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.

 

HD video of UFO Stalking Chilean Jets Over Santiago Air Base

page: 12
56
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by DrDil

If you watch this animation then in my opinion it even behaves like known Blurfos (i.e. insects & birds):





Cheers.


that animation just proves to me more it is a bug zipping around. it literally acts and moves like one. you can even see the SHAPE changing as if it is wings flapping or it is erratically flying around (just like bugs do)

and its so freaking tiny if close to camera....and maybe a small bird, if further away.....that is an insect or bird clearly IMO....

how is it so easily dismissed by some



edit on March 16th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)


I dismiss it because people much more educated and intelligent than you whose professional responsibility it is to investigate things like this have analyzed this video along with six others and found enough correlation between the images to feel confident that the object was not what you think it was, despite the fact that when they first analyzed the video that we are debating, they too were of the opinion that it was probably a bug. Something in the remaining six videos (note they aren't saying the object appears and can be correlated in two or three of seven videos, but in all of them) convinced these professional people to make a rather bold public statement that would make them all look like a bunch of clowns if it were revealed to be false.

This video doesn't exist in isolation, having popped into our reality from some other dimension. It is embedded in a context of events and circumstances that you either cannot comprehend the significance of or are, for some reason, willfully choosing to ignore. Once you grasp that, you will understand how your idea can be so easily dismissed.




posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MurrayTORONTO
 


I think that's because the airshow was in 2010, but the guy just recently found the UFO in his footage, not really sure though. I agree with you somewhat though it does leave plenty of time for it to be a hoax. There was a Chilean news report on it so I don't think it's completely false:



publimetro.cl

People have said Leslie Kean is a decent UFO journalist, but I don't know all that much about her other than what is on her facebook page.
edit on 16-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MurrayTORONTO
 


So it is TWO years old and the other videos have still not been released and no new info.
ok then.

edit on March 16th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by MurrayTORONTO
 


I think that's because the airshow was in 2010, but the guy just recently found the UFO in his footage. Not completely sure though. I agree with you somewhat though it does leave plenty of time for it to be a hoax.


Or they were nervous about rushing out with a claim until they were sure what they had and sure they could defend it.

That argument can cut both ways.

They either have a good case or they don't. Time will tell when the other evidence and analysis appears.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by MurrayTORONTO
 


So it is TWO years old and the other videos have still not been released and no new info.
ok then.

edit on March 16th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)


I don't believe the video was publicly available until shown by CEFAA at conference in the very recent past.

The point at which it was discovered and the investigation actually began isn't known to anybody outside the organisation.

You are being willfully obtuse. Why.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by MurrayTORONTO
 


So it is TWO years old and the other videos have still not been released and no new info.
ok then.

edit on March 16th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)


I don't believe the video was publicly available until shown by CEFAA at conference in the very recent past.

The point at which it was discovered and the investigation actually began isn't known to anybody outside the organisation.

You are being willfully obtuse. Why.





Nothing new there.

Using the argument that the footage is 2 years old is pretty weak. If it were released within day's the debunkers would be claiming the experts obviously rushed their investigation to the point where they missed the fact it's an insect.

A number of factors could be considered:

-They didn't even notice the anomaly in the footage until recently
-The investigation took a lengthy amount of time and they wanted to make sure they weren't looking at bugs before making any claims
-The report has been out for awhile but the media is just now picking up on it

The problem here is that people have already made up their minds without seeing the extent of the evidence brought to a conclusion. Seems to be a common theme around here (and in human thinking, really). You have people with either minds so wide open they absorb garbage without being able to filter it, or so closed they are like bear traps rusted shut. Very few people seem to be capable of walking the line between. Ufology especially, suffers terribly from this.
edit on 16-3-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
The problem here is that people have already made up their minds without seeing the extent of the evidence brought to a conclusion. Seems to be a common theme around here (and in human thinking, really). You have people with either minds so wide open they absorb garbage without being able to filter it, or so closed they are like bear traps rusted shut. Very few people seem to be capable of walking the line between. Ufology especially, suffers terribly from this.

It seems to me that any problems here are purely in the eye of the beholder as I don’t understand your perspective here at all, what would you suggest should be done?

Surely not that we wait until the experts tell us what to think or that everyone reserves opinion until every bit of evidence ever recorded is presented? No doubt that then you’d be asking why no-one is discussing it and besides which it wouldn’t make for much of a discussion would it?


