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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Chilean Navy Helicopter captures UFO on video in 2014

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: JimOberg

Or, you know US TS aircraft. The Chilean report doesn't cite Aliens does it?

Who said it was Aliens Jim?


About four hundred youtube posts [grin].

Some teasing and mockery seems reasonable, for a short period -- or as long as Kean still insists it was anomalous.




posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: JimOberg
Does this help identify the aircraft?

www.metabunk.org...


Nice job by the metabunk guys, says a lot about the competence of Chilenian "committees of military experts, technicians and academics from many disciplines".


This. Because they aren't english speaking and not based in US or UK - why does it ruin their credibility? I'm curious with your interest in this one Jim? As you guard the upper atmosphere going's ons and have firmly reported zero activity to be of any interest, surely anything below that area wouldn't interest you (wouldn't of got past your teams net would it, you guys are on the ball up there). Surely any opinion you add is outside of NASAs interest and specialty? has this been linked to an event occurring in your neck of the woods? All very speculative, I would appreciate some insight as to why the credibility of the Chilean air force and their approach to be open about the subject should be treated in the almost mockery like way it has been though? What am I missing here?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: JimOberg

Or, you know US TS aircraft. The Chilean report doesn't cite Aliens does it?

Who said it was Aliens Jim?


About four hundred youtube posts [grin].

Some teasing and mockery seems reasonable, for a short period -- or as long as Kean still insists it was anomalous.


So since youtube users claim it must be Aliens, it is necessary to now bring that to ATS and pretend it has to be an either or situation? Not to be dramatic or hyperbolic but I thought your role in the community was different than it is apparently. I just never paid attention.

We went from:

"Still only a theory. Get out your popcorn. The fireworks are about to begin"

to

"Some teasing and mockery seems reasonable, for a short period -- or as long as Kean still insists it was anomalous"

This thread is honestly hilarious.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: psyshow

You my friend are missing nothing at all, in fact you are one of the very few actually paying attention. Keep it up.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: psyshow

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: JimOberg
Does this help identify the aircraft?

www.metabunk.org...


Nice job by the metabunk guys, says a lot about the competence of Chilenian "committees of military experts, technicians and academics from many disciplines".


This. Because they aren't english speaking and not based in US or UK - why does it ruin their credibility? I'm curious with your interest in this one Jim? As you guard the upper atmosphere going's ons and have firmly reported zero activity to be of any interest, surely anything below that area wouldn't interest you (wouldn't of got past your teams net would it, you guys are on the ball up there). Surely any opinion you add is outside of NASAs interest and specialty? has this been linked to an event occurring in your neck of the woods? All very speculative, I would appreciate some insight as to why the credibility of the Chilean air force and their approach to be open about the subject should be treated in the almost mockery like way it has been though? What am I missing here?


Boy, you'll talk about ANYTHING peripheral to actually looking at the key evidence of this case, won't you?

I stepped into this discussion because of a series of delusional statements made in the Kean article about why the bogie couldn't be a satellite reentry [well within my expertise]. I never thought it was [and there were other good reasons to eliminate that candidate] but it was the level of pretended 'expertise' -- far worse than mere ignorance -- that alarmed me. When I read the material I saw no rational reason for picking the distance to the bogie, aside from pilot 'judgment' -- notoriously erroneous at such ranges, as seen in other aerial cases.

So, am I permitted in?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Before the mods have to knock our heads together [with some justification], how about we discuss the case?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

There is no denying Jim has a wealth of information behind him and I am all up for getting to the bottom of a mystery weather that aligns to my own beliefs on this topic or not. But, I really have to question his approach. His knowledge and stature does not grant the right to belittle people in the manner he does. There is no respect for a persons own belief, he just seems to flash the NASA badge and mocks anyone who believes there is more to the subject than what we are lead to believe. Thats just my experience so far anyway.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
Before the mods have to knock our heads together [with some justification], how about we discuss the case?


Brilliant. Remember those words, there are sure a few posts on here from previous topics where you could done with following that moral compass of yours.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Here's Robert Sheaffer's blog entry on the new developments:
badufos.blogspot.com...



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: psyshow

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: JimOberg
Does this help identify the aircraft?

www.metabunk.org...


Nice job by the metabunk guys, says a lot about the competence of Chilenian "committees of military experts, technicians and academics from many disciplines".


This. Because they aren't english speaking and not based in US or UK - why does it ruin their credibility? I'm curious with your interest in this one Jim? As you guard the upper atmosphere going's ons and have firmly reported zero activity to be of any interest, surely anything below that area wouldn't interest you (wouldn't of got past your teams net would it, you guys are on the ball up there). Surely any opinion you add is outside of NASAs interest and specialty? has this been linked to an event occurring in your neck of the woods? All very speculative, I would appreciate some insight as to why the credibility of the Chilean air force and their approach to be open about the subject should be treated in the almost mockery like way it has been though? What am I missing here?


