Hi all — long-time reader, finally registering.
I've been going through the Metabunk archives on lens flares, bokeh and camera artifacts in UFO footage, and it's changed how I look at basically every clip that gets passed around. The Chilean Navy IR case in particular is a good lesson in how far a "we can't identify it" conclusion is from "it's anomalous."
My own interest is less in the footage and more in what happens to the witnesses afterwards. I spend a lot of time reading first-hand accounts of sightings, and the recurring pattern that gets me is how quickly a group of people who all saw the same thing converge on a mundane explanation — often within days, and often one that doesn't fit the details they originally gave. Weather balloon, drones, "must have been a plane." I'm curious whether that's straightforward social conformity, memory reconstruction, or just people not wanting to be the one still insisting.
Mostly here to learn how to take apart the visual claims properly. Happy to be told when I'm wrong.