What radar, infrared, video, or photographic evidence was released for the 2014–2015 Chilean Navy encounters and who authenticated it?
Executive summary
Chilean authorities publicly released a nine‑ to ten‑minute infrared/high‑definition video recorded from a Chilean Navy AS‑532 Cougar helicopter on 11 November 2014; CEFAA (the Chilean Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena) led a two‑year review before declassification [1] [2]. The recording used a Wescam/FLIR MX‑15 HD forward‑looking infrared camera and was visually witnessed by the helicopter captain and technician; CEFAA convened national and international experts (including France’s GEIPAN and Air Force photogrammetry analysts) to examine the imagery and related data [3] [4].
1. What was released: flight video, infrared feed, and an official report
CEFAA declassified and released a multi‑minute video showing an airborne thermal signature captured during a daytime patrol; press reports describe the footage as nine to ten minutes of HD and infrared imagery recorded from the helicopter’s Wescam/FLIR camera while the crew also made naked‑eye observations [1] [2] [3]. Chilean media and CEFAA circulated an official report alongside the footage summarizing the committee’s analysis and meeting notes [4].
2. Equipment and eyewitnesses: military platform and FLIR system
The recording came from a Chilean Navy AS‑532 Cougar helicopter equipped with a Wescam MX‑15 (FLIR) high‑definition forward‑looking camera used for surveillance; the two onboard Navy officers—a captain and a technician—reported visual confirmation of the object while the camera captured it [3] [2].
3. Radar and air‑traffic inputs: mixed or missing corroboration
According to multiple reports, air‑traffic control recorded unspecified “unauthorized traffic” and the Navy crew said they tried to communicate with the object, but primary radar did not show the target even while it detected the helicopter; CEFAA highlighted a lack of radar corroboration as a key puzzle point in its review [1] [5]. News outlets note ATC confirmed the helicopter’s presence but not a corresponding primary‑radar track for the anomaly [2] [5].
4. Who analyzed and “authenticated” the material
CEFAA convened a committee of Chilean military and civilian specialists to analyze the footage, including Air Force photogrammetry and meteorology experts, a DGAC aeronautic engineer, image analysts, and outside assistance from France’s GEIPAN and French image analyst François Louange [4]. These groups provided technical reviews and written analyses; CEFAA presented the resulting report publicly after about two years of study [4] [1].
5. Conclusions from official reviewers and competing interpretations
CEFAA’s public position was that the video and associated data could not be explained by the committee members after their review, leaving the event “unidentified” in their materials [5]. By contrast, independent skeptics (and some online analysts) argued the signature aligns with known aircraft or contrail/engine‑glow phenomena—examples include claims it was a commercial airliner dumping waste water or simply two planes visible in infrared—points raised by French analysts and later independent researchers [6] [7]. Sources disagree on whether those mundane explanations are consistent with the radar and witness accounts cited by CEFAA [5] [6].
6. Documents beyond the video: flight tracks, transcripts, and internal memos
Subsequent postings and FOIA‑style collections have circulated additional materials reportedly from Chilean authorities: flight tracks of the Cougar, weather data, a camera operator transcript, and internal DGAC/SEFAA correspondence indicating committee meetings to study the case [8]. The provenance and completeness of some of these later‑circulated documents have been discussed in public forums; The Black Vault hosted copies sourced via third parties [8].
7. Limits of the public record and open questions
Available sources document the video, the FLIR camera used, CEFAA’s two‑year review, and participation by named national and French experts, but they do not settle the phenomenon: CEFAA left the sighting officially “unidentified” and critics say plausible conventional explanations exist but were either dismissed or not resolved in the public report [4] [5] [6]. Available sources do not mention definitive third‑party independent physical‑evidence authentication beyond the image and photogrammetric work cited [8].
8. What to watch for if you follow this case
Look for release or verification of primary radar logs, full unedited camera telemetry, and independent photogrammetric reanalysis—those items are the clearest path to resolving competing claims. The public record shows a careful, multi‑expert internal review by CEFAA and outside consultants but persistent disagreement between that official “unidentified” result and skeptical reanalyses claiming conventional aircraft or imaging artifacts [4] [7].
(Word count ~640)