Boy, you'll talk about ANYTHING peripheral to actually looking at the key evidence of this case, won't you?

I stepped into this discussion because of a series of delusional statements made in the Kean article about why the bogie couldn't be a satellite reentry [well within my expertise]. I never thought it was [and there were other good reasons to eliminate that candidate] but it was the level of pretended 'expertise' -- far worse than mere ignorance -- that alarmed me. When I read the material I saw no rational reason for picking the distance to the bogie, aside from pilot 'judgment' -- notoriously erroneous at such ranges, as seen in other aerial cases.

So, am I permitted in?


This video comes with official backing does it not? and from an official source does it not. What exactly is it about this case where you thought your expertise trumps any other explanation being presented currently. Not the case? Then pipe down the assertiveness you try and present your theories on. Because that's all they are right? I'm assuming you don't have any NASA documents claiming this was bungled re-entry of some unknown scheduled event in which to bedazzle us all with? That would make you on an level playing field with the other posters contributing here. It certainly doesn't give authority to push aside the that its an official video from an official source and then give nothing as to why the integrity of the source should be treated in the fashion that you have been. Your way out of district right now surely, there is no paperwork trail for you to be calling on. You weren't in the control tower and your not BBQ buddies with the pilot. So what facts do you bring us in which we should be paying attention to in this one?
edit on 8-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)



Just one more question JIm. This will help me and probably a lot of others out on here if you could please answer this. There are somethings that are still a mystery today. Some people are open to the fact that some events could be of 'alien' origin (please note 'open to the fact'). But not you though. You know for a fact nothing ever is of that nature, you openly mock those that dare think otherwise. Starting with the South America disclosure video, give me the one answer/reason that pulls the whole house of cards scenario down on the cases presented in there. This should be a fairly short (and by all means very incredibly powerful) answer that is about to enlighten us all. My mind is about to be blown. Popcorn standing by, shades are on. Melt my mind Jim.Go!
edit on 8-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
As usual with almost all UFO footage, we can only speculate what this object is and what it's doing.
Several things make this observation interesting:

The object was supposedly monitored in infrared and almost invisible to the naked eye. That is on par with many theories about UFO's being able to cloak themselves, or should we say camouflage themselves. Point is, the object apparently didn't know (a hard speculation, but hey someone's go to speculate when there's no way to ask the pilot of that craft) it was observed, probably confident in the type of camouflage it employed. So it didn't move that much and appeared to be stationary for some time. Then it began discharging a something akin to a fine mist. Again there are some reports about UFOs leaving trails (not to mention the fabled angel hair discharges).

It seems that the object was not in any hurry and performed whatever it planned to do in a timely and orderly manner - that's all we can say with a degree of certainty. But what it was doing and why - remains a mystery.
edit on 8-1-2017 by Jelonek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
Before the mods have to knock our heads together [with some justification], how about we discuss the case?


If you feel you need to check yourself please feel free. I don't believe I have wondered from the topic in the slightest.

So do you regard replying to my last post as off topic? Because you didn't address it at all.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: psyshow . Some people are open to the fact that some events could be of 'alien' origin (please note 'open to the fact'). But not you though. You know for a fact nothing ever is of that nature, you openly mock those that dare think otherwise.


I'm happy to discuss my views and insights with people with different views, but frankly I don't have time to correct everybody's delusions about stuff they re sure I must believe, but don't. You can't really want to know my views, because you obviously prefer inventing fantasies rather than read what I've written on the subject.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
Here's Robert Sheaffer's blog entry on the new developments:
badufos.blogspot.com...




A blog that spent 90% of its word ctiticizing Kean and then the remaining 10% to quote two sources that we have already discussed. So actually nothing new, just the appearance of it.

I think we can all agree it is an aircraft, I have a hard time believing anyone would deny that. It is flying in the air surely, we all agree so I don't think we should be surprised it is doing air crafty type things.

The problem I have is assuming it is commercial when no actual evidence has been given to support that and in fact the Original report has supportive evidence that it is not.

do you think that is a fair analysis or am I totally missing something here? Of course I know what I am missing, you know what I am missing, and at least a few others know what I am missing. We seem to be totally avoiding it though.

I guess that just kind of disappoints me. Here I have been thinking things were a certain way, come to find out they are different.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I'm very amazed at how little we know about this phenomenon even though it's been around us since time immemorial.

