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 Navy Helicopter captures UFO on video in 2014

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: psyshow

"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. "

I don't see it that way at all. By suggesting the plane was at twice the distance that the Chileanos guessed, it places it in a location where the radar experts weren't even LOOKING. They answered correctly [there wasn't anything in the region they were told to search] -- but were given the wrong question.

More impressive is the reconstruction of where the plane actually was shown to be by radar, and then placing the line-of-sight onto the FLIR image, and they match.




posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Mick West is still working out the trail issue, follow his comments at the link.

Meanwhile, here's how the aircraft and the FLIR image overlap.


edit on 8-1-2017 by JimOberg because: ;;



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: psyshow

"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. "

I don't see it that way at all. By suggesting the plane was at twice the distance that the Chileanos guessed, it places it in a location where the radar experts weren't even LOOKING. They answered correctly [there wasn't anything in the region they were told to search] -- but were given the wrong question.

More impressive is the reconstruction of where the plane actually was shown to be by radar, and then placing the line-of-sight onto the FLIR image, and they match.
Exactly. I don't question the competence of the crew flying the aircraft, they made a guess at the distance that turned out to be WRONG, and the radar operators gave a competent answer.

But for the panel who has been trying to figure this out for two years to not start with the question you asked on page 1 does show great incompetence on the part of the investigating panel, because 2 years or even 2 months should be plenty of time to think of things you didn't think of during the event.


originally posted by: psyshow
This. Because they aren't english speaking and not based in US or UK - why does it ruin their credibility?
Because they failed to explore this question which if they were competent investigators should have been thought of very early on in the investigation. It's well known nobody can estimate the distance to a UFO accurately, by any competent investogator.


originally posted by: JimOberg
How exactly was the range estimated? Guessing?
It was pretty obvious to me it was guessing because nobody had it on radar and it's not possible to accurately estimate the distance to a UFO. They should be embarrassed for not thinking of this but maybe the mistake is placing too much trust in a witness statement as being a fact when obviously the estimated distance wasn't a fact.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve
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.
It might be better to focus on facts than conspiracy theories but since ATS is a conspiracy theory site of course you're welcome to do the latter, it's just that you seem to be overlooking the former in doing so.
edit on 201719 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
The thing that bothers me about the original article is that there's apparently no published study by the CEFAA to back up the story. Most articles announcing a study contain a summary, but also publish a link where it can be read. Readers aren't forced to rely on the author's interpretation of what the study concludes, and the scientifically minded can evaluate the methodology. We're not allowed to do that here.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
WOW!!!

That is so interesting good find mate!



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: sputniksteve
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.
It might be better to focus on facts than conspiracy theories but since ATS is a conspiracy theory site of course you're welcome to do the latter, it's just that you seem to be overlooking the former in doing so.


What facts am I discounting? The maybe's and probably's that only answer half the questions if that? I didn't realize anything in either report was being stated or supported as "fact" now. The original report left it as "Unknown", where as the others are labeling it as "commercial".

Just in case I haven't been clear, I don't think it was Alien, I don't think it was from outerspace. I do think it was an aircraft, I just don't think it was a commercial jet that was mistaken for an UFO.

The blog Jim posted wasn't so much as a factual report as a smear piece, that regurgitated others work. The French report only covers half the things necessary to make it complete. I am open to all possibilities, I am just hoping for open and honest look from everyone before we call it case closed. I know that is asking a whole lot though. Much easier to draw lines on a picture and call it a commercial aircraft while ignoring other matters.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: sputniksteve
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.
It might be better to focus on facts than conspiracy theories but since ATS is a conspiracy theory site of course you're welcome to do the latter, it's just that you seem to be overlooking the former in doing so.


Which facts do you refer to here? The report linked by Jim has words like probably - but not facts. Shouldn't the plane theory be fairly easy to disprove anyway? It's a fairly clear sky, the camera uses the zoom function several times and changes filter, was visible to their naked eye, observed for a good 10 minutes, failed to appear on both ground and the helicopter radar, the failed radio communication with the object in question and lack of reports of any other aircraft requesting to land around the time of the event, no reports from other radar comms and control centers with evidence to show this was in their air space at one point and handed over to the airspace in question at XX time, the release of some kind of unknown substance despite no clearance given via control permitting any aircraft to do this
and then on top of that, beyond those who were involved both air and ground that day - it was then analyzed by many others with their own field of expertise who concluded it was not an aircraft and was of unknown.

