Unidentifed flying object recorded in Lima

originally posted by: free_spirit
a reply to: elevenaugust

With all due respect elevenaugust this Hans Elbers test or experiment or whatever you may call it is not a match to the Netherlands UFO...

Not sure to understand you correctly. This is not in any way a "test or an experiment" (I guess that you haven't followed all my links and read what's in there), but the owner of the kite that recognized it (when he saw it in the 'UFO' video) as this kite flew over Rotterdam's port at the same date, in the same direction, have the same color, etc... And that came later with the kite he used to explain the confusion. It's as simple and clear as that.

More specifically, my reply was to your answer saying:

On the other hand elevenaugust mentioned this: "Indeed, if we compare the 'UFO' (that was proven to be a kite) filmed in Netherland in 2014" This is a false statement and also dissinformation. Proven by whom, where and with wich evidence? As I understand the Netherlands 2014 UFO case has not been proven a kite nor even a hoax here in ATS.

... where it was extensively showed (by the provided links) that the Netherland UFO was a kite, demonstrated, proven, admitted by everyone, including the owner of the kite (Hans Elbers). The location, the date, the color, the direction of sighting, etc... all perfect match.

So this:



.... seen and filmed at a greater distance can really looked like this:



As incredible as it seems, such a kite can really appears like this seen from far away, especially on a other geometrical configuration.

So, sorry to say but no, not in any way "false statement and disinformation".

originally posted by: free_spirit
...and I repeat again BECAUSE of the movements, the kite is erratic all the time moving to one side to another like a kite reacts to the wind and the Netherlands UFO is almost static, see the zooming made by the witness with all the references and the UFO is static very similar to the one from Miraflores Peru.

I guess that you also haven't looked at the stabilized version of one of the Miraflores video, so I posted it again here:



The Miraflores 'UFO' is not static, but moves in a slow motion, from a place to another, exactly like a kite can do where it is subjected to a regular low wind. For example, you can check this in the video below:



... by looking closely during the 1'45'' some of these kites and the way they move; and this seen from a shorter distance than in the Miraflores videos. Some of these really don't move in an erratic way, but really appears to be almost stationary, slowly moving from place to place.
Imagine now one of these 'almost stationary' kite seen from a greater distance. It will very likely appears and behaves like the Miraflores 'UFO'.

The same goes as well for the Netherland UFO/kite that really appeared to be stationary over Rotterdam's port (if we except of course the cameraman shaking).

originally posted by: free_spirit
This is my opinion and I'm still think the answer has not been found yet with this case.

I agree, but my opinion is also that we should not quickly dismissed and explored all the possible explanations before saying it's unexplained.
The kite explanation is far more plausible than the drone or the the balloon explanation.

a reply to: elevenaugust

Not that I doubt the possibility that it can be a kite of some kind, but do these sites offer any images or video of this guy's kite identical to what the other people recorded?

I've been looking and have yet to see any new images of the Lima UFO.

Somebody point me in the right direction if I'm wrong.

There are nine million people in Lima. If it was in the air two hours and there are no other images of this from cell phones surfacing by now that indicates to me that the people closer to this didn't think it was unusual or that it wasn't there.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Agree. In addition there is no description of how the UFO departed from the scene.

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: DelMarvel

Agree. In addition there is no description of how the UFO departed from the scene.

That's what irks me most about these and other UFO videos. If these people felt they were truly witnessing a legit UFO, would they film it until it disappeared? TO me that would make all the difference, seeing it fly at a high speed into the atmosphere. Instead, we have a stationary floating object that basically does nothing.

a reply to: elevenaugust

In your explanation it seems it`s just a guess to compare the Miraflores UFO
agaisnt the Hans Elbers kite or the Hans Elbers kite to the Netherlands UFO
or vice versa or whatever but not a fact. The Hessdalen case was discussed
here in ATS and was not considered a kite neither debunked yet. It is my
opinion that the Hans Ebers kite theory is not convincing and the thread
is still active, why don`t you make your proposal there and see the reactions.

I must say that when I watched the Miraflores Peru footage for the first
time I also considered the posibility of a kite, a drone, a ballon or even
a publicity blimp, then I discarded each of these options when I learned
more of the case, watched the witnesses testifying and analized the videos.

