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: 13
56
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe

Originally posted by OGOldGreg
Also how many birds or bugs when zoomed in look like they're made of metal?


There are a very large number of flying beetles that have very reflective metalic look to them:



In the right light, this beetle would look like a metallic disk shaped UFO when flying in front of a camera really fast.


Hey UFOGlobe,

That's not true unfortunately. Beetles have a sort of shell over their wings which is what you see when they are not flying. To fly they lift these at a sharp angle compared to the body which expose their actual wings which they use to fly, so when flying the don't look like they do when they are crawling around. \\

A beetle wouldn't explain what we see in the video.




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
@lost_shaman

That is not true either. There are thousands of beetles that do not need open their cover (armored) wings to put their flight wings to action. The most common one in my neighborhood is the Cetonia aurata, here is an excellent example of it flying (oh, and it's both metallic and extremely fast for a flying beetle):
upload.wikimedia.org...
These things tend to zip by across my entire garden, all in a split second. This while looking like a small, brilliantly shiny saucer.
Besides, even beetles that do open their cover wings fully when flying can give rise to quite striking reflections off of these, at least when viewed from certain angles. I have experienced this many times.

There are also thousands of flies (fast fliers), dragonflies (fast fliers) and damselflies (slow fliers) that are metallic. Usually in bronze/gold, blue/violet and green hues.

With that said, bugs have an overall tendency to appear metallic when they're caught as "blurfos", chiefly due to their highly reflective wings and limitations in camera optics/sensors (the blurfo effect itself smoothes things out, abberration errors and what not do the rest).

Have you guys EVER been outdoors, I wonder?

edit on 17-3-2012 by entoman because: sp. error

edit on 17-3-2012 by entoman because: sp. error

edit on 17-3-2012 by entoman because: sp. error

edit on 17-3-2012 by entoman because: sp. error, jesus



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by entoman
@lost_shaman

That is not true either. There are thousands of beetles that do not need open their cover (armored) wings to put their flight wings to action. The most common one in my neighborhood is the Cetonia aurata, here is an excellent example of it flying (oh, and it's both metallic and extremely fast for a flying beetle):
upload.wikimedia.org...


If you'll note that the insect you've posted does not truely have its wings covered in the first place. I don't think a beetle explains what we are seeing. I'm not caliming to be an expert here, however i do have more than one Entomologist in my family and will gladly defere to their expertise here.



Originally posted by entoman

These things tend to zip by across my entire garden, all in a split second. This while looking like a small, brilliantly shiny saucer.
Besides, even beetles that do open their cover wings fully when flying can give rise to quite striking reflections off of these, at least when viewed from certain angles. I have experienced this many times.

There are also thousands of flies (fast fliers), dragonflies (fast fliers) and damselflies (slow fliers) that are metallic. Usually in bronze/gold, blue/violet and green hues.

With that said, bugs have an overall tendency to appear metallic when they're caught as "blurfos", chiefly due to their highly reflective wings and limitations in camera optics/sensors (the blurfo effect itself smoothes things out, abberration errors and what not do the rest).

Have you guys EVER been outdoors, I wonder?


Me personally, yeah I spend lots of time outdoors. But just because many insects have a "metallic" appearance in close up photos, most don't look that way in flight or video as it's just too subtle to show up.
edit on 17-3-2012 by lost_shaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
With all due respect, I am an entomologist.

The Cetoniidae never opens up its cover wings, it simply can't as they have fused together. The flying wings are still folded under the cover while the individual is resting though, as in any other beetle (see image: image.shutterstock.com... 9486.jpg). It manages to unfold them to the sides, without opening anything else up.

I think you'd be surprised at how some beetle species/families have mastered folding and unfolding their flying wings in various amazing ways. An extreme example of this can be seen in the Staphylinidae family of beetles, it's kind of hard to even grasp how they manage to make their large flying wings fold into the tiny, tiny pockets provided by their highly reduced covers. But this is off topic.

Have you ever seen an European kingfisher zip by? Or a golden fly? I can assure you that brilliantly colored and/or reflective flying animals can give a lasting impression even though it might require certain conditions to make them stand out from the mass of other flying things. However, note that the recurring theme when it comes to blurfos is that they are rarely evident to the photographer at the time. All it takes is a quick little reflection of sunlight off of an insect wing or whatever to leave a visible mark on that particular frame exposure with the photographer being completely oblivious to it.

