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: 15
56
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrDil

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy

Fact is, there probably isnt another 6 vids.

If there were, why release the one with the bug in it?? Why not release the one where you could clearly see an alien spaceship??


Well there are definitely another four (at least) and they were in several formats suggesting that the story is accurate, i.e. separate cameras & photographers, however the circumstances under which they were released to Kean seem a little strange.


Cheers.
It also seems from information gleaned from UFO Updates that dr. Richard Haines has been given access to part of the the video material but was told not to disclose any information. It would be wise to sit back and wait for further information as it seems many qualified people were involved. Richard Haines writes:


I managed to open and quantify three of the video files and
submitted a confidential summary to CEFAA
So Haines has at least seen and analysed three different videos, which should serve as a warning to "critics' here who insist no such files exist and have not been released to anyone else.




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Is that all you got? You are just going to deny parts of the article?
I am saying it remains to be seen if the article is accurately representing the astronomer's findings. Kean is not qualified to write about physics and I have no doubt some mistakes were made in composing the article. Barrera seems to be easily found on the internet, why don't you write to him and tell him he is full of nonsense if you are so sure his views are accurately represented? Do tell us his response.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
That goes for most astronomers too. If you want to learn astronomy you're also going to need science, so if you ever see an astronomer mentioned it's pretty much a given that they'll also be learnt in physics if they're professional.

Any astronomers on here will probably back that up if they're around. Here's another quote though for those still unsure. I was actually interested in studying it myself so can remember :


To work in astronomy you usually need at least a BSc Hons degree (first or upper second class) in a subject such as maths, physics, astrophysics or geophysics

.....

Increasingly, employers are preferring candidates with an MSci (Master of Science) or MPhys (Master of Physics) qualification.


Astronomer - Entry Requirements



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by robhines
 


But to be an astronomer you don't have to have any knowledge of video and image analysis / forensics.


It's great for astronomers to be UFOlogists. But what makes them qualified to do forensic video analysis?
edit on 17-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
reply to post by robhines
 


But to be an astronomer you don't have to have any knowledge of video and image analysis / forensics.


It's great for astronomers to UFOlogists. But what makes them qualified to do forensic video analysis?



Wow, glad I'm not arguing with you all day! First it's "why an astronomer?" Now physics isn't good enough and it's forensics and video analysis....maybe he's just using his knowledge of science to try and help? Anyway was just trying to help with the astronomy thing, I'm not for or against this footage now really, waiting for the other videos to be made public first.
edit on 17-3-2012 by robhines because: added



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

I managed to open and quantify three of the video files and
submitted a confidential summary to CEFAA
So Haines has at least seen and analysed three different videos, which should serve as a warning to "critics' here who insist no such files exist and have not been released to anyone else.


jclmavg,

The main video that we have all seen is a compilation of 3 different videos of 3 different events. There were 3 sets of aircraft that did 3 different flybys, the Halcones, F5s, and F16s, and each flyby is referred to as a different video.

www.ufocasebook.com...

If you read the above article, you will see they refer to each flyby as a different video.




Frame from the first video at the FACH Ceremony in El Bosque, Nov. 4, 2010, showing a clear image of the metallic looking object. (Credit: CEFAA).





Frame from the second El Bosque video with the F5s showing the heat signature of both the FACH jets and the UFO. (Credit: CEFAA)





Frame from the third El Bosque video showing the F16s and UFO. The official analysis indicated the speed of the UFO was eighteen times faster than the F16s. (Credit: CEFAA)


So, what if the 3 videos sent to Haines were just the 3 videos that we already have seen above?

What if we have already seen 3 of the 7 videos of the event? Pretty disappointing I would say.




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



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by robhines
Wow, glad I'm not arguing with you all day! First it's "why an astronomer?" Now physics isn't good enough and it's forensics and video analysis....


Actually, the question was always "why an astronomer?" in the context of him doing video and image analysis. You just completely ignored the context.

Being a physicist and astronomer doesn't make you qualified to do image analysis.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe

Originally posted by robhines
Wow, glad I'm not arguing with you all day! First it's "why an astronomer?" Now physics isn't good enough and it's forensics and video analysis....


Actually, the question was always "why an astronomer?" in the context of him doing video and image analysis. You just completely ignored the context.

Being a physicist and astronomer doesn't make you qualified to do image analysis.


Thank you for clarifying what I meant. That is what I meant, you worded it better, Let me get you in contact with my PR person...

edit on March 17th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Actually, the question was always "why an astronomer?" in the context of him doing video and image analysis. You just completely ignored the context.


No I didn't, I was trying to point out that he's probably also learnt in physics, which he is, and which makes him a lot more likely to have some type of knowledge that would be useful. If I'd not posted you'd probably be raving about how he was just an astronomer for the next 10-20 pages so I wanted to try and help clear that bit up at least.

And if you're so bothered about this, why don't you look into what qualifications you need for image analysis? Then check into Barrera more if you can and see if he has any matching experience. In the meantime you're just giving the guy stick and you don't really have any idea about him.

Time to go out anyway, good luck with working more of this out, which is always going to suck without the extra footage I guess, but probably worth a try if you can't/don't want to wait for it.
edit on 17-3-2012 by robhines because: added



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
reply to post by robhines
 


But to be an astronomer you don't have to have any knowledge of video and image analysis / forensics.


