Where would a real UFO thread go?

[Gigabyte]

Video of an actual UFO?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/...-ufo-sighting/

I couldn't find a topic about it.

[Spacedude]

My guess would be either the "Against the Mainstream" or "Conspiracy Theory" forums.

[Gigabyte]

Just to discuss a video from the government of Chile? The news outlets say it is not a fake video, nor was there any tampering.

Oh well.

[KaiYeves]

I think discussing a video would be "Small Media at Large".

[Spacedude]

Well, as far as I can tell every other ufo related story and/or photos have been relegated to one of those 2 forums. I suspect that Off Topic Babbling might be a 3rd choice for some readers. Since your post hasn't been moved from this forum maybe it's ok here? What would you like to discuss about it?

The news outlets say it is not a fake video, nor was there any tampering.

Give em' a chance, I'm sure there's always room for doubt of some kind, it just takes a dash. One of my favs is that it could be a super secret experimental military aircraft. Beats trying to prove that it might something else. What's your best guess?

[PetersCreek]

Much depends on your reason for posting the video. If you're offering is as substantiation of ET visitation, then it definitely belongs in the CT forum. Have you read the thread, Advice for Conspiracy Theory Supporters? Number 9 through 11 explain some allowable CT posts.

[CJSF]

I found all manner of credible, mundane explanations for that video after about 1 minute of searching. If you're putting forth that it's a "real" video of an extraterrestrial craft, I think it goes in CT.

CJSF

[Gigabyte]

I have no idea if the video is real, or if it is, what the object is/was. It's just an interesting video to me. If it's fake, then the leaders of Chile (including the Navy) are being trolled hard by somebody. If the footage is actual real footage, it's something else.

Considering it as real, I want to know what the heck it is. If it's all faked, I will be annoyed, then amused.

[Swift]

Gigabyte,

Your title question (where should the thread go) should actually be in Feedback, or even better, you should have asked a moderator by PM where to put the thread. Q&A is not a good place to ask where should a thread go.

I suspect you really aren't interested in that question, you are interested in discussing the video. In that case, the thread should go in CT, and I've moved it there. Even if you are not advocating that this is an ET or something else extraordinary, we have generally discussed UFOs in the CT forum. However, if you advocate non-mainstream explanations for this video, you will be expected to defend those assertions.

[Gigabyte]

What would you like to discuss about it?

Well for starters, if they observed a strange aircraft that wasn't supposed to be there, why no fighter jets scrambled? Even if it was over international waters (they say it was) it's an aircraft, and it's not showing upon radar or answering the radio. That's a red flag. Nothing in the media stories about any response from their military.

What's your best guess?

I always suspect somebody messing with us somehow. The "ejection" just made it weird. I want to see FLIR footage of other aircraft, to compare what they look like at that distance on a FLIR camera. Especially if they hit the afterburners.

[schlaugh]

Hot air balloon? The discharge seems to coincide with a drop in altitude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jens]

Hot air balloon? The discharge seems to coincide with a drop in altitude.

It was traveling pretty fast, and against the wind apparently, so not a hot air balloon.

It reminds me a bit of JAL 1628. That was also an incident where a flight crew spotted something that also was not visible on radar. The fact that it was following the course of the helicopter (and in the JAL case, the airliner) suggests to me that either it was deliberate or it was some kind of phenomenon (like a reflection of some kind) that was only following the planes in the sense that our shadow follows us when we walk.

[slang]

Well for starters, if they observed a strange aircraft that wasn't supposed to be there, why no fighter jets scrambled? Even if it was over international waters (they say it was) it's an aircraft, and it's not showing upon radar or answering the radio. That's a red flag. Nothing in the media stories about any response from their military.

I didn't see any comment about fighters being scrambled or not scrambled, where was that? Does their quick reaction alert respond in similar cases? Is the media routinely informed there in case there is a scramble, or only if they cause an unexpected sonic boom? What if the military had already decided in other ways that this was not a threat? Not every broken radio merits a QRA scramble.

[...] something that also was not visible on radar.

Was it really not visible? What if it was an illegal flight, perhaps drugs, not using a transponder? That would also explain the lack of flightplan and the radio silence. I don't see any mention of investigating radar tapes. Perhaps they dumped something after hearing the helicopter calling them on radio.

Or perhaps confusion in where to look, where an operator checked only in airspace close to the helicopter but not all the way out to 65 miles? That's really quite far, especially at these speeds.

