New Huff Post article by Leslie Kean - Chilean UAP with video

[mike]

The fact that it didn't show on radar could be indicative of a stealth aircraft, But they tend to mask their IR outputs too.

Still a mystery for me.

 

[Tannhauser Gate]

Here's something for those interested in the case to check out: Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrail, Flight LA330

I was just going to add this, lol

 

[Tannhauser Gate]

The fact that it didn't show on radar could be indicative of a stealth aircraft, But they tend to mask their IR outputs too.

Still a mystery for me.

No it didn't show on radar because it was "higher" in the air than they said. so it wasn't detected

 

[Randall]

The fact that it didn't show on radar could be indicative of a stealth aircraft, But they tend to mask their IR outputs too. Still a mystery for me.

It might have been considered a mystery aircraft, which would be mildly interesting, except that: "The plane that seems to fit best is LA330, a two engined A320, which was reported to be climbing through 20,000 feet at that exact visual position at 14:01:39."

 

[Elendil]

Well, gotta say that the explanation looks very plausible and it makes me kinda baffled that the whole Chilean commission could miss something like this during 2 years of investigating.

Here's another excerpt from the article:
Shortly thereafter, the pilot contacted two radar stations - one close by on the coast, and the other the main DGAC Control system (Ground Primary Radar) in Santiago - to report the unknown traffic. Neither station could detect it on radar, although both easily picked up the helicopter. (The object was well within the range of radar detection.) Air traffic controllers confirmed that no traffic, either civilian or military, had been reported in the area, and that no aircraft had been authorized to fly in the controlled air space where the object was located. The on-board radar was also unable to detect the object and the camera’s radar could not lock onto it.

One more for the Question Bank - the LA330 explanation...

Gene, is there already a rough timeline for the show, as in can we expect it this month, the next, or later?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The timetable is still being arranged. We are hoping for later this month.

 

[Tannhauser Gate]

This ufo was debunked in 2015 and Leslie Kean was aware of it
http://www.badufos.com/

 

[Gene Steinberg]

That's not her position. She clearly does not accept the case as debunked.

 

[Tannhauser Gate]

That's not her position. She clearly does not accept the case as debunked.

ok understood,

 

[Randall]

ok understood,

I assumed that you were saying that Kean has become aware of the debunking, not necessarily that she thinks it's an accurate assessment. However no matter how one looks at this case, there's no reasonable way to conclude that the object in the video is an alien craft without resorting to exaggeration, sensationalization, misinformation and/or assumptions based on incomplete information. So presumably, Kean seeming to have a desire to be taken seriously as a journalist, should have recognized that in the first place. Maybe she's trying to get herself back in the media spotlight for her forthcoming book?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Her new book is not about UFOs.

 

[Randall]

Her new book is not about UFOs.

I know, but name recognition is what any journalist wants. The topic is irrelevant.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I doubt, though, that she'd risk her credibility as a reporter to tout a UFO sighting that is known to have questionable validity.

 

[Tannhauser Gate]

I doubt, though, that she'd risk her credibility as a reporter to tout a UFO sighting that is known to have questionable validity.

But thats just what shes done, risked her credibility promoting a UFO sighting as authentic when she knows there is a scientific body claiming otherwise. Hey I like Lesley Kean as much as the next person interested in this subject and have read her book.

And this isn't the first time shes promoted CEFAA's bogus ufo evidence.

Credible UFO researchers are tenuous at best so I would just hate to think that Kean is going down the dark side if you know what I mean.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Er no, the case was attacked by s a few habitual UFO debunkers who attack everything that comes there way.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Open minds with caution,

 

[marduk]

Here's something for those interested in the case to check out: Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrail, Flight LA330

I call bullshit.

Google maps measurement says that chopper and that plane were more than 100km apart. That's a hell of an IR zoom.

I'm not saying it's not a plane, I'm saying it's not that plane.

I also find it unusual that the flaring starts while the thing is mid-air. I mean, how do jet aircraft take off with the engines off?

And to top if off, he found not one but two perfect fits...

[Note on change from just LA330 to mostly IB6830 - I had originally identified the entire sequence as LA330 when I was working with only the image of the planes tracks from Planefinder.net. After I was able to extract the actual 3D tracks and view them from the position of the Chopper in google earth, it became apparent that IB6830 was the better fit (pretty much a perfect fit). However it did not fit the last short sequence, which still was best explained by LA330]

By occam's razor, there should only be one perfect fit. Therefore his definition of 'perfect' is somewhat imperfect.

 

[Randall]

I call bullshit. Google maps measurement says that chopper and that plane were more than 100km apart. That's a hell of an IR zoom. I'm not saying it's not a plane, I'm saying it's not that plane.

If you got that measurement right, I think you've got a good point. So what plane was it then I wonder?

I also find it unusual that the flaring starts while the thing is mid-air. I mean, how do jet aircraft take off with the engines off?

I'm not sure how those two statements relate. I don't think the aircraft was taking off, as in taking off from a runway. If anything, it looked more to me like it was descending slightly, and the IR plume happened when it went through some light atmospheric vapor, which seems consistent with what jet engines would do, and it does look very much like the photographic examples.

And to top if off, he found not one but two perfect fits...
By occam's razor, there should only be one perfect fit. Therefore his definition of 'perfect' is somewhat imperfect.

That is another good point. But we don't see a constant visual on the aircraft, so perhaps, if the timing is right, and the direction is right, what the video shows might actually be two different aircraft. But I haven't examined it in that much detail. Either way, I'm still satisfied that the object in question is a most probably a conventional jet aircraft.

 

[CuCullen]

Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flights IB6830 and LA330

"There are likely TWO planes involved IB6830 and LA330. The plane that initially seems to fit best is LA330, a two engined A320, which was reported to be climbing through 20,000 feet at that exact visual position at 14:01:39. It was actually 65 miles away, not 35-50. This explain why it was not seen on radar (the actual plane was on radar, just not where they thought it was)"

Doesn't sound so implausible to me.

 

[marduk]

I'm not sure how those two statements relate. I don't think the aircraft was taking off, as in taking off from a runway. If anything, it looked more to me like it was descending slightly, and the IR plume happened when it went through some light atmospheric vapor, which seems consistent with what jet engines would do, and it does look very much like the photographic examples.

Here's the video:

As you say, the object is aloft and looks to be decending somewhat. Then it starts the IR plume. Superheated air shows up on IR whether it's coming through atmospheric vapour or not. It wouldn't magically appear just because if flies through humidity.

If it were a jet, the engines would be off, and then turned on again.


Besides, the plume itself seems problematic.

Here's a commercial airliner with the engines running on the ground imaged during the day:

And one landing at Gatwick:

And... No plume.

So I struggle with that theory anyway.

And what's that I find on their own website... That contrails aren't super hot and plume on IR:
Debunked: Tail Sprayers & Fake Infrared [Contrail Gaps and Photoshop]

Lol.

100% Bullshit debunking effort. BTW, you can fire up google maps and just measure the distance. I took a shot at it using the measuring tool, and came up with 111km.

I'm not saying it's the pesky zeta reticulans. I'm saying this isn't an explanation for what it was.