It's great for astronomers to be UFOlogists. But what makes them qualified to do forensic video analysis?
edit on 17-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)
We know nothing about the analyses performed and what part he performed in those analyses. We do not know how accurate the description given by Kean is of his involvement and the testing done. In short, you're speculating, with a clear intent to argue that the astronomer was doing pseudo-science and that the whole thing is flim flam. Considering that Kean is no scientist, or at least has no science background, caution is needed when she is describing certain analyses and results. But rather than being cautious, you head on in full steam to prove this is all nonsense. Alas, there is no shred of objectiveness in your attempt to do so.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
What if we have already seen 3 of the 7 videos of the event? Pretty disappointing I would say.

edit on 17-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)
Perhaps, but what would you expect? A saucer landing?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by UFOGlobe

Originally posted by robhines
Wow, glad I'm not arguing with you all day! First it's "why an astronomer?" Now physics isn't good enough and it's forensics and video analysis....


Actually, the question was always "why an astronomer?" in the context of him doing video and image analysis. You just completely ignored the context.

Being a physicist and astronomer doesn't make you qualified to do image analysis.


Thank you for clarifying what I meant. That is what I meant, you worded it better, Let me get you in contact with my PR person...

edit on March 17th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)
There is no evidence of the astronomer doing any particular video and image analysis which falls outside his area of expertise, yet. Aside from this pretty obvious point it is also well-known that in astronomy image analysis is a common tool. Photometric data is commonly collected and analysed. So I'd take a step back before claiming the astronomer in question has no qualifications in photometric analysis or other techniques which might be useful in this particular case.

Now, as I mentioned to your partner critic, the astronomer in question is easily traceable. Why not shoot him an e-mail instead of ranting anonymously on ATS?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   


Is this supposed to be a serious argument?

I dont know which argument you are refering to? But yes, all my arguments are serious.





Quite honestly, I'm having trouble accepting that people can write up dumb things.


Please dont make me go through your profile





You understand that any video shot from the ground with of an object high up in the sky is not necessarily going to "clearly [show] an alien space ship", right?


Of course, but mistaking things for something they are not, is doing your side no favors. This object is not high in the sky. Its all to do with view points (perspective), hence the other vids havent been released.




You might also consider that no one is going to release any further videos just because "loves a conspiricy" [sic] from ATS thinks it is all a "conspiricy"
. If there is more material, I am sure it will be released in due time.


Due time....this was filmed 2 years ago. I think thats plenty of time to release the material.

Im sure someone on Youtube will make the other 6 though, and claim they were given them by a "secret" source.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


Ranting? Ok then. So a varying opinion of YOURS is ranting.

Im sorry, I didnt realize only YOUR opinion or ones like yours were allowed here.

silly me.

I find it very funny that you focus on the members on this thread rather than the topic.
funny how that always happens.....
edit on March 17th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by Idonthaveabeard
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.


But so is everyone else? We have hearsay in the article - no proof any of it is true. We have hearsay about "testimonies from alleged super duper important smart people" and hearsay that there are 7 other videos.
if people want to believe the article as 100% reliable, that is fine. some of us don't, which is fine too.

At this point, everyone is just offering their opinion. there is only ONE piece of evidence to go on. Not the article. Not other videos. the one and only video that has been released. That is where people are getting their "bug theory" from - from watching the one and only video.....until everything else is verified and proved, it is ALL just hearsay and little evidence.


edit on March 17th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)


No my point is that most are keeping open minded about it because its unclear from that one video, not many have comitted to one or the other. Where as you and your bug brigade friend are just like 'yep its a bug, definately, no doubt about it, end of discussion'.

How can you come up with such a definitive answer based on that video?? That thing could literally be anything, it may be a bug, it may be something else. But its certainly not certain what it is.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
In short, you're speculating, with a clear intent to argue that the astronomer was doing pseudo-science and that the whole thing is flim flam.


No sir, I am not speculating. The entire "heat study" is pseudo-scientific flim flam. I really don't care who did the "heat study" at this point.

Here is a direct quote from Gen. Bermúdez's lecture:

the object is very near the F5, and our study, the heat study, showed the similarity of the F5 with the object, same for the shadow, a very interesting case.

source

This is the image he is talking about:
www.ufocasebook.com...

The "heat study" images are simply nonsense. They just took the normal image and digitally manipulated them to look like infrared images. You can't study any "heat" this way. So it is a bunch of hogwash.



Originally posted by jclmavg
Considering that Kean is no scientist, or at least has no science background, caution is needed when she is describing certain analyses and results. But rather than being cautious, you head on in full steam to prove this is all nonsense. Alas, there is no shred of objectiveness in your attempt to do so.


Give me a break! Then entire topic is full of people treating Kean's word as gospel truth to defend their position, but right when I quote her you attack me for quoting her...


From the start I haven't trusted ANYTHING Kean said in her article, and quite frankly, I have treated her words as being completely sensationalized and a stretch of the truth. If you would have read the topic before posting you would have known that before accusing me of not being cautious about her words.

Anyway, do you have anything of any value to bring to this topic? Or are you going to continue to troll my posts while ridiculously playing the "cautious and neutral and we-dont-know-anything" role. I mean seriously, every single one of your posts is a bunch of fluff.

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



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Idonthaveabeard
How can you come up with such a definitive answer based on that video?? That thing could literally be anything, it may be a bug, it may be something else. But its certainly not certain what it is.


No, it can't be "anything". It could either be a bug, or if you deny all laws of physics it could be some advanced alien space craft flying thousands of miles per hour in front of hundreds of people but nobody saw it.


I'm sorry, but I'd rather go with the obvious bug answer because it looks exactly like the bugs I catch in my cameras all the time and acts like a bug, and because the existence of life outside Earth has not even been confirmed, let alone life that can break the laws of physics in front of humans without them noticing.



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



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Am also wondering how they managed to do a "heat study" if it's just footage taken from a normal video. Not sure how that could make sense at all really and it's making me wonder about the whole thing. If nobody can explain how they managed to do that then it doesn't make much sense to me either now.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Its not a bug because you can tell how far away it is, and how big



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by robhines
 


the camera might have had different settings such as infrared, or they used other cameras



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join