Cheers.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrDil

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
The problem here is that people have already made up their minds without seeing the extent of the evidence brought to a conclusion. Seems to be a common theme around here (and in human thinking, really). You have people with either minds so wide open they absorb garbage without being able to filter it, or so closed they are like bear traps rusted shut. Very few people seem to be capable of walking the line between. Ufology especially, suffers terribly from this.

It seems to me that any problems here are purely in the eye of the beholder as I don’t understand your perspective here at all, what would you suggest should be done?

Surely not that we wait until the experts tell us what to think or that everyone reserves opinion until every bit of evidence ever recorded is presented? No doubt that then you’d be asking why no-one is discussing it and besides which it wouldn’t make for much of a discussion would it?


Cheers.


I would suggest people not make concrete assertions as to what it might be until they've seen the full extent of the evidence, or deduced the results through channels of proper inquiry, review, and testing themselves.

Armchair skeptics and believers are more similar than either cares to admit. Each draws a conclusion before they've seen concrete proof, and sits back to let someone else do the dirty work of analysis. This thread is full of professional internet skeptics doing exactly that (leo being just one of them).

Thankfully, ATS has a few people who have at least made an attempt to discuss the video with a balanced and cautious mindset; taking photographs and video into software packages to see what they can uncover. Google and Youtube do not constitute a thorough investigation, and the same skeptics that are usually lambasting the crazies over using youtube and google as evidence of aliens, are now here doing the same thing to support their own claims (none of which can be proven).

I have made my opinions clear, without jumping to conclusions or stating how obvious one idea or another is.

Share your ideas, your opinions, etc. But however unlikely you may think the idea of flying saucers (or flying saucers being misidentified as bugs, for that matter), consider all possibilities and do not rule out any of them until we have a full range of data to draw from.

Currently, we do not have the full range of data. So those who claim it's a bug, are standing on equally shaky ground as those who claim it's an alien space craft.

I'm not sure why I even need to clarify this? Or is it common practice around here to draw absolute conclusions based on preconceived ideas alone?



edit on 16-3-2012 by DeadSeraph because: zomg CONCLUSIONS



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Share your ideas, your opinions, etc. But however unlikely you may think the idea of flying saucers (or flying saucers being misidentified as bugs, for that matter), consider all possibilities and do not rule out any of them until we have a full range of data to draw from.

Currently, we do not have the full range of data. So those who claim it's a bug, are standing on equally shaky ground as those who claim it's an alien space craft.

I'm not sure why I even need to clarify this? Or is it common practice around here to draw absolute conclusions based on preconceived ideas alone?



edit on 16-3-2012 by DeadSeraph because: zomg CONCLUSIONS


Very common. Frustratingly common.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
The latest Facebook tidbit from the author, in response to a query regarding all the premature debunkery of this video happening:


I'm not sure people are getting what I said in the story: Many experts studied the footage, and saw all the data, which these readers have not. PhD scientists, Army and Air Force technicians, leading astronomers, aeronautical experts, and more. Then a government agency with experts in studying UAP reported what was concluded. People are acting as if this footage has never been subjected to any analysis, and therefore they can draw their own conclusions about it as if they are the experts! Hold on a minute people. Let's show some respect for the Chilean authorities. The committee of 8 scientists who reviewed the footage are total skeptics, non-believers. Don't you think that if this were bugs, they would have found that out? Let's slow down and be rational here.


Kean also added this in another post:


Some of the videos are on cell phones and very poor quality, but good enough to confirm the same event.

edit on 16-3-2012 by Orkojoker because: editing purposes


This was a little earlier today:


I will be talking to the CEFAA about releasing the other tapes. Some are on cell phones and very poor quality, but they are useful to the scientists doing analysis.

edit on 16-3-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by DrDil

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
The problem here is that people have already made up their minds without seeing the extent of the evidence brought to a conclusion. Seems to be a common theme around here (and in human thinking, really). You have people with either minds so wide open they absorb garbage without being able to filter it, or so closed they are like bear traps rusted shut. Very few people seem to be capable of walking the line between. Ufology especially, suffers terribly from this.

It seems to me that any problems here are purely in the eye of the beholder as I don’t understand your perspective here at all, what would you suggest should be done?

