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: 7
29
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: psyshow
If the planefinder data is going to cause dispute it's pointless me even uploading and we all agree to disagree.
Did you read the metabunk thread? It was explained there and I pointed out that problem again in this thread. Do you recall this conversation earlier in the thread?


originally posted by: psyshow
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?



originally posted by: Arbitrageur
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.
So now you are asking about the time where the signal was apparently blocked and you can see from the screenshot below that there's mountainous terrain which is capable of blocking signals at low altitudes.

The accurate data points on planefinder as far as I can tell are from before takeoff to a short time after takeoff, after which there are problems with the data. It appears all the data after 16:55 (13:55 helicopter time) are accurate, but it's completely impossible for the data from 16:50 to 16:55 to be accurate, and I think the fact it's shown as a gray banded line on planefinder is because it's an interpolation. The actual flight path from 16:50 to 16:55 had to be a curve because planes can't make a near right angle turn in 1 second like it does on planefinder at 16:55. I think the data point at 16:50 may be accurate but I'm not completely sure about that. One reason I used the 17:00GMT/14:00 Local time in my earlier analysis was because it was after 16:55 so it should be accurate.


Edit to add:
Metabunk shows the course the plane should have taken if air traffic controllers followed procedure and if the plane followed those instructions exactly, but of course the actual flight path probably deviated at least slightly from this idealized planned flight path, see the yellow line:

Standard Flight Path

Since we have accurate data for the last 6 minutes and 53 seconds or so of the video, after 13:55, I'd suggest focusing on that part of the video.
You could try to do some guesswork if you want to hypothesize the location of IB6830 before 13:55, but considering it's guesswork any small discrepancies wouldn't be taken seriously.

edit on 2017113 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   
I really appreciate the insights everyone has offered. I'm at my end with this now, I'm going to link 4 frames and that's it. I have tried re-doing this again and again and again, convinced I was wrong and we held the key to showing it was the flight in question. But it keeps spitting the same result out me, I can't make it fit the plane theory, it doesn't match honestly and that's the frustrating part, because I know that's what would make this easier. From how I am doing this, the plane theory doesn;t align to method I keep trying with line of sight. The only thing that does work is looking at these images and see that the plane is not in the line of sight, it can't be. So what does work? use google earth and measure 35 to 40 miles from that point and place and object there - like what they reported.

It's not the answer you want to hear, it's not one that I am trying to make fit either believe me. It doesnt have a fraction of the science applied as the other thread, just a timeline of events. I'm going mad with it now, I have had it enough, it won't give me the answer you want with out seriously fabricating coordinates and rotation. I don;t know what to say honestly. I don;t know what it is but it really isn;t that flight. Thats my last comment on all this. Steve, you deserved, to see that outcome, the video won;t reveal much more than this and I know it will be shot down because it keeps spitting out something that a lot of people on here won't like. I'm sorry mate, your truth is here, its weather you want to believe it or not.

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Set-up
edit on 13-1-2017 by psyshow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: psyshow
I really appreciate the insights everyone has offered. I'm at my end with this now, I'm going to link 4 frames and that's it. I have tried re-doing this again and again and again, convinced I was wrong and we held the key to showing it was the flight in question. But it keeps spitting the same result out me, I can't make it fit the plane theory, it doesn't match honestly and that's the frustrating part, because I know that's what would make this easier. From how I am doing this, the plane theory doesn;t align to method I keep trying with line of sight. The only thing that does work is looking at these images and see that the plane is not in the line of sight, it can't be. So what does work? use google earth and measure 35 to 40 miles from that point and place and object there - like what they reported.

It's not the answer you want to hear, it's not one that I am trying to make fit either believe me. It doesnt have a fraction of the science applied as the other thread, just a timeline of events. I'm going mad with it now, I have had it enough, it won't give me the answer you want with out seriously fabricating coordinates and rotation. I don;t know what to say honestly. I don;t know what it is but it really isn;t that flight. Thats my last comment on all this. Steve, you deserved, to see that outcome, the video won;t reveal much more than this and I know it will be shot down because it keeps spitting out something that a lot of people on here won't like. I'm sorry mate, your truth is here, its weather you want to believe it or not.

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Set-up
When you asked three days ago I explained some of the early data was missing, re-quoted in my prior post, where I emphasized specific times:


originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Since we have accurate data for the last 6 minutes and 53 seconds or so of the video, after 13:55, I'd suggest focusing on that part of the video.
You could try to do some guesswork if you want to hypothesize the location of IB6830 before 13:55, but considering it's guesswork any small discrepancies wouldn't be taken seriously.
So what part of the video are your screenshots from? Before 13:55 when we have no data on IB6830 from planefinder and we know the interpolation on planefinder is very far off of the planned and expected course for the flight. You didn't even attempt to estimate where the plane actually was (and if you use the last approximately 7 minutes of the video after 13:55, you don't have to estimate where the plane was because we know, but you used the first three minutes where we don't know exactly but we can make far better estimates than you did).