I suggest you watch my last post in page 4 with the investigation on this case
with interviews with the people involved and the results of the recreation
they made with a drone. These people were there and saw the thing with
their own eyes, that is a difference to be considered because if this object
in the sky was possibly a kite as you proposed that would imply all these people
must be idiots for not recognizing a common kite in the sky for two hours.
These people know what they saw was not conventional and I believe them.

a reply to: gortex
I'm sorry to disappoint you, it's not big deal.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Hi Del, post on page 4; Regards.

No footage of the UFO moving away?

a reply to: elevenaugust

Hi Eleven,

seems you are right, found this comment on youtube:

Aurelio Rodriguez

Señores: se trata de una cometa de grandes dimensiones que estaba siendo volada desde la avenida Costanera, "al pie del acantilado" de la Costa Verde, como diría Julio Ramón Ribeyro. Yo tuve la suerte de pasar por esta vìa a la misma hora, en trànsito de sur a norte, camino al aeropuerto, y pude verla de cerca (le tomè foto y vìdeo con mi celular). Debo reconocer que al inicio, cuando la vì desde lejos (desde una distancia de al menos cuatro kilómetros) me llamò la atención por su gran tamaño y por su estabilidad (una linda cometa, creo que es una versión de la "Hergraves Box Kite"). Si se dan una vuelta por la parte en donde ahora están los juegos mecánicos en la Costa Verde (en donde hace meses se instalò la "Villa Dakar") y preguntan a la gente que trabaja en el lugar confirmarà esta versiòn, y quizás vean la cometa de nuevo. Perdonen por ser aguafiestas pero gran parte de mi trabajo transcurre observando objetos que vuelan...

Source Comment by Aurelio Rodriguez, retrieved 17Feb2015, 08h00 GMT

Edited Translation:
"Gentlemen, it is a large kite that was being flown from the Costanera Avenue, "at the foot of the cliff" of the Costa Verde, as Julio Ramón Ribeyro would say. I was lucky to be passing by this street at that same time, going from south to north direction airport, and I could see it up and close (I took a photo and video with my cell phone). I must admit that at first, when I saw it from afar (from a distance of at least four kilometers) I was struck by its large size and its stability (a cute kite, I think it's a version of the "Hergraves Box Kite" ). If you take a stroll along the fancy fair in Costa Verde (where they built the "Paris-Dakar Race Village" a few months ago) and ask the people working at the site, they will confirm my story, and perhaps you get to see the comet again. Excuse me for being a spoilsport but much of my job revolves around observing flying objects ..."

Regards.

originally posted by: free_spirit
a reply to: elevenaugust

In your explanation it seems it`s just a guess to compare the Miraflores UFO agaisnt the Hans Elbers kite or the Hans Elbers kite to the Netherlands UFO or vice versa or whatever but not a fact. The Hessdalen case was discussed
here in ATS and was not considered a kite neither debunked yet.

The Hessdalen photos and videos show nothing similar to what can be seen on the Miraflores video, unlike the Netherland video. The context is also very different, so we should stick on what is comparable.

The comparison of both the Netherland video and the Moraflores videos is interesting because there are similarities such as:
- Object's shape, like the Rokkaku shape seen at the distance.
- Apparent motionless as seen from far away, like a kite can do in slow and regular wind.
- Appropriate large areas that allow the practice of kiting in the direction the cameraman was filming at (Rotterdam's port in the Netherland video and beach in the Miraflores video (Someone suggest on a discuss that a kite might also be used from the top of a building, not sure if it's possible).

originally posted by: free_spirit
It is my opinion that the Hans Ebers kite theory is not convincing and the thread is still active, why don`t you make your proposal there and see the reactions.

More specifically, what is not convincing to you? The comparison between the Netherland and the Miraflores videos or you don't believe that what was videotaped over Rotterdam's port was the blue kite of Mr Elbers? Or maybe both?

originally posted by: free_spirit
I must say that when I watched the Miraflores Peru footage for the first time I also considered the posibility of a kite, a drone, a ballon or even a publicity blimp, then I discarded each of these options when I learned more of the case, watched the witnesses testifying and analized the videos.

Interesting, so for everyone here to understand what we are talking about, please be more specific. Analyzed by who, when and how? Is there any link or discuss that can be understanding here that clearly expose that it can't be a kite?
Also, what are exactly the points made by the witnesses that make you think that it can't be a kite?

I don't speak and understand Spanish unfortunately, so if you have some reliable, clear and understandable information that could help anyone here to either dismiss or confirm the kite theory, please share.

originally posted by: free_spirit
I suggest you watch my last post in page 4 with the investigation on this case with interviews with the people involved and the results of the recreation they made with a drone.