Surely not that we wait until the experts tell us what to think or that everyone reserves opinion until every bit of evidence ever recorded is presented? No doubt that then you’d be asking why no-one is discussing it and besides which it wouldn’t make for much of a discussion would it?


Cheers.


I would suggest people not make concrete assertions as to what it might be until they've seen the full extent of the evidence, or deduced the results through channels of proper inquiry, review, and testing themselves.

Armchair skeptics and believers are more similar than either cares to admit. Each draws a conclusion before they've seen concrete proof, and sits back to let someone else do the dirty work of analysis. This thread is full of professional internet skeptics doing exactly that (leo being just one of them).

Thankfully, ATS has a few people who have at least made an attempt to discuss the video with a balanced and cautious mindset; taking photographs and video into software packages to see what they can uncover. Google and Youtube do not constitute a thorough investigation, and the same skeptics that are usually lambasting the crazies over using youtube and google as evidence of aliens, are now here doing the same thing to support their own claims (none of which can be proven).

I have made my opinions clear, without jumping to conclusions or stating how obvious one idea or another is.

Share your ideas, your opinions, etc. But however unlikely you may think the idea of flying saucers (or flying saucers being misidentified as bugs, for that matter), consider all possibilities and do not rule out any of them until we have a full range of data to draw from.

Currently, we do not have the full range of data. So those who claim it's a bug, are standing on equally shaky ground as those who claim it's an alien space craft.

I'm not sure why I even need to clarify this? Or is it common practice around here to draw absolute conclusions based on preconceived ideas alone?



edit on 16-3-2012 by DeadSeraph because: zomg CONCLUSIONS

I really don't want to get side-tracked but did you even read my post?

The reason you’re clarifying this is because apparently you would rather everyone who does’t agree with you just not bother posting.

I applied what information is currently available to the only footage presented:


Originally posted by DrDil
Also regarding the, “Infrared studies show the entire object is radiating heat,” well as infrared light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength longer than that of visible light, I guess this means the video-cameras are detecting light outside of the visible spectrum now? (Simultaneously).

I was quite specific in my reasoning:


Originally posted by DrDil
Speaking for myself I’m not saying this is necessarily a bug, what I am saying is that I haven’t seen anything that suggests it’s not, not least its resemblance to known & confirmed Blurfos:

And even offered a simple solution and expanded on why I thought it was important:


Originally posted by DrDil
Besides which it seems simple enough to resolve this as since it has been alleged seven cameras captured the UFO independently then surely one of the ‘eight skeptical scientists’ or the ‘expert in digital imaging’ thought to triangulate the footage from separate cameras to evaluate the size of the UFO?

If so then present the evidence that it’s not insects and we can move forward, if not then at least address this troubling aspect which at this point is surely an elephant in the room?

I worked on only the information available and stated it was my opinion based solely on the information currently available; I’m not sure why I need to (re)clarify this? And as well as all of this I offered an image comparison with a known Blurfo and yet you still apparently took umbrage with my post?


Cheers.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DrDil
 


You are aware that, having access to only a portion of the evidence in this case, your conclusion is bound to be less valid than that of someone who has seen all the evidence, right? And their conclusions contradict yours, and are probably more likely to be accurate.
edit on 16-3-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker
The latest Facebook tidbit from the author, in response to a query regarding all the premature debunkery of this video happening:


I'm not sure people are getting what I said in the story: Many experts studied the footage, and saw all the data, which these readers have not. PhD scientists, Army and Air Force technicians, leading astronomers, aeronautical experts, and more. Then a government agency with experts in studying UAP reported what was concluded. People are acting as if this footage has never been subjected to any analysis, and therefore they can draw their own conclusions about it as if they are the experts! Hold on a minute people. Let's show some respect for the Chilean authorities. The committee of 8 scientists who reviewed the footage are total skeptics, non-believers. Don't you think that if this were bugs, they would have found that out? Let's slow down and be rational here.


Kean also added this in another post:


Some of the videos are on cell phones and very poor quality, but good enough to confirm the same event.

edit on 16-3-2012 by Orkojoker because: editing purposes


Precisely my point. If you are qualified to disprove the assertion made by these individuals, please do so. In the meantime, we need more data.