But in this case (re: the UFO in question) I don't think it's a beetle or a fly or anything like that. The appearance is, however, consistent with the way bugs tend to show up on footage like this. My thoughts are, considering everything we know and assuming that the alleged other videos show the same object, leaning toward a dragonfly of moderate size. The large wings can be quite distinctly looking, even if they just fly past you at high speed, thus providing a plausible model for the obvious two tone nature of the object in certain frames (of course, this is not unusual, as I have stated before, so you don't necessarily need an intuitive explanation for this as what cameras show can be quite misleading). The size of a regular dragonfly means that it is indeed quite possible for it to be captured on several different pieces of recording equipment if they aren't too far from each other (details like these are unknown at present). Furthermore, dragonflies are fast as hell (fast species can cruise at 50-60 km/h) and supermaneuverable (stop on a dime and fly backwards in the fraction of a second? No problem) and regularly do loops, short vertical climb bursts and other strange maneuvers when hunting smaller flying insects. And yes, there are dragonflies in Chile and many species are very fond of open fields as hunting grounds. Just my few cents.

Now, I know that this has been debated over and over again with people providing good points from both "camps" so I'm not going to go "oh hey, it's just a bug" nor am I really interested in this. I just noticed the beetle thing and had to drop a few comments on the matter.




edit on 17-3-2012 by entoman because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2012 by entoman because: additional thoughts



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by entoman
With all due respect, I am an entomologist.


I have respect, but just because I'm not one I've more than one entomologist in my family. I know quite a bit about insects and anything I don't know I can simply ask.



Originally posted by entoman

The Cetoniidae never opens up its cover wings, it simply can't as they have fused together. The flying wings are still folded under the cover while the individual is resting though, as in any other beetle (see image: image.shutterstock.com... 9486.jpg). It manages to unfold them to the sides, without opening anything else up.


Yes, but you and I both know that is different than what I was responding to, and such doesn't explain the video in question.


Originally posted by entoman

I think you'd be surprised at how some beetle species/families have mastered folding and unfolding their flying wings in various amazing ways. An extreme example of this can be seen in the Staphylinidae family of beetles, it's kind of hard to even grasp how they manage to make their large flying wings fold into the tiny, tiny pockets provided by their highly reduced covers. But this is off topic.


No, I would not be suprised. I have more than one Entomologist in my family. The tpe of Beetle suggested is not the type you are talking about now.



Originally posted by entoman

Have you ever seen an European kingfisher zip by? Or a golden fly? I can assure you that brilliantly colored and/or reflective flying animals can give a lasting impression even though it might require certain conditions to make them stand out from the mass of other flying things. However, note that the recurring theme when it comes to blurfos is that they are rarely evident to the photographer at the time. All it takes is a quick little reflection of sunlight off of an insect wing or whatever to leave a visible mark on that particular frame exposure with the photographer being completely oblivious to it.


There is a bit more than that here. First, can you explain the UFO flap that was taking place in Chilie at the time?


International Air Safety Report:
NARCAP IR-3, 2011 ~ Photoanalysis of Digital Images of
Anomalous Aerial Object Taken Sept. 17, 2010 Above Santiago
Chile (CEFAA - Banderas)
Dr. Richard F. Haines, NARCAP Chief Scientist

www.narcap.org...

Note the the UAP here doesn't seem to be a bug and just a handfull of weeks before this case.

Take note of the fact that we've seen hundreds of insect videos that were claimed to UFO's and this one is different.

Note that, it is said, despite that we haven't seen them that multiple other videos capture the same thing from different vantage points. That these were obtained by CEFAA. Take note that CEFAA is officially sanctioned by the Chillean Govt. and has rcently signed a data exchange agreement with NARCAP.

So is it an insect? I doubt it. But we can argue that idea until more evidence is released.


edit on 17-3-2012 by lost_shaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:57 AM
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.

Semantic trickery”?


Heh, heh, I see your, “Semantic trickery”and raise you, “Pedantic."