Thanks for trying but I really did try to warn you about this three days ago and it seems like you just ignored my warning, and if you even read the metabunk thread you just ignored everything they said about the planefinder data also.

edit on 2017113 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: psyshow

Hey psyshow, the video was deleted by the time I checked the thread. No matter what I am cool man, you don't owe me anything at all let alone any apologies. I think in the end no one is walking away disappointed, I got the vindication I was looking for long before we even started this thread and like you predicted Arbitrag and probably Jim get to tell you that you are wrong, so I at least hope you walk away satisfied.

Take care man, and thanks again for putting in the work.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Here's Mick West's one-minute summary of his findings. youtu.be...



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
Here's Mick West's one-minute summary of his findings. youtu.be...
I think if he redid that now he would re-confirm the same comments about the match of IB6830 but would eliminate the LA330 comment. If you noticed the title of the metabunk thread earlier, there was a "LA330?" mentioned in the title, which he has since removed and now it only mentions IB6830.

My analysis of the later part of the video excluded LA330, which I think was just one of two possibilities before he fine-tuned his analysis. He was right to consider it initially but I think he ruled it out, and my calibration check with an estimated margin of error of 3 degrees would have to be off by 10 degrees for it to be LA330 and I don't think that's possible. IB6830 fell well within my estimated 3 degree margin of error, so my independent check confirmed he was justified in removing LA330 from the thread title, but it's still mentioned in that video.

edit on 2017117 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: JimOberg
Here's Mick West's one-minute summary of his findings. youtu.be...
I think if he redid that now he would re-confirm the same comments about the match of IB6830 but would eliminate the LA330 comment. If you noticed the title of the metabunk thread earlier, there was a "LA330?" mentioned in the title, which he has since removed and now it only mentions IB6830.

My analysis of the later part of the video excluded LA330, which I think was just one of two possibilities before he fine-tuned his analysis. He was right to consider it initially but I think he ruled it out, and my calibration check with an estimated margin of error of 3 degrees would have to be off by 10 degrees for it to be LA330 and I don't think that's possible. IB6830 fell well within my estimated 3 degree margin of error, so my independent check confirmed he was justified in removing LA330 from the thread title, but it's still mentioned in that video.


Nice work. I guess the HuffPo headline about 'Groundbreaking' was actually the ground UNDER the Chilean commission's feet.

BTW while we're on the subject of OVNIs in Chile, my new report on the 1980s wave of Chile-Argentina giant UFO clouds is now posted for comments. The DNC will be happy to learn that in that case, too, it was the RUSSIANS. .... satobs.org...



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Leslie Kean's new article:

It is time for me to bow out and leave this to the experts to sort out. I am not qualified to conduct any studies myself, but only to report on further findings when they become available.

The Chilean Navy UFO Video: Is It A Plane?



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: CardDown
Leslie Kean's new article:

It is time for me to bow out and leave this to the experts to sort out. I am not qualified to conduct any studies myself, but only to report on further findings when they become available.

The Chilean Navy UFO Video: Is It A Plane?


She basically admits the critics were correct.

And she has grounds for regretting some earlier words....


edit on 17-1-2017 by JimOberg because: add link



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Leslie Kean does not seem to welcome crowdsourced investigations done by individuals.

Since this widely distributed story broke, people using social media and blogs have taken it upon themselves to solve this case in a matter of days, and with minimal information. These platforms have presented arguments without properly developing them, and in some cases people with prior agendas have made derogatory, sometimes inaccurate statements...

And later:

So from here on out, I hope that those who wish to contribute to the further understanding of this case will present their findings in papers that can be studied properly, rather than in quick, superficial examinations on blogs or by issuing uninformed and disrespectful opinions on social media. We all have to step back for a while, because proper investigations take a long time.

However, we shouldn't expect the CEFAA to back up their conclusions by publishing anything:

The staff there do not spend time putting together long reports after conducting an investigation... Much of the work is done during discussions at lengthy meetings. At the end, they simply move on. The agency is not a research organization. It is not mandated to provide reports for UFO investigators in other countries, nor does it have the time or interest to do so.

edit on 18-1-2017 by CardDown because: spelling



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: CardDown

Thanks for posting the excerpts. Who is surprised?



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
New video from Mick West.
youtu.be...



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join