For all we know, this entire video might have a different meaning than we think it does...

Imagine:

Two aliens met aboard the mothership 5 hours ago.

Alien 1: Wazzup dude, how's it hanging?
Alien 2: Man, I'm having fun of my life here.
Alien 1: What?
Alien 2: Imagine, one day I go into these bipeds' global network to see what bs they come up with again, and hot damn! I see a video of my craft!
Alien 1: No way? Where?
Alien 2: Man, you won't believe it. They release a #ty video of my craft while I was hovering over a piece of land they call 'Chile'.
Alien 1: The one we used for painting on the ground back in the day? When your brother let himself loose with that funky new laser?
Alien 2: No man, that was something they call "Peru" now. Nazca, or something like that. Whatever. Anyway, I see my craft there, and they recorded me...you won't believe when!
Alien 1: When?
Alien 2: WHEN I WAS EMPTYING MY ONBOARD TOILET!!!
Alien 1: MWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Alien 2: No jokes, dude. No jokes. they even started making wild theories. There's that place they call ATS...
Alien 1: ATS? We had one dude from ATS....Springer, wasnt it? we abducted him like 10 times and he still couldn't lay still under the gamma quadroplexometer.
Alien 2: Yeah, that's him. Anyway, they started making stories there too....
Alien 1: dude, lets skip this ok? We've got a Bouker to catch to the nearest Avizor so we can rotate in triples.
Alien 2: Ye, lets go. I'm telling you, these humans, they're so full of...you know...

Jokes aside, sometimes we may really see very mundane things and add mystical/mysterious meaning to them. Something like your dog looking at you using a computer. Cargo cults, anyone?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: psyshow

Until an alien taps Jim on the shoulder, or a UFO lands in his yard - you should never expect anything less from him.

It's his thing.. For me - when I see the same repeated behaviour (no room in his thinking for anything other than his Earth-bound opinion) it's allowance to ignore him.




posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: psyshow . Some people are open to the fact that some events could be of 'alien' origin (please note 'open to the fact'). But not you though. You know for a fact nothing ever is of that nature, you openly mock those that dare think otherwise.


I'm happy to discuss my views and insights with people with different views, but frankly I don't have time to correct everybody's delusions about stuff they re sure I must believe, but don't. You can't really want to know my views, because you obviously prefer inventing fantasies rather than read what I've written on the subject.


It's not what you've got to say Jim, its the way in which it's said and the damning over assertive presence you deliver it with. There are countless examples of you openly mocking the that fact someone is actually comfortable with accepting we don;t have all the answers and the possibility of an 'alien' presents could indeed be an answer to some of the stranger events reported through history. I know you don;t have all the answers Jim, you can''t, no one does. Maybe you should start getting comfortable with that as well. It doesn't make you any less human. The way you act just reeks of agenda because it just seems so relentless in the way you treat others who don;t align to your own thinking. Because NASA doesn;t know (.....) means no one else doesn't know right? Because only you would have the answers to that. That is really how you come across.

Now we left our last encounter with you ringing the bell on what are still very interesting questions in my eyes. I can see your about to pull the same little trick here but, I need to know where you pulled the part about me 'Inventing fantasies' from. Please do explain.

This will be quite the anti climax if the answer you hold so close to your chest as to exactly why you know for a fact an alien scenario can never be possible and therefore speak with the boldness that you do on this subject is simply a personal view you have in which it's all just fantasy. Surely your not playing poker face with us Jim and there isn;t really anything in the hand that allows you to speak like that?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

I thought Sheaffer had given this link, it may contain the information you are looking for.
www.metabunk.org...



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: sputniksteve

I thought Sheaffer had given this link, it may contain the information you are looking for.
www.metabunk.org...




Quick side note: Is this your source as to why we should question how savvy their forces really are?

In response: Interesting theory. It's not an official response though, that still being 'unknown' hence the reason its receiving the attention that it is. A lot of use of the word 'probably' (a little below your own standards their JIm, at least you bring paperwork to the table when it counts) but more interestingly it undermines not only the competence of the crew failing to identify it as an aircraft but also the those in the radar room on the ground. Ontop of that, this theory if it were true means they have no idea what is happening in their own air space which brings up its own set of concerns by it's self. Thats quite a lot of people who failed at their jobs if true! Genuine question, whats the air accident numbers like under their air space? It's quite a series of errors to be claiming the be made. And to think they released this with such certainty that they themselves had no idea what it was.
edit on 8-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Yes it may you are correct.

I really wish this thread could be used as an example for the rest of this website. I would love for everyone to see how this has been played out here, including the closed thread. It is so much more important that it appears.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join