It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chilean Government Agency Releases UFO Images

page: 4
158
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Well I respect your opinion.
Hopefully we can glean more information as time goes by.
I do respect the Chileans for reporting anomalies, that's why I'm intrigued by these photos and the story that's behind it.




posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
IMO, one daylight photo beats 1,000 night time photos and videos of light blobs in the sky. That's exactly what this Chilean UFO would look like at night...a blob of light. I'm very thankful to see this daytime image, however. S&F.
-cwm



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
This honestly doesn't look like much. Yeah, they said they were sure it wasn't a drone but why can't we get a better picture than this?



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Governments want their populations to believe in UFOs (that they are aliens) so they dont have to explain where those billions went into funding the top secret (sometimes uber modern aircraft) projects.

This is just a crappy execution of a tactic used by governments like the US since the 50s. Whose intelligence agencies are probably pissed at this hack job, which might (as I am doing) expose them. Though its all been kind of out in the open and obvious. But of course I cant be certain of what im saying, I can only be most certain.
edit on 5-7-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Emache

That's a great pic, but it's always a little odd when people take photos seemingly at random and just so happen to capture a really great image of a UFO.

That's because 99 times out of a 100 they photographed a bird, which is what this is. A "blurd."



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Heh heh, nah. It is a weather balloon (sans weather), it is swamp gas (sans swamp), and it's also ball plasma (sans the ball). There's the decoder ring for ya. Anything else requires an NDA...



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Thanks for posting this.




posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
This would be very easy to photoshop. Why does no one take a video of events like this. Virtually all still cameras and phones have video



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: rakleMeister
The Chilean government agency (CEFAA) spent a year trying to debunk this. PhotoShop, lens flare, reflection, you name it, It's one of the three percent of cases they have that defies logic.


edit on 6-7-2014 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: canucks555
a reply to: rakleMeister
The Chilean government agency (CEFAA) spent a year trying to debunk this. PhotoShop, lens flare, reflection, you name it, It's one of the three percent of cases they have that defies logic.


Well that's the thing - did they?

The PowerPoint presentation says no such thing.

Doesn't present EXIF data.
Doesn't attempt to ascertain the exact location the photos were taken, and whether they were outside or inside.
Doesn't even analyse the other two of the four pictures.

It's hardly an in-depth analysis, just playing around with a few Photoshop filters as far as I can see! I could do that in half an hour.

Sorry if I am underwhelmed but I just snapped this with no preparation out of my bedroom window:



If it wasn't for the double image caused by the double glazing, what's the difference between this and the "UFO"?

I am always sceptical of translucent yellow-white shapes with no discernible solid structure. And this just doesn't look like anything solid.

If I could be bothered I could probably prepare some pretty perfect replicas of the Chile pics using a single pane of glass and a different shaped bulb.
edit on 6-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   
I really want to believe this is the real deal. Does look very convincing at this stage...



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I for one am very glad of the debunkers who come into threads like these and point out all of the very obvious reasons why photographs of UFOs can be easily explained as light reflections through glass and suchlike.

We need these people, otherwise the UFO community looks like a bunch of credulous fools which can't get taken seriously by anybody.

Which is the problem, the UFO community isn't taken seriously, because we jump up and down getting excited about proof that is just wishful thinking.


For these, I think they're lovely photos. But I'm convinced by the arguments that raise doubts. They look a lot like light reflection taken from behind glass.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Actually I do photography and the smudges might be caused by dust on the lens or sensor (assuming it is a digital camera). It might ofcourse also be from dirt on a window, but if a window is that dirty there should be other things like smaller dust particles that give away the window it does not seem to be the case.

Regarding artifacts and stuff. i have seen a lot of camerafaults and artifacts occure on pictures. Light, reflecting light and things like that can all case objects to appear in the picture like these U.F.O. photographs have. So I wouldn't say these are inconclusive U.F.O. pictures. They might....but might not.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: AncientShade
Actually I do photography and the smudges might be caused by dust on the lens or sensor (assuming it is a digital camera).

I agree with this point. At first I thought they were dirt on a window but the fact that they don't move between shots even though the background objects do strongly suggests dirt on the lens (dirt on the sensor usually appears in sharper focus for obvious reasons).

That does not mean, of course, that they weren't also taken through a windowpane.
edit on 6-7-2014 by Rob48 because: "Window" gets censored



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Looks like ATS turns into a abusive debunker troll club, where trolls insult / abuse others and professionally troll the messenger thread. :/

ATS
this before we also tuns into another Digg :/
edit on 6-7-2014 by awakehuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Nice to see a return to the classic 'flying saucer' shape.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I took the liberty to translate the video. I apologize in advance for typos or unclear sentences as I did this while my gf yelled at me that lunch was ready.




posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: awakehuman
Looks like ATS turns into a abusive debunker troll club, where trolls insult / abuse others and professionally troll the messenger thread. :/

ATS
this before we also tuns into another Digg :/


Care to point out where anyone has acted troll-like or abusive? Name names. Report posts if you have a problem with them.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Cloro

Thanks for the translation


As for CEFAA it should be pointed out that they couldn't identify the El Bosque Air Base UFOs which ATS members showed were insects.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is what CEFAA said.

"At this time, this incident cannot be scientifically explained," Bermúdez wrote in a recent email. "As agreed by those who have studied the videos, we can affirm that there is an unidentified aerial object present. We do not know what it is or where it came from."
www.huffingtonpost.com...


The more I look at this picture the more I'm convinced it is a light bulb and housing.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: canucks555

*edit, apparently it's heat coming off the object. Is that possible when taking a picture of a reflection?

Says who? It's rays of light smearing out from a bright image. On what basis can anyone say it is "heat"?

I am going to bet these images were taken through a window, either of a building or a vehicle. Probably a vehicle as I would assume most buildings in this location would be double glazed.




top topics



 
158
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join