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: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I'll get back to the personal comments shortly, I will respond to those, don't worry about that.

For now though, lets re-examine what is being claimed in the link provided. Using the timecode on the video of 13:52:13 and the co-ordinates on screen, mark where the helicopter is on the map at that time. Now look at the video and on the map, plot what would be the field of vision shown in the camera and align that so you have the coast line how it is in the timecode mentioned. Now we lets take that and track camera rotation and coordinates of the helicopter. Now jump to timecode 13:52:34 and align the make shift field of view we established earlier.

Now run the time sequence in relation to the planefinder data so you can see where the 2 flights are being reffered to at this stage. Now cross examine that to where the camera is looking at the time code mentioned and tell me what flight number you think you are looking at 13:52:34. Then after that, at what point you think we change from looking at flight A to Flight B.

If we could obtain a flight box recording and the conversations taking place that would surely help. Might be a silly question but I assume ground control does have the helicopter on their radar so on their end, they know where it's situated?


I very much look forward to everyones findings

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




posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: psyshow
...
I very much look forward to everyones findings


Glad to see you concede the Chilean commission's findings were inadequate, to put it gently.

Progress.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

I'm saying they were right to assume it's not the 2 aircraft you are saying they are. You can prove me wrong by performing the above and tell me what aircraft that is at the timecode mentioned. I



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: psyshow
a reply to: JimOberg

I'm saying they were right to assume it's not the 2 aircraft you are saying they are. You can prove me wrong by performing the above and tell me what aircraft that is at the timecode mentioned. I


I'm not the one you're arguing with, it's Mick West -- see his evidence here:
www.metabunk.org...



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Isn't that kind of a cop out? To just say actually I don't have a dog in this fight, it's not my information I am using and linking in order to argue he is right?



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: psyshow
Now run the time sequence in relation to the planefinder data so you can see where the 2 flights are being reffered to at this stage. Now cross examine that to where the camera is looking at the time code mentioned and tell me what flight number you think you are looking at 13:52:34. Then after that, at what point you think we change from looking at flight A to Flight B.
That would be IB6830 at 13:52:34 according to Mick West. He is still doing more analysis to determine if LA 330 was involved in the helicopter recording, but if it was at all it would have been later in the recording and the time you cite is near the beginning where he seems fairly sure IB6830 is the best hypothesis.


If we could obtain a flight box recording and the conversations taking place that would surely help. Might be a silly question but I assume ground control does have the helicopter on their radar so on their end, they know where it's situated?
No it might not help. Cockpit voice recorders record something like 2 hours and then overwrite the previous recording, so if the plane crashed you always have the last two hours available. Since the plane didn't crash, then the CVR was overwritten 2 hours later.

Even if you had it you would hear one of two things and I don't see how either of these will help:
1. Either the cockpit wasn't tuned into the frequency the helicopter was using to address the "UFO" in which case they never heard the helicopter, or,
2. If the cockpit was tuned into the helicopter frequency, the plane would have no reason to respond to an inquiry that didn't use the plane's call sign, and since the helicopter didn't know the plane's call sign we can be sure they didn't use it, so the helicopter's inquiry would have been ignored by IB6830. The pilot of IB6830 wouldn't have any reason to think the helicopter was talking to them.

edit on 2017110 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I am not sure what further analysis is needed? Could you explain? Before I bring what I have created to the table, could we just get some of these questions answered please? It's been asked a few times and as of yet, there has been no real answer.

Question 1 - What event, intel, story - what ever it maybe has been the reason to why the Chilieans would either lie about this or be as incompetent as you and a few others have made out to be?

Question 2 - Has the driving force behind this particular event being nothing more than the report you and Jim are linking to?