[Gigabyte]

Was it really not visible?

I don't know. Watching the video it seems like there is a very small and hard to see object. The IR image is not anything like the visible one. I found a whole bunch of other videos of UFOs over Chile on Youtube, which I hadn't heard of.

[Gigabyte]

I also found an example of light reflecting off glass that some confused for a UFO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0aj5a2Kbxw

[Jens]

Was it really not visible? What if it was an illegal flight, perhaps drugs, not using a transponder? That would also explain the lack of flightplan and the radio silence. I don't see any mention of investigating radar tapes. Perhaps they dumped something after hearing the helicopter calling them on radio.

Or perhaps confusion in where to look, where an operator checked only in airspace close to the helicopter but not all the way out to 65 miles? That's really quite far, especially at these speeds.

Radar isn't dependent on a transponder. It means radar that bounces against the craft and returns a signal that indicates that something is there. It is true that governments are trying to build "stealth" aircraft that do not bounce radar signals back, so one possibility is that it is a stealth aircraft. But for example, clouds return radar signals (which is why airliners can tell when there is turbulence ahead), but mirages don't, so my thinking was that one possibility is that they saw some kind of mirage.

[Jens]

I didn't see any comment about fighters being scrambled or not scrambled, where was that? Does their quick reaction alert respond in similar cases? Is the media routinely informed there in case there is a scramble, or only if they cause an unexpected sonic boom? What if the military had already decided in other ways that this was not a threat? Not every broken radio merits a QRA scramble.

I think you're right about this. Presumably, scramble codes are military secrets, and so whether fighters were scrambled or not, probably the Chilean government would not want to publicize it because they don't want other people to know how fast they can (or can't) get fighters into the air.

[slang]

Radar isn't dependent on a transponder. It means radar that bounces against the craft and returns a signal that indicates that something is there. [...]

Well, I might be mistaken, but I seem to remember that certain radar sets can tune out the actual return signal, and display known (transponder) signals only, to remove clutter from unintended reflections and other interference. In my recollection this option to not display radarreturns that are not accompanied by a transpondersignal has been been (partly?) cause of air incidents.

[Gigabyte]

While they claim after two years they couldn't figure it out, once they released the video it didn't take long.

https://www.metabunk.org/explained-c...d-la330.t8306/

[slang]

While they claim after two years they couldn't figure it out, once they released the video it didn't take long.

https://www.metabunk.org/explained-c...d-la330.t8306/

Good read, thanks.

[eburacum45]

So much for the investigative abilities of Leslie Kean.

[Gigabyte]

I don't know who that is.

[KaiYeves]

I don't know who that is.

Evidently someone (with an androgynous name) whose investigative skills aren't quite so Kean at all.

[PetersCreek]

While they claim after two years they couldn't figure it out, once they released the video it didn't take long.

https://www.metabunk.org/explained-c...d-la330.t8306/

I was going to chime in explaining that I maintained USAF avionic FLIR systems (when they were made from mud and sticks) and give my opinion of the video but that link saves me the work of typing all that...and debunks it better than I would have.

[slang]

So much for the investigative abilities of Leslie Kean.

I don't know who that is.

Hm? From your own link in the OP: "A US-based journalist who investigates UFOs, Leslie Kean, has interviewed some of the principals and had access to the case files.".

[Gigabyte]

I should probably read the article next time.

According to Kean, the French analysts explained the sighting as a medium-haul aircraft on approach to the Santiago airport, with the heat signals due to waste water being dumped from the cabin. The Chilean committee dismissed this explanation, however, because the "plane" in question was not seen on primary radar.

Hmm, there it was. She just got the contrail wrong, and that it was approaching, but hmf

[eburacum45]

The reason it wasn't seen on radar is because they were looking in the wrong place. It was twice as far away as they thought, and was perfectly visible on radar. The question of distance is vital in most UFO sightings; in many cases the actual cause of the phenomenon is either much closer or much further away than the observers think.

[Noisy Rhysling]

I remember back when, maybe 15 years ago, a big stir came up about "unknown lights" off the coast of South America, exactly which country escapes me. The video was infrared and did show some dancing lights. When somebody bothered to go straight toward the point these lights came from they found off-shore oil wells. The cameras were picking up the flares of burn-off waste gases.

[slang]

I should probably read the article next time.

Well, yes, that's generally advisable before you forward the link to us to read it...

[swampyankee]

A UFO thread? You'll have to be careful; if you pull on it, the whole sweater will unravel.