Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830

In a delightful surprise, I found LA330 in the video!

It came up on Twitter, with Marik and @TheCholla having some questions about the angles of the contrails and suchlike (things that were probably answered back in early 2017). It occured to me I never put LA330's KML into Sitrec, so I did.

At the start of the video, LA330 (yellow) has not even taken off
2024-09-11_16-01-35.jpg


Later, though, there are a few times where we see it in the sim. The first one JUST stays off-screen.
2024-09-11_16-02-54.jpg


There's another EON shot where it woudl be on screen, but it's too wide angle (94 focal length) and you can't see either plane.

But then, when the on-screen time is 14:01:25 we see LA330 should be visible in a narrower FOV.
2024-09-11_16-06-58.jpg


You can't see it in that screenshot, but it's actually visible as a faint grey dot moving from right to left, in the right position, at the right speed.

2024-09-11_16-14-12.jpg



Then it switches to IR, and we get a better view.
2024-09-11_16-10-10.jpg


2024-09-11_16-14-50.jpg


I encourage people to look at the original video for verification. But here are those segments, with the contrast improved. View full screen.



So these are ADS-B tracks, time-synced with the video, showing exactly where the planes are, and showing a perfect match.

This case was solved years ago, but I've still seen a few holdouts. Perhaps this is the final bit of verification they need to accept that this is indeed just IB 6830
 
If you want to replicate it in Sitrec, you'll just need to increase the target sphere sizes to 200. And you can toggle the track display.

2024-09-11_16-19-57.jpg
 
1726162268693.png


Before Mick found the other plane, making the question moot, an answer might have been, "If the camera was in fact recording an amazing UFO, why did it not track IB6830 NOR any other planes that went across it's path during those ten minutes?" The objection is STRONGER if the UFO is not 6830, as it adds one more plane, 6830 itself, to the list of missing planes!

But now the answer is simpler -- "It does record another plane known to be there, along with the 'UFO' exactly where 6830 should be. Case: solved!"
 
Hello, I'm new to this forum and just a layman. I was wondering for seemingly conclusive cases like this one where the UFO turned out to be a plane, why is this analysis/debunking not being concisely compiled and sent to credentialed researchers or scientists who could verify the analysis? I believe showing that people over the internet are able to accurately determine the origin of a UFO while an authority such as the Chilean Navy couldn't is very significant in showing how these types of "unacademic" analyses should be seriously considered. This could also be used as a precedence for when people make an argument from authority. What are everyone's thoughts?
 
why is this analysis/debunking not being concisely compiled and sent to credentialed researchers or scientists who could verify the analysis?

As Mick said above "who"? What group of scientists are doing UFO research and would be interested in this? There are a few academics that have presented papers on UFO/UAPs. The group UAPx is made up of a number of physicists that try to use science to show that UAP are in fact real off world and likely alien craft.

They are discussed in this thread after they got involved with a film producer. They later held a conference about their studies also discussed in this thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-tear-in-the-sky-nimitz-tic-tac-catalina-ufo-documentary.12367

These people have referenced Mick but aren't really interested in his views.

There are other academics that proposed UAPs and aliens are from the future or are hiding out among us. Again, they're not really interested in Mick or prosaic explanations. Discussed here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...on-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-or-alaska.13504/

Beyond that, most in the UFO community see Mick and his work as a nuisance at best and an outright disinformation agent for the government at worst. Then there is the whole click-bait crowd that believers or not, make a bit of money off UAPs being unsolved. They're not interested in debunks or prosaic explanations.

I believe showing that people over the internet are able to accurately determine the origin of a UFO while an authority such as the Chilean Navy couldn't is very significant in showing how these types of "unacademic" analyses should be seriously considered

Lesle Kean, who originally broke this story as a confirmed UAP, complained that while the explanation might be correct it wasn't conducted in the right way:

External Quote:

Since this widely distributed story broke, people using social media and blogs have taken it upon themselves to solve this case in a matter of days, and with minimal information. These platforms have presented arguments without properly developing them, and in some cases people with prior agendas have made derogatory, sometimes inaccurate statements that do not facilitate cooperative relationships between CEFAA and those seriously interested in the case.
...
So from here on out, I hope that those who wish to contribute to the further understanding of this case will present their findings in papers that can be studied properly, rather than in quick, superficial examinations on blogs or by issuing uninformed and disrespectful opinions on social media. We all have to step back for a while, because proper investigations take a long time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...deo-is-it-a-plane_us_587e7277e4b06a0baf6490ef

Again, people pushing the UFO/UAP agenda aren't interested in prosaic solutions from a forum, even if it's correct.