Just for the record, as odd as this may sound to you, with regards to the topic as a whole - I actually hope they don't exist. I stand by what I said before, I do believe it has happened previously. Now don't be putting words into my mouth about me claiming this to be alien because that's not what I am getting at. 2 of the more open people in this thread have now both stated they wish the subject matter as a whole were not true. I'm not sure of the other posters reasons but I suspect they can't be far off the reasons I wish the same thing. It's ironic isn;t it when you look at which side of the fence we're on in this argument and yet probably want more than most in this thread for the topic as a whole thing to be nothing more than fantasy. Have a think about that and what that actually says.
edit on 11-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 01:34 AM
link   
You know the strange thing, the object is roughly where the official report says it was. I'm sure someone mentioned pegs and holes earlier?



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: psyshow
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I am not sure what further analysis is needed?
Mick West at metabunk modeled the flight paths in Google Earth but he recently made a post saying he wanted to model the contrails in GE.


Question 1 - What event, intel, story - what ever it maybe has been the reason to why the Chilieans would either lie about this or be as incompetent as you and a few others have made out to be?
Why is anybody incompetent? It's hard to say exactly but maybe because they don't have the knowledge, skills, education, training, and experience to be competent. I suggested to a UFO blogger on ATS that some researchers don't seem to have enough skills in human psychology and physiology to understand why so many UFO witnesses incorrectly report the size, distance or speed of a UFO. Do you want to see his reply? There may be some truth to this and if so nobody has all the requisite skills:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: mirageman
I would say that to be able to assess differing, multiple UFO reports you need to be an expert in astronomy, astro-biology, avionics, optics, meteorology, propulsion, mechanics, photography, videography, physics, chemistry, history, radiography, metallurgy, acoustics, weaponry, psychology, the art of deception and many more disciplines that I can't think of at the moment. I don't think any one person on the planet has all the qualifications necessary.
Nobody has all those skills. But people who have successfully researched UFOs like Jim Oberg can tell you that witness perceptions have often found to be flawed and researchers of human perception will agree there is nothing really surprising about this. If I was teaching a course in UFO investigation 101 the very first thing I would teach is don't take the witness statement of size, distance or speed of the UFO as fact as they could be and probably are wrong about all three. Yet that may be what the investigators at CEFAA did to miss the two planes in the direction of the UFO.

You can try to get some more reliable information by asking the witness things like "was the UFO bigger or smaller than the size of the full moon?" to get an idea of angular size but we even have problems with angular sizes since we think the moon looks bigger when it's close to the horizon so even that approach isn't completely reliable.

The past history of the CEFAA has been to tout a fly buzzing near the camera and a reflection on a car windshield as genuine UFOs so they've already made fools of themselves by not recognizing those for what they are. In this case they were presented with the IPACO report saying it was a plane and instead of accepting that explanation they rejected it apparently because they didn't think the plane explained the hot spray being ejected from the "UFO".

So was the plane actually spraying anything? Mick West doesn't think so, he thinks that trail appears and disappears due to varying moisture levels in the atmosphere that the plane is flying through and that the plane isn't spraying anything. There are other possibilities that planes have been known to do like fuel dumps but there is no reason to think either relevant flight in this case was making any fuel dumps. Those are sometimes done prior to landing if the plane has too much weight for a safe landing, to reduce the weight, which can particularly happen if the plane has to divert to an alternate airport for emergency reasons when it will have more fuel than it was supposed to have when landing at the planned destination.


Question 2 - Has the driving force behind this particular event being nothing more than the report you and Jim are linking to?
What report? Jim linked to a discussion forum called metabunk.org and as far as I can tell it's still being researched and Mick West hasn't written any formal report yet. Some other researchers at IPACO did write a formal report which they shared with the CEFAA in Chile, saying it was probably a plane. There's another blogger talking about how it's trending on facebook and how the CEFAA has previously made fools of themselves with their promoting the fly video and the windshield reflection image as genuine UFOs, and even George Noory has commented on the case so it's been getting a lot of attention, but people commenting on the case usually seem to refer to the work done so far by Mick West at metabunk.org as providing further support for the conclusion of the IPACO report that it was probably a plane.