Seriously though you misunderstand & overestimate me, if anything it’s no more than basic logic so allow me to further strip any ambiguity from the desired intent for those who are, shall we say, semantically challenged.
The only comment I posted to this thread before (dare I say it) conclusions were drawn contained the following:


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:


[snip]

[...]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?

Stating that I haven’t seen any evidence that would suggest it’s NOT a Blurfo and suggesting that this evidence be presented or at least the absence of such information be addressed, and you label that as a conclusion? Besides which we both know I was using the word ‘conclusion’ as a definite, an absolute if you will and not generally as in a reasoned deduction or inference. Hence my earlier post being an opinion regarding what evidence we do have and suggesting that the experts who were privy to the multiple videos release a statement and/or research that can put the bug-theory to bed once & for all.

I feel this was made abundantly clear in my OP and so in short, if anything my conclusion is we don’t yet have enough evidence to refute the bug-theory, or inconclusive if you like...

Is that semantically bereft enough for you?



Cheers.

edit on 17-3-2012 by DrDil because: Fix image tags.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker
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.

Yes I agree so it’s a good job I’m not evaluating the case but rather giving my opinion on the YouTube footage we’ve seen so far.

I ask again, this is a discussion forum isn’t it? And as for your ‘appeal to authority’ I’d be a great deal more inclined to agree with you if/when they explain how they were able to conclude via photo analysis that the object was, “emitting some form of energy which is visible in photo analysis.[and] Infrared studies show the entire object is radiating heat.”

You do realise the implications of the above statement made by the sceptical experts don’t you?

Not to worry though as I’m bowing out of the discussion until more evidence is released as I'd forgot how tiresome it becomes having to explain my rationale & reasoning ad infintum……

Have fun!!


Cheers.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   


This case is an "end game". Seven different videos from seven different vantage points = definitve proof.


I don´t know what this is but I can imagine that if it was a bug, there were more of em flying around there, and showing up on all videos made in that same area.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Turq1
Just like how you pulled some numbers out of thin air. But your analysis is more shoddy than mine.


You are simply lost. I didn't pull numbers out of thin air, I actually measured the video unlike you who literally pulled numbers out from where the sun doesn't shine.


Originally posted by Turq1
The object moves that far in 1 frame, not 3 frames. So even using your numbers of 12.5 mph, it'd be going 37.5 mph, and it's moving diagonally to the camera.


No it doesn't move that far in 1 frame. Obviously you have no idea how digital video works. Or how to measure the speed of objects in a video. If you would have taken the time to download the UFO video and open it up in a video editor you would see that the bug moves every 3 frames. It's at point A for 3 frames, then moves to point B for 3 frames, then point C for 3 frames. To measure the time it takes to get from point B to point C you measure the amount of frames it took to get there. In this case, it took 3 frames to get from the beginning of point B to point C. During those 3 frames the bug was actually traveling to point C. So that means it took 100 milliseconds for the bug to get from point B to C at 30 frames per second.


Originally posted by Turq1
I'm sure you noticed the object was clearly going diagonal to the camera, was that a lapse in thought or what?


No, no lapse in thought at all. I actually compensated for the very slight diagonal movement. You see, the object had MOTION BLUR, yet I still used the entire length of the object in the measurement even though the object is a lot smaller than it appears on camera because of motion blur. That means the final measurement is SLOWER than what I measured. The very slight diagonal movement would have very slightly raised the final speed measurement about the same so I just didn't compensate for it because the motion blur would have canceled it out anyway.

The diagonal angle that it was at would only increase the speed by 1 or 2 miles per hour, yet if I had compensated for motion blur then it would have decrease the speed by 1 or 2 miles per hour. So it canceled it out.

Also, if you would have taken the time to measure every object in the video you would see my speed measurement is consistent even when the bug is flying perpendicular to the camera. But since you didn't take the time to measure, because you obviously don't know how, I don't expect you to know that.

By the way... you don't have to measure the entire object as it passes the entire view as long as the speed is consistent the entire time, WHICH IT WAS. Also, things move faster as they get closer to the camera, so you only need to measure a small segment of movement to get a good sample of the speed.