I'm also failing to see what the size of the object has to do with anything either. There are midgets who are the size of children, that is a fact and probably more relevant.

EDIT: Also did anyone eventually debunk previous material they have released?



The problem here is they are quite open and put their hands up to not knowing what it is where the US is just flat out denial and will happily put the round peg in the square hole and tell everyone that is where it supposed to be. History has shown that they seem a lot less devious and cunning than the US. You all have to forgive my caution when a small handful who are known to ridicule the subject in general come across a case like this and starting sprinkling their own kind of self claimed facts and reasoning. Godforbid another country discloses anything, thats gonna make jim and his boys look pretty bad isn't it? regardless if its down to national secret terms or because someone fell asleep on watch. If it doesn't come from them first, that'll be quite a slap in jim's face. I'm starting to see why he holds this so close to his heart.
edit on 9-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Last note: How busy is their air space? From the credibility you give these guys - we are either due for an avalanche of these videos where they have failed to identify planes on a daily basis coming across their space - or, we have just witnessed an historical moment in which potentially only the 3rd or 4th aircraft ever has crossed their air space in living history - its a freak event and as they only use a helicopter in which to fly around and look at the clouds at (can;t imagine what else they must be doing) and this thing wasn't a helicopter but in fact a plane, this is where the unknown part is coming from? Doesn't fit helicopter description, must be unknown? Is that more inline with how we should be looking at this?
edit on 9-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve
What facts am I discounting?
The facts are that the flight paths, altitudes and speeds of both IB6830 and LA330 are known and recorded. The hypothesis by Mick West on metabunk is that since the "UFO" is in exactly the same direction as first IB6830 and then LA330 that he hasn't found any reason yet to dismiss that those aircraft are what was recorded in the UFO video. You've certainly provided no evidence to contradict the hypothesis, all you said is you don't think it was a commercial plane, well it probably wasn't, but it could have been two of them which by the way had two different IR signatures because one has 4 engines and the other has 2 engines and the UFO IR signatures also first match a 4 engine configuration and then a 2 engine configuration as shown on the metabunk link.

How can you not think these are a match when they match so well?

www.metabunk.org...



originally posted by: JimOberg
Mick West is still working out the trail issue, follow his comments at the link.

Meanwhile, here's how the aircraft and the FLIR image overlap.




originally posted by: psyshow
Which facts do you refer to here? The report linked by Jim has words like probably - but not facts.
That two planes were in the exact direction and relative position as the "UFO" are facts. That they are what shows up in the UFO recording is a hypothesis but as far as I can tell a pretty darn good one.


Shouldn't the plane theory be fairly easy to disprove anyway? It's a fairly clear sky, the camera uses the zoom function several times and changes filter, was visible to their naked eye, observed for a good 10 minutes, failed to appear on both ground and the helicopter radar, the failed radio communication with the object in question and lack of reports of any other aircraft requesting to land around the time of the event, no reports from other radar comms and control centers with evidence to show this was in their air space at one point and handed over to the airspace in question at XX time, the release of some kind of unknown substance despite no clearance given via control permitting any aircraft to do this
and then on top of that, beyond those who were involved both air and ground that day - it was then analyzed by many others with their own field of expertise who concluded it was not an aircraft and was of unknown.
None of this is true. The planes had transponders which is where their flight path recordings originate and were both presumably communicating normally with air traffic controllers in normal air traffic communications. The helicopter pilots made common errors in estimates of distance, speed, and altitude of the UFO which a competent investigator would know is a common type of error and would allow for some significant variation from such estimates as metabunk did, and I can only presume the so-called "experts" did not allow for this error which is why they concluded there were no aircraft at the estimated location (which is partly true, the problem is that the estimated location wasn't the actual location because the estimates were off).

The so-called "experts" seem rather incompetent if they can't piece this together, but since it's all been laid out for you and you still don't get it I can only presume either you didn't read all the analysis by metabunk, or if you did then you just don't get it. Your comments are not demonstrating that you're read and understood the analysis on metabunk.

edit on 201719 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: psyshow
...and then on top of that, beyond those who were involved both air and ground that day - it was then analyzed by many others with their own field of expertise who concluded it was not an aircraft and was of unknown.

Yes it was analyzed also by us (the IPACO team) and we concluded at the time that it was a plane but the CEFAA and the Huffington post dismissed our conclusion.

Also, about the camera model, some noticed that there was a difference in the camera model as quoted in the Huffington post paper (A Wescam MX-15) and the camera model we used as a basis for our computations about the altitude and the distance of the airplane (a Euroflir 350-3).