Just for the record, as odd as this may sound to you, with regards to the topic as a whole - I actually hope they don't exist. I stand by what I said before, I do believe it has happened previously. Now don't be putting words into my mouth about me claiming this to be alien because that's not what I am getting at. 2 of the more open people in this thread have now both stated they wish the subject matter as a whole were not true. I'm not sure of the other posters reasons but I suspect they can't be far off the reasons I wish the same thing. It's ironic isn;t it when you look at which side of the fence we're on in this argument and yet probably want more than most in this thread for the topic as a whole thing to be nothing more than fantasy. Have a think about that and what that actually says.
A good researcher tries to be unbiased but I think a lot of people start researching UFOs with high expectations that to use an expression that where there's smoke, there's fire, and there's certainly a lot of smoke in the UFO field. That was sort of my attitude when I first started giving UFO reports more than a casual glance, but then I discovered a lot of charlatans in the field who will try to blow things out of proportion to sell their UFO books or whatever they are trying to promote.

The CEFAA doesn't exactly fall into that category since they aren't selling books but some have suggested they are trying to justify their existence as a UFO research organization by showing there are unknown things out there which need to be explained to make the airspace safe in Chili, and that's why they don't want to identify these things like the fly, the windshield reflection, and the plane. I honestly don't know if there's anything to that train of thought and I just write it off to incompetence.

We have the Fermi paradox where the physicist Enrico Fermi figured aliens should be everywhere by now, even if their technology limited them to sub-light-speed travel, and yet we don't see evidence of this in SETI research hence the paradox: If we should be seeing aliens everywhere why aren't we? There are people who seem to think a lot of unexplained UFOs are probably aliens but there's really no good scientific evidence to conclude that. We have to concede it's possible some UFOs have been aliens but there's no one UFO case I can point to and say "This is the one I think was probably alien". I certainly can't explain them all but I'm just saying there's usually not enough there to make me conclude that it wasn't a man-made object, or natural phenomenon, or misperception or hoax etc. This video in particular seems to show a very plane-like object with no alien-like characteristics.

edit on 2017111 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:44 AM
link   
This thread has just deteriorated (like so many others on the subject) and is still no closer in identifying what the object was. Additionally, it's one thing to say the object has the characteristics of being an aircraft, but that doesn't mean to say that it is.

I have no idea what the object is, but I would've thought that the aircrew using the camera on it would've have been able to identify an aircraft and arguments that only go half way there do not constitute proof of anything



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum




Additionally, it's one thing to say the object has the characteristics of being an aircraft, but that doesn't mean to say that it is.

Never mind the fact that the object was in precisely the same line of sight that a known aircraft was, from the point of view of the helicopter.

Sneaky UFO, tricking the helicopter crew like that.


edit on 1/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zcustosmorum




Additionally, it's one thing to say the object has the characteristics of being an aircraft, but that doesn't mean to say that it is.

Never mind the fact that the object was in precisely the same line of sight that a known aircraft was, from the point of view of the helicopter.

Sneaky UFO, tricking the helicopter crew like that.



Whats your point here?



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 03:00 AM
link   
I haven;t even posted what I think I've worked out but the back tracking and conversation diversion is telling me there are a wealth of quotes I should start pulling together in this thread. I'm almost worried I've missed something because of the weight and debate this has been handled with. Some strong words have been said.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zcustosmorum




Additionally, it's one thing to say the object has the characteristics of being an aircraft, but that doesn't mean to say that it is.

Never mind the fact that the object was in precisely the same line of sight that a known aircraft was, from the point of view of the helicopter.

Sneaky UFO, tricking the helicopter crew like that.



You disappoint Phage and my comment still stands



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
From Mick West's site:



Q: Why should we trust your theory over the experts?
A: I could argue I'm an expert too (at identifying planes and contrails), or that the CEFAA is really a UFOology group, or that even experts make mistakes. However let's drop that "Argument for authority", and look at facts you can verify yourself.

We have some very solid verifiable evidence in
1, The helicopter video with timestamps and GPS coordinates.
2. The IB6830 and LA330 ADS-B tracks with timestamps and GPS coordinates.

1 matches 2 in every way

IB6830 is in the right place at the right place
IB6830 is going in the right direction
IB6830 banks when the "UFO" banks,
IB6830 would create a visual thermal signature the same size as in the video.
IB6830 engine configuration matches the flares seen in the banking
The size of IB6830's thermal signature shrinks proportional to its distance, matching the video.

This is not my theory. These are verifiable facts that I (and others) simply discovered. Unless there was a UFO flying between the plane and the helicopter, mimicking the motion, the banking, the size and and the thermal signature of the plane, then it's a plane.

edit on 11-1-2017 by JimOberg because: punctuation



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Do airliners often eject material
at 2000 feet?



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

It's not your theory, you aren't willing to defend it, but you do claim it as the source for proving it is a commercial plane. Ok Jim I think we got it.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Right, I stated this a few pages back that I wasn't able to counter act any argument for what was posted. I spent a good few hours last night working out the best way i could break this down and put it in a format that provides better insight using the same techniques in the 1 minute debunk. This is the first time I've tried this and now knowing a methodology in which to approach some other cases, it has been a very worth while exercise.

But I am questioning this, I just need to ensure the camera is facing where I think it is. The answer is there, I can get it but I'd rather be as sure as possible with how this has been put together so what ever comes out the other end has been a worth while exercise. Once the video is done, I'll add any names to credits that have contributed and would like the recognition and I'll hand rights over to who ever wants it. . You can feel free to mock the # out of me after. Let me sink my self in style and there be something of use at the end of it. I don't want post this on youtube, if it starts being banded about, I can't be doing with any attention it brings - good or bad as the result will be fairly obvious once this done. I would have fullfilled my own seek for the truth, thats all I am after. Just be sure to do something positive with it.

Using google earth please could I ask for people's help on the following:

Time stamp; 13:52:14: (Reality check please: This is a coastline I am looking at yes?) What are the corordinates for the 2 prongs on the coast line top left of the picture?

Time stamp: 13:55:40 I need the coordinates for the three prongs on the coast line there

13:53:08: I'm hoping we can use this to define the most accurate reference to confirm the FOV. WHats the furthest right and furthest left coordinate on screen (coastline and mountain).


Now, for extra brownie points and for no other reason apart from putting the most accurate picture together as possible, can we please try provide insight for the radar sweep size on the helicopter, the radar sweep size of the 2 flights in question and the swwep size of ground radar. I'm trying think of the best way to illustrate the transponder signals on the plane. Would a ripple occuring outwards be a basic representation? How often does it transmit updates to location and how far does that signal go? If we are able to add this as well - radio range of the helicopter, control tower and the 2 flights in question.

Now, what I really want to try and do is then put this into 2.5D. This again will really help understand what is going on in camera but I'm unsure of it's working. As I watch this, I can't quite grasp how the zoom is functioning. In most instances it seems to snap to a set zoom. I want to move the video backwards and forwards over the 3D space along the final FOV gained from what is established above. I will need help with timecodes and appropriate representation of this across the 2.5D I'll generate. One last thing, I have the time code plane running in sync with the exact sequence f time frame on the video. Is this correct or is their any variiation in clock difference that needs be factored in? (Planefinder and the the timecode in the video). What I mean by this the helicopter timestamp synced to the same standard on Planefinder or is it independent and could result in + or - minus 30 seconds for example? Just trying to ensure this doesn't leave as many room for questions as possible here.

From that list, this video will be able to tick more than a few boxes off the many claims as to why this is supposed to be unknown. I am aware I could be ridiculed to hell here, but I said I was all up for getting to the bottom of a mystery - regardless of what that outcome is. Just be sure of this, once you've done hammering me for my beliefs and mocking me for potentially being silly to believe the official version of events - take it shove it down the necks of the chiliean government, run with it - have a god damn ball. I will walk away with a very usefull insight to how I can actually examine some other cases from what this has taught me.

In the meantime If you could start your reply with 'HELP' and then what ever you can provide from the list above or 'JACKASS' if you wish to leave me an insult for later. I'll shut the door on my way out and hope we get to the bottom of this one soon.


edit on 11-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Analysis breakdown - development screen grab

Just to show I'm serious, here is a screen grab of how this is looking a little 2.5D. I will also supply the raw side by side comparison this is based on.

If I ever thought I could produce something of substance in a case using what I know now - believe me I would of done it! As this is going for or against an actual governments claim, at least help ensure this is all correct by helping with the coordinates and other bits so it paints as much a complete picture as possible along the whole timeline of the video.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: psyshow

originally posted by: psyshow
But I am questioning this, I just need to ensure the camera is facing where I think it is. The answer is there, I can get it but I'd rather be as sure as possible...
Thanks for trying to focus on the facts, which is more than I can say for sputniksteve, but I think there's a problem with your approach to this, which is you are trying to use FOV and the FOV is not constant. What should be reliable is the centerline of the crosshairs however that may only be accurate with respect to heading and not elevation or projected altitude if the camera wasn't properly calibrated for that. You could try to calibrate the FOV using the information in the upper right of the video which shows the focal length. Starting at the beginning of the video here are some of the focal length values displayed:
27
135
27
135
675
135
200
115
200
135
675
135
675
200
etc, you get the idea. Every time that number changes the FOV is different.

I think all the 675s are the IR view so all those would have the same FOV, but the two time indices you asked about have different FOV/focal length. 13:52:14 has 27 focal length and at 13:55:40 the fraction of a second I think you are asking about is kind of washed out so hard to read but it looks like 9 which is off by a factor of 3 from 27. Not only is that focal length and FOV changing, but the amount of the screen displayed also changes so you have to also factor this in. At 13:55:40 it's using the entire width of the video but immediately after that you see black bands on the left and right sides so in addition to the focal length change, you also have the FOV reduced because of the narrower video display. Some of this is explained at this link including some calibration suggestions:

www.metabunk.org...-198414

Now if you just wanted to concentrate on the IR images at focal length 675 that would be a lot easier because they always seem to be 675 so you can deal with that more easily. That source says 675 focal length ends up being 1.0849 degrees FOV when you have the black bands on either side of the video which works out to 1.62735 degrees wide if you count the black bands. But you're looking at different imagery some of which is not the IR and the FOV is changing a lot.

I took a stab at trying to identify the features you asked about but I don't have much time to spend on it so I could be wrong and the features might not be unique enough nor the camera resolution high enough to confirm:


Time stamp; 13:52:14: ... What are the corordinates for the 2 prongs on the coast line top left of the picture?
They don't have exact coordinates so I'll give you the map view I used show you where I think the features might be on that view. Google maps satellite image link:
www.google.com...@-34.1599969,-71.6883093,10z/data=!3m1!1e3



Time stamp: 13:55:40 I need the coordinates for the three prongs on the coast line there

Google maps satellite image link:
www.google.com...@-33.971992,-71.8848386,21z/data=!3m1!1e3


Anyway I would suggest trying to see if IB6830 aligns with the helicopter's UFO in the video crosshairs because then you don't have to worry so much about FOV, but if you want to do something like estimate the size of the spacing between the hotspots in the 675 IR view then you need the horizontal FOV info of 1.0849/1.62735 degrees at 675 focal length. Since the IPACO report had the wrong camera model this is one of the things they would need to adjust somewhat if they modified their report for the correct camera. They used 1.3 degrees HFOV in their analysis, however changing that slightly won't affect their conclusion that it was probably a plane.

edit on 2017111 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics




 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join