• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

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

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

CuCullen said:
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.
Click to expand...
So you find it plausible that the Chilean Air Force was totally surprised by the IR image of not one but two commercial airliners? From > 100km away? With a plume that starts randomly?

I find it implausible that:
a) dudes that can fly helicopters for the military using IR (used to catch drug traffickers in SA all the time) would be surprised by seeing a commercial airliner. I mean, Santiago international airport flew 17M passengers in 2013 alone according to wikipedia. Thats a hell of an oops. List of the busiest airports in Chile - Wikipedia
b) I'd be very surprised if they could image this from more than 100km away. Radar has a habit of being longer range than optical... that's why it was invented. Besides, the stats on the camera (webcam MX-15) explicitly say that the laser range finder has range of 20km. http://www.wescam.com/wp-content/uploads/PDS-MX-15-April2015.pdf
c) the object was actually descending, not climbing.
d) the chopper was at 4500 feet. The plane at 20,000 feet. Going the wrong direction (climbing not descending).
e) there is no explanation for the sudden expulsion that makes any sense if it is a commercial aircraft to me.

I just don't see it.
 
What I'm saying is that it is plausible for *any* witnesses to make a mistake as to distance. From what I've been seeing, if the two helicopter pilots misjudged the distance to the object, it would be an honest mistake that they weren't seeing something on radar at the assumed distance. At any rate, I didn't see anything completely anomalistic about the original video, and I'm not an atmospheric scientist and thus can't determine what airplane exhaust might look like, viewing in IR, flying through an air mass. Can anyone here say they are experienced in this field?

I'd like to know, and am genuinely curious (and undecided) about the object in question. But if I were investigating this sighting, I'd try to avoid all assumptions and just look at what stands out as anomalous. So far, the "dark plume" is the only unexplained factor. Everything else looks prosaic.
 
CuCullen said:
What I'm saying is that it is plausible for *any* witnesses to make a mistake as to distance. From what I've been seeing, if the two helicopter pilots misjudged the distance to the object, it would be an honest mistake that they weren't seeing something on radar at the assumed distance. At any rate, I didn't see anything completely anomalistic about the original video, and I'm not an atmospheric scientist and thus can't determine what airplane exhaust might look like, viewing in IR, flying through an air mass. Can anyone here say they are experienced in this field?

I'd like to know, and am genuinely curious (and undecided) about the object in question. But if I were investigating this sighting, I'd try to avoid all assumptions and just look at what stands out as anomalous. So far, the "dark plume" is the only unexplained factor. Everything else looks prosaic.
Click to expand...
I'm good with all that.

My point is that the guys on this debunking site are:
a) the ones making assumptions. Nobody else has staked a claim for what this is except these clowns.
b) the hypothesis does not appear to be supported by the existing evidence and in fact is discounted by it (distance - how could this sensor image a dot > 100km away, existing FLIR images of contrails)
c) the hypothesis is contradicted on their own site, which attempts to debunk (admittedly wacky) contrail theories. So they are not being consistent.
d) they seem very arrogant and throw around hyperbolic terms like 'perfect fit' and then say 'oh, this other plane is perfecter.'
 
Last edited:
MUFON's Research Director, Robert Powell, will explore this case and a similar case from Puerto Rico on The Paracast in an episode that also features OpenMinds' Alejandro Rojas.
 
Usual is right, this video is of an airplane far from the camera. The plumes are condensation, which can form at many layers, some as low as 10,000 feet.
Leslie got fooled again!
 
Socorro said:
Usual is right, this video is of an airplane far from the camera. The plumes are condensation, which can form at many layers, some as low as 10,000 feet.
Leslie got fooled again!
Click to expand...
Most are not aware that she is a Journalist, not a researcher. So its all about the hype and getting another book or article out, even though this case is closed, its an aircraft. In all honesty she does not contribute to any research, only muddies the water still supporting a bogus UFO video. Kind of reminds me off....oh yeah, the Roswell mummy picture that some still think is an alien. What a waste of time...
 
Her new book is not about UFOs, and she is not dismissing the conclusion that this video shows an airplane.

Please tone it down. Besides, Kean had no involvement whatever in the Roswell Slides.
 
Back
Top