To clear up things, it must be known that in spite of several demands to the CEFAA back in 2015, zero information on the camera used was released to the IPACO team.

We then assumed that it was a Euroflir 350-3 since this camera model used to be generally installed by Eurocopter onboard this type of helicopter. We also note that the Huffington post and the CEFAA never informed us of the camera model before the public release of the CEFAA conclusions, in spite of the goodwill basis of the CEFAA first request.

Nonetheless, the camera have rather similar characteristics and the conclusion of our report should not differ significantly when rewritten using the right camera model.

Then, the IPACO team decided to wait until the official CEFAA report is available before deciding to make any further effort on this typical IFO case....

On a more personal note, I found it rather strange (I really don't want to put a stronger word here) to publish a conclusion using our work without firstly even noticed the camera difference (may I wonder if they really read our analysis?) and secondly completely ignore our conclusion (the most logical conclusion, i-e a plane) that everyone agree with, but nonetheless still use our work as a justification for their own conclusion.

The last updated report can be read here.

It takes into account the aforementioned notes as well as a possible angular shift θ as the indicator may be based on the aircraft's horizon and not the actual horizon. If the helicopter had a slight up angle of a few degrees, the elevation indicator would read 0 when the actual elevation angle would be a few degrees above the horizon (thanks to Tim Printy).



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I think you can see where I am getting hung up about all this. The weight Jim carries is 'the official version of events' for NASA and has the background and documents to support it. That what was said and therefore we should believe and I fully acknowledge that which is why I am very careful with what I say when using words like facts to disprove any argument on the table. Whilst I have been a member for a while, it is only recently I have started posting and no doubt my approach to this subject matter would so far seem a little obscure and irate. I will state that I have not seen a UFO my self or had any experience related. My interest is in wake of the many people who have claimed to have had experiences along with the many other credible witnesses. To debate all of those incidents is another thing altogether and the thread is not about there being the definitive answer to are we experiencing events involving undisclosed life forms. But let's just get this next bit out of the way. Do I believe we are being visited by what some claim? Yes, you can take note of that and continue to throw that in my face. My motivation for being here is therefore obvious, I am oen to their existance, something of potential interest is reported such as this event and I come to check it out. Far to often do I see that used as a weapon to derail threads. You believe and there fore you think this is aliens. No one said that, yet that blank to the question we arrived here with is filled in for us by mocking the fact we are open to the possibility. I don;t know for a fact if they do or do not exist and when asking that as a definitive answer to the topic as a whole, you would have to be pretty egotistic to state for a fact that it's not true. There are to many events reported from present day back into history. Not one person can have witnessed it all and therefore can not make such bold claims they know for a fact aliens don't exist - which is pretty much what they are doing when they openly mock people who are open to such a thing. That bugs the # out of me. What adds to my air of caution is motivation. Mine is obvious, curiosity to an event reported and finding out if it's another piece of the picture I aim forming. When I see Jim taking the approach that I do and knowing he comes from NASA and has openly stated he doesn't believe, I have to ask my self, what's his motivation? If he was kind enough to offer insights on space related cases where he knows for a fact about information around certain events, I could kind of understand that better. But he goes well beyond that and his own area of expertise and openly mocks people and takes the time to mock people on youtube about their beliefs or the fact they are open to it the subject matter. I would of thought having with the intel he holds behind him, that kind of behaviour would be below him and he genuinely would have better things to do - but no, he gives the topic a very special kind of attention and more often than not screams the word alien before anyone else - all be it for different reasons. I haven't seen him give that kind of attention and ridicule to any religious topics and I can't find any news stories of him standing outside mosques or churches spreading the kind of love he does for this topic. Maybe thats not the done thing though, to disrespect one's belief like that.....

Now there is a lot of knowledge and understanding needed at times around events such as these, I will openly admit I don;t have knowledge to counter act the claim you are making here. What certainly should make this easier is there were only 2 other aircraft in the area, this is agreed by all parties yes? Would the plane be out of range on both ground radar and the helicopter radar at that point for the whole 10 minute duration based on the flight speed of the one you are relating the incident too? If this is the plane you think it is, would they be out of radio contact of both the helicopter crew and ground control from the different points that places them from the plane? Is a final destination from the flight you think this is available anywhere where a path can be traced both before and after the radio silence claim in that air space with easy varification from other centers to confirm this? Is the flight in question of regular nature and can be shown to have occurred every week/ month or something? Is there no other report from other control center's that can easily counteract their claim that they handed this object out of their air space at XX time? As it's stated the helicopter crew were on a routine flight, is there no way that could be proven this event as you see it happens all the time (in terms of paths crossing and objects in that area because of routine schedules etc). You mentioned they disregarded certain facts - what is their response to the claim this is actually flight XXXXX?