Originally posted by Turq1
Pulling numbers out of the air is what you have to do, even the scientists, when you have limited time and resources and are trying to figure out the gist of it. The important thing is, do they make sense. Yours don't. But I appreciate your efforts.


WHAT?!.. No you don't have to pull number out of the air!
Get out of here with that! The method I used to measure the object in the video is used by professionals in video forensics (because I am one) to measure the speed of cars, asteroids, meteors, bullets, etc.. I did not pull numbers out of thin air, I estimated the speed it was traveling based on an unknown size. My numbers make complete sense when you are a professional as I am, but to a novice like you, you are just lost.


Originally posted by Turq1
We're not on Mythbusters so given that, a bee in the video you provided looked to be similar to the object when it was about 10 ft away.


Oh, now you are an expert on measuring the distance of objects in videos huh? You never heard of optical zoom??



Originally posted by Turq1
The object in this video crosses from one side of the picture to the other in less than 4 frames. And doing some math that you or I don't know at the moment, the distance traveled might be 20-30 ft. I was looking at 24 fps, but if the camera was 30 fps, the speed of the object would be even faster.


Less than 4 frames? You have no idea what you are talking about! Just stop because you are making yourself look silly. I think you are only counting the times the bug actually shows up in the video, and not the frames between. Which is a silly amateur mistake. The video is playing at 30 frames per second. Some of the bugs took longer than 1 second to cross the view, that is more than 30 frames for those.


Originally posted by Turq1
If you're going to get "technical", don't fudge up the numbers.


If you are going to get technical, at least know what the heck you are talking about!



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Anyway, it looks like the only thing people have to hang on at this moment is a woman selling a book, experts that aren't all named, and video evidence that doesn't publicly exist.


I have done my own personal analysis on the video, and I personally know these are just bugs. The fact that the camera operator of the original video didn't see anything is proof for me in itself that these were just bugs. I'm fairly certain people would see a "5 to 10 meter object flying 4000 to 6000 mph while stalking fighter jets" but, obviously not until they watched the video. LOL.

I really see no reason to investigate this any further personally. I feel kind of sad anyone wasted their time on this really. I think it's a giant step backwards for UFOlogy. People should know what bugs look like by now.

I'm glad to see a few known UFOlogists like DrDil and ElevenAugust, who helped with the whole California Drone debate. I'm glad they can see it's probably just a bunch of bugs. At least all is not lost in UFOlogy.

Good day.
edit on 17-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bastardo

I don´t know what this is but I can imagine that if it was a bug, there were more of em flying around there, and showing up on all videos made in that same area.
Don't people think? Geez! I presume that if there are more videos of the "bug", then the movement can be correlated. More flying around with the exact same trajectory at the same time seems a wee bit unlikely.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Anyway, it looks like the only thing people have to hang on at this moment is a woman selling a book
Ad hominem, poisoning the well.


experts that aren't all named

Premature statement which has no value whatsoever.


and video evidence that doesn't publicly exist.

Nonsense argument and premature, see above. In science too only results are published, with the "evidence" generally available only to a select few.


I have done my own personal analysis on the video

Considering the statements above, I'd say your personal analysis is dubious and highly prejudiced.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
Ad hominem, poisoning the well.


Wow, I hope you are joking. If you are not I feel sorry for you.

Ad hominem is when someone tries to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of a person. I wasn't trying to negate any "truth", nor did I point out any negative characteristic. I simply stated she was selling a book.



Originally posted by jclmavg
Premature statement which has no value whatsoever.


It's a fact! All the experts haven't been named... and this case has been around since 2010... Premature?? Get a clue.


Originally posted by jclmavg
Nonsense argument and premature, see above. In science too only results are published, with the "evidence" generally available only to a select few.


It wasn't an argument. I'm simply stating facts... People on this topic are using the "7 other videos" as evidence to support their claim it isn't bugs, yet those videos are not even available yet. So they are using evidence that does not yet exist to support their claim. How is that premature? Because they haven't been released yet? How about I claim that it's "premature" to think those 7 other videos will show anything that prove they are not bugs? Then what? The videos haven't been released, so it's premature to say they will prove they are not bugs!