Yes, I watched it but why don't they tried to do the same with a Rokkaku kite?

Also, I really can't believe that they used a white tiny drone in this experiment! In this condition, of course that, like you said, such a drone cannot be seen upon the white cloudy sky (BTW the sky in Miraflores during the sighting was clear and not cloudy)... Quoting you: "the drone did not make a match, it was so difficult to distinguish at the same distance that the experiment failed and the drone hypothesis was discarded." Also what was "this same distance"? How do they know at what distance the UFO was?

C'mmon this is not serious.

Instead of using this:



They should have tried this:

originally posted by: free_spirit
These people were there and saw the thing with their own eyes, that is a difference to be considered because if this object in the sky was possibly a kite as you proposed that would imply all these people must be idiots for not recognizing a common kite in the sky for two hours.

These people know what they saw was not conventional and I believe them.

No, please don't misquote me. I never said that the witnesses were idiots, I just think like everyone of us, they can be fooled by their own eyes and brain and that a prosaic object observed under special circumstances (distance...) may appear in a totally different aspect, like for the Netherland UFO/kite.

I have plenty of such examples in my files, involving airplanes, balloons, stars, etc... I guess that you haven't read yet my thread here when I show the more impressive examples of such confusions in photographs.

Just another last example that perfectly illustrate what I say:

This:



... is an aerial towed banner, and more specifically this one:



... photographed at a greater distance. Analysis source

Nobody at the time of the sighting, including the photographer, the MUFON, all the people that took a look at this photo were unable to put a name on this object.

Isn't that amazing?

Just a last word to reinforce what I said, especially that while I believe the kite theory to be interesting and more plausible than everything else, there are still questions that are unanswered, like:
- What are the maximum possible length for a kite string?
- Is there any visible map where the investigators put on both the cameramen position and the line of sight?
- In this line of sight, at what distance is the beach and is there any building which top is easily accessible?

I surely forgot some...

It is my opinion that the kite theory haven't been enough explored yet.

Why doesn't anyone have a video of it moving away? The failure of that footage surfacing is why it should be questioned.

Why not continue filming until it moves off screen? Very fishy IMO.

AAC.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Exactly. This is always a problem with UFO videos. It would give so much away too.

UPDATE - The FAP Peruvian Air Force gave a press release with their coments
abut the Miraflores UFO sighting. In their statement they could not make a
positive identification of the object and concluded nothing. This is an official
statement by the Air Force from Peru but please don't suggest they are also
a bunch of idiots, ok?

Watch the update by Latina PE with more interviews.


Also the analysis of the case by MUFON Peru here:
mufonperu.org... -aeroanomalo-ovni-en-miraflores-lima-peru/

There is the comment posted above from someone claiming to have seen and photographed it from a closer vantage point who says it was a kite.

He/she gives the specific location where it was being flown and specific directions about where to go to interview other witnesses who could confirm that story.

That would explain why no one has bothered to post any video of it from a closer point of view.

Could be someone's toy, I do not think this is an actual aircraft. Also Central and South Americans are known to be big believers in UFOs, anyone may have exaggerated the sighting into something unusual

a reply to: Agnost

Thanks to you, I was able to directly contact him.

He sent me a capture of the video showing the kite responsible of the confusion:



Enlargement:

a reply to: elevenaugust

a reply to: Agnost
Thanks to you, I was able to directly contact him.

And thanks to both you and Agnost the mystery is solved , your work has shown the true worth of this forum.

a reply to: elevenaugust

Good you posted the photo, he also sent it to me, but I couldn't upload it... (I hope not too many members contacted him...)

I wanted to add that when you look at the enhanced photo (Imagen 1. Acercamiento al objeto volador) on the Peruvian Mufon site, the colour scheme matches the one from the kite.

Regards.

a reply to: Agnost
Thank you Agnost, I think we have here a good match to solve the Miraflores UFO sighting
mystery also by the colaboration of Mr. Aurelio Rodriguez from Lima Peru. This is the photo
comparison I made wich shows the same colors that match the alleged UFO, this comparison
in my opinion is remarkable and now i just expect the people from tv to acknowledge this
new evidence and recognize this sighting was indeed just a kite.


In light of this discovery I must say I was wrong and memeber elevenaugust was right with
the kite theory wich he defended convinced this was the rght explanation even against all
the people involved, my admiration elevenaugust. So I guess case closed.