I don;t mean those questions to be harsh sounding, I'm trying to understand why this has to be that flight in question and by understanding some of the above, that would certainly help in understanding your thinking on this.

My last question is more of your personal opinion rather than a request for evidence - what would there motivation be to release this under the heading it has? If this can be proved as easily as you think it is, for them to put a statement out saying it isn't an aircraft and that this has been agreed with those involved on the day and their own experts - I'm not seeing what they get out of this? It will only make them look like fools, not just the pilot but the whole establishment?
edit on 10-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: psyshow
...When I see Jim taking the approach that I do and knowing he comes from NASA and has openly stated he doesn't believe...


You haven't even tried to understand my view. so it's time for a one-on-one remedial tutorial. I have no reason to believe we are NOT being observed and even visited, by entities with awesome capabilities, including full non-detectability. What I have come to believe is that evidence being presented that we are being visited, suggestive as it often is, is inadequate to prove it. And won't ever be, unless standards are tightened.

That there ARE 'interesting' and significant events being reported as UFOs, I also do not dispute, and i've identified many of them in my own area of specialization. Military intelligence agencies had excellent reasons to pay close attention to UFO reports AND keep that interest as secret as possible, as I've explained elsewhere -- all with no need for 'real' alien spacecraft since local enemy space vehicles were far more important to understand.

Also, it's naive and somewhat insulting to imply that I'm in the field to represent NASA 'official' views, especially since I am one of the few genuine whistleblowers you're ever likely to meet, having walked out of my NASA job after testifying before Congress about the renewed decay in its safety and ethical culture, then being officially labeled 'whacko' by NASA HQ [want the link?], and then being helpless to warn about the real potential they were creating for a second shuttle disaster. This personal experience, and the scars it has left, may explain my animus regarding strutting make-believe 'space whistleblowers' who are frequently quoted as trustworthy experts on these pages.

If you paid more attention to verifiable evidence instead of fantastical speculations on hidden motives, you could have a better chance of clearing your way through the garble jungle to a better understanding of this awesome cultural phenomenon.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: psyshow
...When I see Jim taking the approach that I do and knowing he comes from NASA and has openly stated he doesn't believe...


You haven't even tried to understand my view. so it's time for a one-on-one remedial tutorial. I have no reason to believe we are NOT being observed and even visited, by entities with awesome capabilities, including full non-detectability. What I have come to believe is that evidence being presented that we are being visited, suggestive as it often is, is inadequate to prove it. And won't ever be, unless standards are tightened.

That there ARE 'interesting' and significant events being reported as UFOs, I also do not dispute, and i've identified many of them in my own area of specialization. Military intelligence agencies had excellent reasons to pay close attention to UFO reports AND keep that interest as secret as possible, as I've explained elsewhere -- all with no need for 'real' alien spacecraft since local enemy space vehicles were far more important to understand.

Also, it's naive and somewhat insulting to imply that I'm in the field to represent NASA 'official' views, especially since I am one of the few genuine whistleblowers you're ever likely to meet, having walked out of my NASA job after testifying before Congress about the renewed decay in its safety and ethical culture, then being officially labeled 'whacko' by NASA HQ [want the link?], and then being helpless to warn about the real potential they were creating for a second shuttle disaster. This personal experience, and the scars it has left, may explain my animus regarding strutting make-believe 'space whistleblowers' who are frequently quoted as trustworthy experts on these pages.

If you paid more attention to verifiable evidence instead of fantastical speculations on hidden motives, you could have a better chance of clearing your way through the garble jungle to a better understanding of this awesome cultural phenomenon.


No, Jim, that does not justify the way you treat people at all.


I was going to edit my post for clarification but as you've responded I'll correct what I was trying to ask. I wrote the reference to radar as them being off radar, this was my error, my question was supposed to be around if the duration of the flight would have resulted in the being off radar at any point for the 10 minutes (either entering or leaving the air space). Whats the difference in coverage length between the radar on board and ground radar?