How about I say this... "There are videos that prove these are just bugs! It just hasn't been released yet!!". How about I say that every time someone claims these are not bugs? Because it's probably true, there probably exists videos that prove these are bugs they just haven't been released yet.
Sarcasm...


Originally posted by jclmavg
Considering the statements above, I'd say your personal analysis is dubious and highly prejudiced.


Considering your very ridiculous and not-so-thought-out reply to me, I'd say anything you have to say from here on out is going to be a waste of time and space.
edit on 17-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
I have done my own personal analysis on the video, and I personally know these are just bugs.

...

I'm fairly certain people would see a "5 to 10 meter object flying 4000 to 6000 mph while stalking fighter jets


Yea... right.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


They are claiming the objects flew right next to the jets. Just look at the images, if the objects were flying next to the jets they would be quite large and very visible objects. Everyone was looking at the jets, someone would have to see it. But nobody saw it...



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
i wonder the make and model of a bug that can be captured at such distance and makes about 4000 mph.
nevermind.

edit on 17-3-2012 by jamsession because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
UFOGlobe may have had the best post so far in here, the post showing how to analyze the speed of on object on video. I am no expert but I could follow the math myself and everything seems perfectly logical.

However so many assumptions are included with every other post. Yes by all appearances on that one video this would appear to be a bug of some kind. An assumption is made on it's size which would match the bug hypothesis. Assuming the appearance provides a sound factual analyses is wrong, good thing science isn;t based on appearances otherwise we might still assume the sun rotates around the earth.

These repeated statements that people assume the multiple videos all are videos of bugs is amazing. The whole bug premise is based on the idea the the bug would be close to the camara. two camaras, trained at the air show just 10 feet away from each other will probably not catch the same bug (if so it would be from a different aspect and not appear to be in the same position in relation to the jets) and the video could not be mistaken as such. If we are assuming that multiple bugs are coordinating flight patterns in front of multiple camara and coordinating their distance from those camaras that is crazy. That is far more unbelievable than an actual UFO piloted by an alien species especially considering that most scientists all agree that the numbers of stars and planets alone are so astronomicaly high that life elsewhere is almost a mathmatic certainty.

How do we assume these experts are incapable of providing intelligent analyses, or people assume because someone wrote a book that it is not because she cares about the subject she only cares about making crazy things up to fleece people into buying her book so she can make money.

I am leaning towards bug because the only video available at the moment does appear to be a bug. However anyone actually trying to provide an accurate analyses can not come to a conclusion first. If multiple videos from different areas all pointed at the Jets caught the same phenomenon you could use that to estimate an actual distance (if you know the angles) and estimate a size of the object, in comparison with the jets of known size and distance. Along with the calculation provided by UFOGlobe you could easily determine a solid estimated speed.

This would be easy for any experts to be able to determine if this was a bug or not withmultiple videos. What may be useful is an intelligent clearly written way to analyze those multiple videos in case they are released to help people provide an educated conclusion. I don't believe I could write something like that cklear enough.


edit on 17-3-2012 by seeker1977 because: correction

edit on 17-3-2012 by seeker1977 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
People on this topic are using the "7 other videos" as evidence to support their claim it isn't bugs


Eh? I thought it was that most people waiting for the other 7 videos are still undecided and want to see them first to get more of an idea what's going on. Unless someone finds some proof of what it is from that one clip it's just going to be arguments going nowhere.
edit on 17-3-2012 by robhines because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by UFOGlobe
 


Your basing your evidence on your opinion of what YOU think it looks like, its all hear say formed from no physical evidence, a blurry video and bias.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I think people are ignoring the elephant in the room...



They are calling it an "infrared / heat signature analysis". What it really is, is FAKE!

This has been mentioned many times, and ignored many times. The story is, this video was captured by a random guy. He didn't see the objects until he watched the video later in slow motion. Then he decided to turn it into the Chilean government because he doesn't know what bugs look like. There is no way this random guy's camera is infrared capable. So that means the above infrared images are fake...

You can't do an infrared analysis on a normal camera... sorry... That means someone is sensationalizing this with a fake analysis. This is borderline hoax. The rest is all down hill from here.
edit on 17-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join