On 7 Jan 2017 21:08:59 -0800, Miloch <Miloch_member@newsguy.com>
wrote:
>http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/after-two-years-of-study-chilean-officials-cant-explain-ufo-sighting/
>
>
>The Ars Files casts a skeptical eye on developments in the UFO community. Is the
>truth out there? Maybe. Maybe not. But we try to find it here.
>
>Early on the afternoon of November 14, 2014, a Chilean Navy pilot and a
>technician were flying their helicopter along the coast when they saw something
>strange. They were going north at an altitude of 1.4km in a twin-engine Airbus
>Cougar when something appeared in the sky and matched their velocity of 130
>knots.
>
>As part of the flight, which took place west of Santiago, the helicopter's
>technician was testing the thermal imaging properties of an infrared FLIR
>high-definition camera. Naturally, he turned the camera on the unidentified
>object. After several minutes the pilot and technician observed the object make
>two distinct discharges of some type of liquid, or gas, which produced a very
>hot signal captured by the infrared imager. The technician captured nearly 10
>minutes of video, which shows both visible and infrared camera views.
>
>After this sighting, the Navy turned the video over to the the Committee for the
>Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena, known as CEFAA. This is the Chilean
>government group that investigates UFO sightings, or Unidentified Aerial
>Phenomenon. On Friday, after a study by scientists, military officials, and even
>some photo analysis experts from France, the committee released its conclusion.
>
>"The Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena, comprised of leading
>scientists, analysts, and aviation technicians, after an extensive study of the
>case, determined that it was a UAP, or Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon," the
>agency stated in a news release.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkUTGpegZN0
>
>A US-based journalist who investigates UFOs, Leslie Kean, has interviewed some
>of the principals and had access to the case files. She provided more details
>about the incident in a report for the Huffington Post, which she characterized
>as a "groundbreaking UFO video."
>
>We're not ready to go that far, but the infrared video is intriguing. 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. (As he
>observed the object, the Chilean pilot radioed an air traffic control along the
>coast and another at Santiago, both of which failed to observe a plane on radar.
>Nor was any aircraft in the vicinity cleared for a landing at Santiago.)
>Moreover, the plume of heated material does not fall as one would expect water
>or other material to do at an altitude of about 1km above the surface.
>
>Other hypotheses included falling pieces of space debris, which might possibly
>release compressed gases at a lower atmosphere, as well as a bird, flying
>insect, drone, parachute, hang glider, or some kind of hoaxed video. Those
>hypotheses were ultimately dismissed.
>
>The significance of this sighting is that it was made by credible Navy officers,
>lasted nearly 10 minutes, and involved observation in both the visible and
>infrared portions of the spectrum. While this falls far short of providing any
>evidence of aliens, it nonetheless is well documented and worthy of additional
>consideration, if only because the explanation might reveal some kind of new US
>military stealth technology.
Smug drugglers that hit the all-you-can-eat burrito bar for breakfast?
=)
Dunno. I could easily see this as a twin engined airliner seen from
behind, hence the twin-lobed heat signature. The "emissions" look
very much like a discontinuous contrail formed as an aircraft passes
through an air parcel with higher relative humidity that would allow
the water vapor in the exhaust to condense. It would be hot because
hotter than the air around. If it was cold enough, the contrail would
glaciate, the ice crystals formed being more enduring, and again
cruising altitudes.
I have occasionally seen this happen when airliners are flying at the
altitude of broken cirrus clouds like those that are seen in the
visible light sections of the video. The cirrus indicate nearly
saturated air, with slightly drier air in the clear spots. The
"emissions" appear white in the same visible light video, very much
like a contrail.
But, hey - I'm from the government, and I'm here to lead y'all astray.
Move along; nothing to see here!
|
|