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: psyshow
I was going to edit my post for clarification but as you've responded I'll correct what I was trying to ask. I wrote the reference to radar as them being off radar, this was my error, my question was supposed to be around if the duration of the flight would have resulted in the being off radar at any point for the 10 minutes (either entering or leaving the air space). Whats the difference in coverage length between the radar on board and ground radar?
Modern air traffic control relies largely on transponders. If you read the metabunk link you can see that there was a short period after takeoff where the plane was still relatively low and turning that the transponder signal was apparently not received and this can happen if it's being blocked by terrain like a mountain or hilltop between the plane and the tracking station. As the plane continued to turn and climb however the transponder signal returned and I'm not aware of it ever being lost again during the relevant part of the flight. That gap would have nothing to do with ground controllers saying they didn't have the flight on radar, they were probably just looking in the wrong place because the helicopter pilot's distance estimate was off.

So the transponder records are not 100% complete but pretty close and there's likely some terrain explaining the small missing parts.

The aircraft were likely further away than the helicopter crew realized and out of range for the helicopter's radar.


originally posted by: psyshow
You believe and there fore you think this is aliens. No one said that, yet that blank to the question we arrived here with is filled in for us by mocking the fact we are open to the possibility.
Keeping an open mind means being open to the possibility that it's NOT aliens, also. Since we know for a fact there are thousands of manmade objects in the skies that makes them more likely explanations than an alien craft which has never been reliably documented. Yes an alien craft is a possibility too but all else being equal it's not an equally weighted possibility for the aforementioned reason.


What certainly should make this easier is there were only 2 other aircraft in the area, this is agreed by all parties yes?
Mick West identified 2 aircraft that might account for the "UFO" video. That doesn't mean those were the only two planes in the area. Look at the flightradar24 link below to see how much traffic is in the area.


Would the plane be out of range on both ground radar and the helicopter radar at that point for the whole 10 minute duration based on the flight speed of the one you are relating the incident too? If this is the plane you think it is, would they be out of radio contact of both the helicopter crew and ground control from the different points that places them from the plane?
Mick West doesn't think it was "a plane", you still haven't read his explanation, have you? He thinks it was first IB6830 and then LA330 and except for the small gap Mick mentioned shortly after takeoff the transponders from the planes were tracked continuously, and there's absolutely no reason to believe they were ever out of radio contact with the ground excepting possibly some terrain issues for a brief time shortly after takeoff. They weren't in contact with the helicopter but why should they be? They are supposed to communicate with the ground controllers and may not have even heard the helicopter but even if they did, how would they know the helicopter was talking to them specifically? See the IPACO report quote below.


Is a final destination from the flight you think this is available anywhere where a path can be traced both before and after the radio silence claim in that air space with easy varification from other centers to confirm this? Is the flight in question of regular nature and can be shown to have occurred every week/ month or something? Is there no other report from other control center's that can easily counteract their claim that they handed this object out of their air space at XX time? As it's stated the helicopter crew were on a routine flight, is there no way that could be proven this event as you see it happens all the time (in terms of paths crossing and objects in that area because of routine schedules etc). You mentioned they disregarded certain facts - what is their response to the claim this is actually flight XXXXX?

I don;t mean those questions to be harsh sounding...
They sound more ignorant than harsh. I haven't seen any response from CEFAA about the UFO being explained by flight numbers IB6830 and LA330. You can see those and other flight numbers live as they happen though some amazing technology. Just go to this link and hover your mouse over any plane icon to see the flight number:

www.flightradar24.com...


what would there motivation be to release this under the heading it has? If this can be proved as easily as you think it is, for them to put a statement out saying it isn't an aircraft and that this has been agreed with those involved on the day and their own experts - I'm not seeing what they get out of this? It will only make them look like fools, not just the pilot but the whole establishment?

I've already speculated as to why there might be a mixup but I don't know if that's the reason. If they assumed that the pilot's estimate of the distance was correct, and it wasn't correct, then they would say there was no plane at that estimated distance. Why didn't they consider planes that were further away? Just guessing again, maybe incompetence? There wasn't any loss of communication either. The IPACO report posted above by elevenaugust states the likely reasons why the planes didn't respond to the helicopter:


Therefore, the pending questions are no longer about the nature of the object, but why it could not be detected by the primary radar, and why no radio connection could be established with it.

Concerning detection, could it be that Air traffic ground controllers were looking too close to the helicopter for a radar return, discounting that of the airliner as being too far away to the North?

