6

A nine-minute Navy video footage of a strange flying object as noted here and here was captured by two experienced Chilean Navy officers from a helicopter. This was also studied by Chilean military authority called CEFAA which comprises of committees of military experts, technicians and academics from many disciplines to investigate UFOs or UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena). Is this a credible video of a documented UFO event as reported by the Chilean Navy?

Improve this question
4
  • 9
    If it's a flying object that hasn't been identified then it is certainly an unidentified flying object. I'm guessing you mean something more (e.g., something that is probably an alien spacecraft; or something that is unlikely to fall into any commonplace category of aerial phenomenon). Perhaps make the question more specific?
    – Gareth McCaughan
    Jan 16, 2017 at 16:53
  • 4
    Are you asking if the incident happened, or are you asking if this was an alien spacecraft?
    – ventsyv
    Jan 16, 2017 at 17:18
  • @GarethMcCaughan, ventsyv-I wanted to know about the footage since another site actually doubts the video itself. More about that here-arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/….
    – pericles316
    Jan 17, 2017 at 10:04
  • "Is this a credible video of a documented UFO event as reported by the Chilean Navy?" In the end, it depends on the credibility of the Chilean Navy. Mistakes can never really be ruled out.
    – Trilarion
    Jan 18, 2017 at 9:00

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
16

It appears that the report is largely true. CEFAA is an actual department within DGAC, the Chilean agency that regulates aviation. After some digging I found the official release which did assign a Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon status to the claim. This seems to be the equivalent of UFO in US nomenclature.

This however does not mean it was an alien spacecraft. To paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson

Just because you don't know what it is, doesn't mean it's aliens.

That's still true even if it was a bunch of very smart people who looked at the evidence. Sometimes there is simply not enough evidence to make a conclusion one way or the other.

Edit: It now appears that the sighting has been explained.

Mick West at Metabunk has used the location, heading, and time information of the helicopter and correlated it to air traffic data available on flightRadar24.com He has determined that flight IB6830's flight path was in the field of view of the chopper at the time of the observation. enter image description here

He argues that the blob on the sensor is glare from the engine of that airplane. enter image description here

A very concise explanation is give in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoqxr6AI7VQ

A detailed analysis is available here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explained-chilean-navy-ufo-video-aerodynamic-contrails-flight-ib6830.8306/

In view of the new analysis of the evidence, it appears the UFO has been identified as an airplane.

Improve this answer
5
  • 6
    "Just because you don't know what it is, doesn't mean it's aliens" --> Tell that to Giorgio Tsoukalos. :)
    – Luke
    Jan 16, 2017 at 22:00
  • @Luke Should I add the famous meme to my answer??
    – ventsyv
    Jan 19, 2017 at 16:04
  • 1
    There is a claimed identification laid out here: metabunk.org/threads/…
    – Harabeck
    Apr 28, 2020 at 21:55
  • @ventsyv please adjust this Answer in regards to Harabeck'S comment - the metabunk explanation pulls this into IFO territory, not UFO
    – bukwyrm
    Aug 3, 2022 at 11:38
  • @bukwyrm Thanks.
    – ventsyv
    Aug 3, 2022 at 14:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .