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: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

How is that fair? I am not allowed to participate unless I can draw lines on pictures or make cool gifs? Can I just make every post a link to someone elses blog?




posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: Arbitrageur

How is that fair? I am not allowed to participate unless I can draw lines on pictures or make cool gifs? Can I just make every post a link to someone elses blog?
I didn't suggest you shouldn't participate. I did suggest you try to focus on the facts and you still seem more interested in hurling irrelevant pot-shots at Jim Oberg than in focusing on the facts. It's not clear to me you even comprehend the meaning of this post by Jim from your reply:


originally posted by: JimOberg
From Mick West's site:

"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."
So Mick is also saying these are the verifiable facts (the flight path of IB6830 etc), check them out yourself if you want to. That IB6830 flight path is nobody's theory, it's recorded fact.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

OK Arbitrageur. The reason you can't fathom my actions, is the same reason you singled me out.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I welcome anyones help here, I can't see any reason for this not to end up at a conclusion that everyone agrees with.

You are absolutely right with the FOV distance and the factors this will have. What I would like to do first is confirm center view of the video through the timeline in relation to the planefinder map. I'll animate the helicopters location point accordingly and rotate the line to the degrees reflected in the helicopter data on the video.

We can than get the locked down as agreed by all parties and then shift to how the FOV effects the relation of whats on screen versus area covered on map by adjusting the width of the pie slice representation as needed.

Thank you for posting the reference point on Mikes post, this has also added to my confusion looking for a reference point in which confirm a center line with. I have attached 2 potential points of references but I am not smart enough to work out what this amounts to on either one. Looking at Mikes mine may both be wrong. I do know the current point for where the helicopter is very much where is should according to coordinates (wait for the first run before commenting on that that as is currently is the screen grab - I will re-check all of that again prior to first run. it's really just how far up the coast am I seeing in that video?

Potential Location A

Potential location B


I promise if someone is not happy with any of the results produced when we have the basics locked down, I will re-run this using any direction they would prefer based on their own thoughts to try and ensure all voices are heard and all elements are factored in. If we could confirm location A or B, I'll get started using whats agreed and come back with how that runs and establishes the center line. You can take it apart, challenge etc and I will alter to ensure it is reflective of events as everyone sees it. once we have that, we should be able to work out a more precise FOV of the video and what should be in view according to planefinder timeline.

Once we have the top down 2D locked down in a format that everyone is happy with, I will do what i can to polish it up into more of what the original screen grab looked like and ensure that what ever is done with it, it appears as credible and well thought out as can be.


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



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Double post, not sure how - apologies!
edit on 11-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: psyshow

Psyshow I wish I could help you, I appreciate the work you are putting in. I know I am not being helpful and can't help myself so I will just follow along and wait for a mutual conclusion. Keep it up, however it turns out.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

Hey Steve, I've openly exposed my self for a all sorts of personal attacks on here and given ample room for people to character assassinate me. I think we've both seen and witnessed what happens when you openly admit that maybe we don;t have all the answers and from the digging around you've done your self, are open to the possibility rather than the impossibility. If anything, I was more concerned that because you were curious to the same questions I had with this, any outcome makes you less willing to voice your own thoughts rather than risk ridicule. I think I arrived at a place where it was a case of lets just get the elephant out of the room.

This is of course 1 of many cases and knowing now whats an acceptable standard in which to actually investigate some of these, then do let me know any that have interested you and lets see what we can turn up after seeing this one through. I have actually enjoyed trying to figure a method out, I walk away with knowledge which given my interest in the subject matter as a whole, will be very handy to now have. You've spoken openly, I think you just want answers to. I don;t think it's wrong to question and the topic nature in general more often than not ensures it gets a little heated.

There has to be a balance,as much as his approach frsutrates me sometimes, I do respect Jims information. There are to many hoaxers in this field and contribution from all angles helps balance up a debate happening. It's a real yin yang situation. .
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 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: psyshow
I welcome anyones help here, I can't see any reason for this not to end up at a conclusion that everyone agrees with.

You are absolutely right with the FOV distance and the factors this will have. What I would like to do first is confirm center view of the video through the timeline in relation to the planefinder map. I'll animate the helicopters location point accordingly and rotate the line to the degrees reflected in the helicopter data on the video.
That's the key right there. The helicopter's location is not guesswork, it's clearly displayed. Also the orientation of the camera is not guesswork, it's clearly displayed, at least the heading part (as I said before there are concerns that the elevation alignment may not be calibrated and there are also curvature of the earth issues at these distances with that part of the display, in trying to determine the target altitude).


Looking at Mikes mine may both be wrong.
Do you mean Mick's? Yours may both be wrong, and mine may both be wrong too because to some extent I think this is guesswork given the small sections of coastline and low resolution of the camera and the generally fractal nature of coastlines. I think the way to take the guesswork out of it is this:

1. Proceed with your "animate the helicopters location point accordingly and rotate the line to the degrees reflected in the helicopter data on the video" approach which will identify the centerline of the "pie slice" representing the FOV you are trying to show.
2. Use the focal length to calculate the FOV, and draw the "pie-slice" based on that calculation, so when the focal length is 675 your "pie-slice" should be 1.0849 degrees wide inside the black bands. Since a complete circle is 360 degrees that's just a little more than 1/360 of a circle centered on the camera's directional indicator.
3. When your focal length isn't 675 you need to convert the FOV accordingly. See this for how the math works on converting the focal length to field of view: www.edmundoptics.com...

That will give you your "pie slice", though it's tedious to do that every time the focal length changes which it does a lot, but at least it takes out the guesswork because it's all math applied to the raw data and no guessing at similar looking features on a fractal coastline. Whatever ends up inside the pie slice should potentially be visible. However, due to the low resolution of the camera's image and other issues, the details of the more distant coastline probably don't register very well on the camera.

Of course an even simpler approach would be to concentrate on the centerline of the camera's view. If the target is aligned with the center crosshairs do you really even need the FOV or "pie slice" drawn?

edit on 2017111 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: psyshow
Time stamp; 13:52:14: ... What are the corordinates for the 2 prongs on the coast line top left of the picture?
I told you I wasn't sure about my earlier guesses. Using an aerial view in Google Earth I was able to eliminate my doubts by getting a view much more like what the helicopter saw; I had the first guess right and the second guess wrong and I think yours were pretty far off. I have some landmarks and coordinates for them this time and it turns out we do need to verify the coastline because it looks like the direction of the camera is NOT calibrated properly, which Mick West figured out and I wrongly thought it was calibrated.

La Boca coordinates: 33°56′17.97″S 71°50′57.19″W


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


Bobadillo coordinates: 33°50′26.94″S 71°48′48.84″W



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Everybody involved in the current analysis -- good work, press on. It's a reminder to all of us that after WE record something weird we re-calibrate metadata in the camera/phone/whatever, especially time hacks and GPS, to see what [if any] adjustments need to be made to the metadata in recordings we just made. It's the modern equivalent of going back to a witness site in daylight, for example, and photographing the horizon and determining actual compass points. Sadly that's almost never done.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
And if the Chilean commission never thought to do it, it's another indicator of their superficial and sloppy techniques.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Jim, Arbitrageur, Steve - I thank you all responding to this in the way you all are. Does everyone agree that from the basics of the approach to this thus far seem of sound logic and will indeed help one way or another if it's the 2 planes?

In terms of how I am animating the helicopter location point, this is done in google earth , screen grabbed, overlaid on the flight planner and then pieced together over the duration of timeline to form location in relation to video. As you can tell from the coordinates moving, in the manner I need to produce this with, it's a god damn key frame nightmare as I'll need to do this manually. From the experiments I did initially - with the questionable results as to true FOV right now, it should be pretty clear how near to the aircraft we are at that point. If this becomes a very close call, I will of course manually add more keyframes at points on the time.

You guys mentioned the calibration issue. I have attached a link to one more screen grab below to help illustrate what i am about to ask. If I have understood this correctly, I may have a solution. The initial flight path of the helicopter being based on coordinates on screen, then offsetting the anchor point for the path animation it will follow by the mount of pixels needed to account for how ever far off the calibiration is. In the link below, the red path represents the flight path that would be taken along the course of the animation being created. The FOC on the right would be how it is on the video, the red dot on the FOV shown on the left is an example of an anchor point adjustment. It follows the same characterstics and motion of the original plot but off set away from the original location. Would that help in trying to account for this? I of course will need to be toold about how much we need to off set it if this is a work around to that issue.

You will notice that the screen shows a well out of whack location, I have done this on purpose so it's absolutely useless to anyone at the moment. I said yesterday I didn't want my name on this after, I could about to unintentionally produce something that may upset the Chiliean government or it's people. This UFO story is everywhere now and as you can see in the express this morning (UK), the theory I put this theory up against has already started to circulate and Micks name is right on that. I'm not comfortable with this video potentially having the same impact and my name on it and this was what I was trying to say in posts late yesterday about someone doing something with it after. The fact you have not come and shot the approach down Jim concerns me that we are about to get a pretty good result out of this that will show a complete picture that will leave very little question as to what happens where and when. I'm not sure where the express got hold of his theory but this is why I want to be carefull about what I will be sharing from this point forward. What I would like to request is that for anyone who is interested in the how this comes together and wants input, you leave your user name below. I think it's obvious that this hasn;t been a horse and pony show, it will be approached with the result to be nothing more than the truth we all seek. To ensure this is isn;t drained in voices, I would prefer we for now we keep this open to only those who have participated in thread currently. I will create the first run to a private location for everyone to start taking apart and PM the password needed when ready (Give me a few days at least). The condition has to be none of it appears on youtube or any other public forum or medium online until A) it's reached a result everyone is happy with and B) someone is comfortable with championing the outcome and can upload to a public account they are happy to associate them selves with. I will come back for the insults, I'm not bailing on that, lets just the answer first.

Let me know if any of the above clearly wont produce the result needed based on whats been said, or if it does, leave your name in which to continue an offline development for a final result to be shared with all after.

Edit: anchor point example link might help! LINK: [IMG" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">i1227.photobucket.com... %20adjustment.jpg[/IMG]]Calibration offset proposal method
edit on 12-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
And if the Chilean commission never thought to do it, it's another indicator of their superficial and sloppy techniques.
To be honest I haven't seen if they compensated for that or not but if they didn't that was probably part of the problem. Also it's surprising that the calibration is so far off because the poster in Mick's thread who works with these cameras said they usually aren't exact but usually not that far off. But there are other indicators supporting the idea the camera operators may have been experienced pilots but inexperienced with the camera, the "N" indicator never moves and the target indicator isn't supposed to be stuck at -489 feet like that.


originally posted by: psyshow
it's a god damn key frame nightmare as I'll need to do this manually. From the experiments I did initially - with the questionable results as to true FOV right now, it should be pretty clear how near to the aircraft we are at that point. If this becomes a very close call, I will of course manually add more keyframes at points on the time.
What Mick West did was to import the flight path of IB6830 into Google Earth so that all calculations are done automatically. I'm no expert with Google Earth. While I've downloaded the same IB6830 data he used, I haven't yet figured out how to import it into Google Earth. I can still display the data directly from planefinder's website, it's just not in Google Earth yet. Mick pointed out that a lot of manual calculations can be difficult and Google Earth tends to do the automatic calculations with less errors than we would get manually, and he's probably right.


You guys mentioned the calibration issue. I have attached a link to one more screen grab below to help illustrate what i am about to ask. If I have understood this correctly, I may have a solution. The initial flight path of the helicopter being based on coordinates on screen, then offsetting the anchor point for the path animation it will follow by the mount of pixels needed to account for how ever far off the calibiration is.
I think Mick West only did a very rough estimate of the mis-calibration issue which is part of the reason he wasn't able to exclude LA330 initially. I don't have a precise calibration but I think it's a pretty good estimate, within a few degrees. By the way I wouldn't try to use pixels for calibration in this situation. Here's my calibration adjustment:


The heading of 352 for La Boca is not precise, it's almost certainly off by a little bit because you can't get accurate headings by drawing vertical lines like I did, since the heading changes at different distances due to perspective. The only heading which doesn't have this perspective error is the center of the current view which is 355, so I don't think 352 is more than a few degrees off. Anyway it's definitely left of 00 and the true location of La Boca is ~018.8 from this location so this proves the camera heading isn't calibrated correctly, without question. So according to this calibration check, one would need to add approximately 26.8 degrees to the camera heading to get the actual heading, and this estimate includes some small error as described above.

Here is the map that gave me the actual heading of 018.8 for La Boca from the helicopter's location at that same time:


Now to check this against the location of both IB6830 and of LA330 at exactly 14:00 helicopter time. This is one of the maps that Mick West posted with some additional information added:

The helicopter camera heading of the "UFO" is 010. If you add the approximate 26.8 degrees I showed above to that, you get 036.8 which is very close to the actual direction 035 of IB6830. At this point I'm working under the assumption that the correct calibration adjustment for the helicopter display is probably very close to 25 degrees, the difference between the 010 and the 035 shown above. I don't know if I can figure out a way to reduce my apparent 1.8 degree error in my calibration calculation, but I consider that to be reasonably close considering the lack of precision in my estimates.

edit on 2017112 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Put me on the list please.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The helicopter camera heading of the "UFO" is 010. If you add the approximate 26.8 degrees I showed above to that, you get 036.8 which is very close to the actual direction 035 of IB6830. At this point I'm working under the assumption that the correct calibration adjustment for the helicopter display is probably very close to 25 degrees, the difference between the 010 and the 035 shown above. I don't know if I can figure out a way to reduce my apparent 1.8 degree error in my calibration calculation, but I consider that to be reasonably close considering the lack of precision in my estimates.
I noticed that today for the first time Mick West posted some actual numbers on this calibration discrepancy. The example he analyzed was approximately 8 degrees displayed versus 31.75 degrees actual which would make the calibration adjustment 23.75 degrees, reasonably close to the 25 degrees I mentioned earlier, which I am still thinking is pretty close to the correct adjustment. Here is the link to his post about this:

Calibration Discrepancy

edit on 2017113 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
Do airliners often eject material
at 2000 feet?


That sure became the new focus for me, once these guys revealed that it is most likely an airliner.
So, what is a warm fluid that an airliner has a lot of and occasionally needs to jettison? Hope it is not what I am thinking...



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

Read the metabunk thread. It's close to, but not what you're thinking.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: charlyv

Read the metabunk thread. It's close to, but not what you're thinking.

Thanks, Pheww.. Hygiene restored.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I have a feeling we are going to get an answer which will cause dispute. Before I post this first run, it must be understood that the data for the location of aircraft has been screen recorded 1 on 1 as is on planefinder (screen recording). If it's location is not true (excluding height) then this needs to be flagged now. When I done my own rough approach to this, you can see I was questioning what I was looking at when the object appears around the 13:52:34 mark on the video. Could we all agree that by looking at planefinder, there is only 1 flight we are dealing with here which is IB6830. On planefinder, the other flight hasn't left by that point and I honestly think the object you are going to be interested in is the one at the time I'm asking about. If the planefinder data is going to cause dispute it's pointless me even uploading and we all agree to disagree. Watch planefinder, watch the events from 13:51:00 13:53:00. What you see is what I am basing this on. The height is irrelevant, it's just it's top down location as shown.

Is there any reason why that will not be true of as how it's refelcted in the video? Can there be any difference in running times of the video and that of planefinder????



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Please proceed.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join