-People who worked on the analysis to come forward (on the record) to verify their credentials

-At minimum, some form of documentation to understand WHY they drew these conclusions, which can be fact checked by equally qualified peers

-The criteria they used to reach their conclusions

-The methods they used to analyze the footage

-All the footage analyzed, released in full

Until we have this data, or data from more qualified sources presenting equally quantifiable information on why it is an insect, It remains (by definition), a UFO.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker
reply to post by DrDil
 


You are aware that, having access to only a portion of the evidence in this case, your conclusion is bound to be less valid than that of someone who has seen all the evidence, right? And their conclusions contradict yours, and are probably more likely to be accurate.
edit on 16-3-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)

And therein lies both the difference between us and the problem my friend, I have arrived at no conclusion but have merely offered my opinion on the information available. The precise reason I haven’t arrived at any conclusion is because all of the data isn’t yet available. Yet you’ve assumed I have a conclusion then proceeded to compare it to other conclusions from people who have provided a great deal less reasoning for arriving at theirs.


Cheers.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrDil

Originally posted by Orkojoker
reply to post by DrDil
 


You are aware that, having access to only a portion of the evidence in this case, your conclusion is bound to be less valid than that of someone who has seen all the evidence, right? And their conclusions contradict yours, and are probably more likely to be accurate.
edit on 16-3-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)

And therein lies both the difference between us and the problem my friend, I have arrived at no conclusion but have merely offered my opinion on the information available. The precise reason I haven’t arrived at any conclusion is because all of the data isn’t yet available. Yet you’ve assumed I have a conclusion then proceeded to compare it to other conclusions from people who have provided a great deal less reasoning for arriving at theirs.


Cheers.



Star from me, anyways. More info is needed



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrDil
I have arrived at no conclusion but have merely offered my opinion
That is the most obvious semantic trickery I've seen in a week. You cannot arrive at an opinion without some sort of a conclusion. What you should have said is that you have not made a definite conclusion.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrDil:
"And therein lies both the difference between us and the problem my friend, I have arrived at no conclusion but have merely offered my opinion on the information available."


Posted by jclmavg, in response:
"That is the most obvious semantic trickery I've seen in a week. You cannot arrive at an opinion without some sort of a conclusion. What you should have said is that you have not made a definite conclusion."


Right... DrDil has arrived at no 'conclusion', but has simply inserted animated gifs, and pictures of bugs flying near lenses, and has said things like this:

"I’m not saying this is necessarily a bug, what I am saying is that I haven’t seen anything that suggests it’s not, not least its resemblance to known & confirmed Blurfos"...

and like this:

"If you watch this animation then in my opinion it even behaves like known Blurfos (i.e. insects & birds): [animation inserted] "


.... but he's NOT saying it's a bug, okay? I know this because, since his ridicule and animated gifs and all up above, he's said "I have arrived at no conclusion."

I guess he's heaping on that UFO ridicule and trying to convince everyone of his bug *non-conclusion*, which is based on incomplete evidence, simply because his own uninformed non-conclusion (he must feel) is the most convincing of all in its non-conclusiveness....
edit on 16-3-2012 by TeaAndStrumpets because: spelling



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by DrDil
I have arrived at no conclusion but have merely offered my opinion
That is the most obvious semantic trickery I've seen in a week. You cannot arrive at an opinion without some sort of a conclusion. What you should have said is that you have not made a definite conclusion.


Indeed. Let's just go with opinion. DrDil, you do realize that your opinion is less valid in an evaluation of this case than that of those who have seen all the information and on the basis of that information have found themselves holding an opinion that is both contrary to and more valid than your own.
edit on 16-3-2012 by Orkojoker because: gots to edit

edit on 16-3-2012 by Orkojoker because: editing is my hobby



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by DrDil
I have arrived at no conclusion but have merely offered my opinion
That is the most obvious semantic trickery I've seen in a week. You cannot arrive at an opinion without some sort of a conclusion. What you should have said is that you have not made a definite conclusion.


Semantics being used as justification for accusing one of trickery. OH JOY! Do we get to descend into accusations of circular logic now?

Pathetic this is all you have to offer.
edit on 16-3-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a bug ??
so that is what skeptics have been reduced to ? a bug that is so fast it looks like it skips frames and just seems to appear from one from to another ?? and a bug that was captured on several different videos moving just as fast ?? hahaha.....that bug theory is just lame
edit on 16-3-2012 by primetime2123 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join