Note also it wasn't so much the official "Chilean Navy" that couldn't figure this out as it was the CEFAA, a panel of people that had previously offered a number of videos showing unexplained UFOs that turned out to be wrong (some also reported by Kean):

External Quote:
https://badufos.blogspot.com/2012/03/flying-saucer-or-fly-is-this-case-ufo.html

Compare the CEFAA to the US government's recent supposedly official UAP programs like AWWSAP, AATIP and the UAP Task Force all of which included various UFO enthusiasts not figuring out various videos and continuing the mystery.

Again, unfortunately none of these people are interested in Mick's work or what happens on a forum. Even when it's correct.
 
External Quote:

Since this widely distributed story broke, people using social media and blogs have taken it upon themselves to solve this case in a matter of days, and with minimal information. These platforms have presented arguments without properly developing them, and in some cases people with prior agendas have made derogatory, sometimes inaccurate statements that do not facilitate cooperative relationships between CEFAA and those seriously interested in the case.
...
So from here on out, I hope that those who wish to contribute to the further understanding of this case will present their findings in papers that can be studied properly, rather than in quick, superficial examinations on blogs or by issuing uninformed and disrespectful opinions on social media. We all have to step back for a while, because proper investigations take a long time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...deo-is-it-a-plane_us_587e7277e4b06a0baf6490ef

that seems to be an attempt to 1) legitimise and widen the study of UFOs to those outside the niche and 2) an attempt to reject any criticism of UFOs unless it is conducted in a formal scientific manner, which is something that isn't being done.

This reminds me of the efforts of creationists such as Ken Ham asking to have their hypothesis recognised as a valid alternative to abiogenesis and evolution. Richard Dawkins refused to even debate with creationists as it would legitimise their quackery. I don't agree with that approach - however I do think interacting with supporters of unfalsifiable & illogical hypotheses such as creationism or UAPism is difficult because it can make the rational one seem like an asshole.
 
that seems to be an attempt to 1) legitimise and widen the study of UFOs to those outside the niche and 2) an attempt to reject any criticism of UFOs unless it is conducted in a formal scientific manner, which is something that isn't being done.

I think it's worse than that. They want UFOs to be studied only by qualified academics and those academics need to be believers. Dr. Kevin Kunth, Dr. Travis Taylor or Dr. Matt Szydigs are all legit physicist with science degrees from legit institutions that study UFOs as UFOs, not as something mundane to be explained away. These are the people that need to studying UFOs. I think Kean would include the CEFAA group as well.

UFO reports should go to an insular group of qualified believers that will then share their thoughts on the UFOs when appropriate. This does NOT include people on forums or skeptics trying to explain away said UFOs.
 
@Mick West @NorCal Dave
Sorry for the late response I'm currently extremely busy and don't have time to craft the best responses.

Julio Plaza del Olmo might be someone to work with and send findings to. Not sure what his credentials are but he seems to be researching this phenomena and has even cited Mick in his research. Below are a few of his articles. Let me know what you think.

https://independent.academia.edu/JulioP2
https://www.academia.edu/45588364/The_FLIR1_video
https://www.academia.edu/105349567/The_UFO_Whistleblower_Hearing?auto=download
https://www.academia.edu/31712515/A..._between_Population_Density_and_UFO_Sightings

Also this person who has co-authored as well:
https://fotocat.blogspot.com/
https://independent.academia.edu/VICENTEJUANBALLESTEROLMOS
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Sorry for the late response I'm currently extremely busy and don't have time to craft the best responses.

First for the record, I had NOTHING to do with explaining this video. NOTHING. If I comment about it, it's just commenting on others outstanding work.

As for the links you presented, let's maybe wait until you have time to highlight what we're supposed to be looking at. I'll look through them tomorrow time permitting, but without some guidance from you I don't know what I'm looking for in all these links.

That's why the site has a "NO LINK" policy. It's the job of the poster to inform others why a link is important and convey the relevant information from those links. Those presenting evidence, should make it clear to others what they're presenting.
 
Back
Top