Concerning radio communication, could it be that the jet was not monitoring the frequencies or did not think it was them being interrogated (“Can’t be for us, we are too far North”)?
Those seem like likely reasons to me. I guess we won't know what CEFAA's response is until they make one, but apparently they ignored the conclusions of that IPACO report saying it was a plane.

edit on 2017110 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
George Noory opts for the airplane explanation:
www.coasttocoastam.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

So George agrees with every other human involved that it is an aircraft? That's a relief. Can you please link any comments or posts claiming this isn't an aircraft? Just for my curiosity.

Was the point of that to say, "look this other guy that likes conspiracy theories thinks it is a plane so you should all drop this"?



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

I am glad you are a regular guy with a regular opinion. You are one of us, your opinion holds as much weight as anyone else on this forum. I am glad you share your opinion regardless of what it is, and have no desire to stop you regardless of what it is.

What, in your opinion is the evidence that is verifiable that we should be paying attention to instead?



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: sputniksteve
What facts am I discounting?
The facts are that the flight paths, altitudes and speeds of both IB6830 and LA330 are known and recorded. The hypothesis by Mick West on metabunk is that since the "UFO" is in exactly the same direction as first IB6830 and then LA330 that he hasn't found any reason yet to dismiss that those aircraft are what was recorded in the UFO video. You've certainly provided no evidence to contradict the hypothesis, all you said is you don't think it was a commercial plane, well it probably wasn't, but it could have been two of them which by the way had two different IR signatures because one has 4 engines and the other has 2 engines and the UFO IR signatures also first match a 4 engine configuration and then a 2 engine configuration as shown on the metabunk link.

How can you not think these are a match when they match so well?



Emphasis is mine. It appears you agree it probably wasn't a commercial plane, but then ask how I can not think it is a commercial plane because it matches so well? I am not even sure how to respond to that. Maybe I am misunderstanding and you can clarify.

There is no way I can possibly prove it was not a commercial plane, or that it was top secret aircraft, Impossible. Beyond the physical and rational limitations I don't have the skill set.

I am not a professional in any sense of the word in any of the fields needed to look at the evidence of this case. I have never claimed to be or attempted such. I can only look at what is presented to me and decide for myself what I think of those presentations.

I am 100% open to the possibility that it was just a run of the mill commercial plane that was mistaken and subsequently overlooked during the OP report due to mass negligence and ignorance; we all know what I think it is, and I am open although heavily leaning against it being an Alien flown out of this world craft, we can put that in the category of it could be "anything".

I see no harm or dishonesty or lack of pride in claiming you don't know what it is for certain, and from what I understand of what has been presented to me from both sides there is a failure to account for all of the anomalies or rather a perfect storm of incompetence in just agreeing with the misidentified commercial craft.

Honestly though this entire thread past my first post has been mental masturbation for me. I have made everything I think pretty clear and the reasons for it, so I will save you all from repeating any of it further than I have already in this post. I just wanted to make some replies because the truth is the reason I keep coming back to look isn't to be proven right, but the in the hopes of being proven wrong. In my admittedly unlearned, unrefined, and sometimes naive opinion the criteria has not been met to serve as proof yet.

I am not trying to bow out or provide myself with some kind of excuse, I am only saying this because I don't see anyone involved in this discussion as an adversary or in a negative position. I know I tend to overlook things, and rush to judgement either way. For everyone involved and especially Jim I apologize for coming off as condescending or like an asshole. Sometimes it is my objective but not always, and I understand that sometimes I look like one even when I am not trying. When I tend to spend entire work shift size chunks of time online I start getting desensitized to the people I am talking with and stop seeing them as people in a discussion and instead just see them as avatars on a screen. So for that I am sorry, and I appreciate all of the effort you guys have all put in up to this point.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve
Emphasis is mine. It appears you agree it probably wasn't a commercial plane, but then ask how I can not think it is a commercial plane because it matches so well? I am not even sure how to respond to that. Maybe I am misunderstanding and you can clarify.
This is the second time I'm re-posting the graphic Jim Oberg posted earlier. It shows two planes in the same area as the UFO in the helicopter video. So the clarification is that Mick West is still trying to figure out the role of these two planes in the UFO video since both are in the right location relative to the helicopter to possibly be the UFO. An update on metabunk says he's trying to do a more detailed analysis now to see if both planes were involved or just one of them. If both planes are involved, it's not "a plane" but "two planes", right? Earlier he was thinking the video first showed one plane and then the other but his more detailed analysis will hopefully clarify if both planes are involved or just one of them.


originally posted by: JimOberg
Mick West is still working out the trail issue, follow his comments at the link.

Meanwhile, here's how the aircraft and the FLIR image overlap.



edit on 2017110 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join