this was restricted airspace but that appears to be a complete fabrication, they certainly offered nothing to back it up.
Similar threads
