HD video of UFO Stalking Chilean Jets Over Santiago Air Base

Originally posted by UFOGlobe

In Kean's article Barrera was said to have made the "heat study". In that NARCAP, CEFAA, Bandera case I guess Haines did a similar "heat study".

Honest mistake. Either way, they BOTH seem to be making amateur mistakes during their analysis. So I will just refer to the CEFAA as a whole from now on.

I have doubts about your mistakes being so "honest", UFOGlobe. You seem to intentionally muddy the waters, page after page in this thread... and most amazing of all, you've just done it AGAIN in the very post where you seem to be so admirably admitting to an "honest mistake."

What is the "amateur mistake" that Barrera is making?

You still imply that he's doing whatever it is that Haines is doing, even after your little "whoopsie"... and even though, in the very blog you cite in that very post where you apologize, you can see direct quotes from Barrera where he discusses what he's done, how it's used, and where he says it is not a "heat study."

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets

Yeah, I’ve been in touch with Kean as I suspect that this is her perpetuation of an error that was gleaned (possibly by mistake) from (nolink), which was in turn based on the UFO Conference presentation back on the 25th Feb (2012). Will let you know if she gets back in touch (but I’m not holding my breath!! )

And just to add that since I made my last post that Barrera has emailed and confirmed that *some* of the small fluctuations in asymmetry such as those of an insect wing would register when using this method of analysis, so it’s apparently not just bird wings that can be evaluated this way although he didn't seem as certain about this fact (i.e. 'some') as he was about the bird wings.



Cheers.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


I knew someone would attack me for my mistake. Since you have NOTHING of ANY value to add here, you result to personal attacks. Predictable....

F.Y.I.

In Kean's article, Barrera was attributed to doing the "heat study".



Since Haines was also invovled in the above case, and also did a similar "heat study" in the past, I confused the two people together. Simple mistake...

At this point, it DOES NOT MATTER who did what. It's quite clear that the CEFAA investigation as a whole is very amateur and has been caught manipulating images in unscientific ways to come to erroneous conclusions.

How is it that people sieze on this heat study thing and feel it is so important.

Who cares, if what was presented as facts such as the multiple videos showing the same object. That means they can estimate a size, distance and speed. Whether there is any heat emitted or not is really irrelevant, if you feel the need throw that part of the story out completely than do it but it alnoe doesn't hurt the case at all with the other supposed evidence that was gathered.

I an no expert in the heat study thing being discussed but I do know of many people that believe themselves experts in one area or another without a complete understanding of the subject. Many times it is new techniques, or if at work new laws or regulations, it could be new technology or a new understanding of something not widely accepted yet.

I don't know enough about it to form an opinion either way so personally I don't care. What I care about are the supposed multiple videos, if they show an object that is a certain size travelling at speeds they claim then there is no explanation on earth that we know of.

Originally posted by cripmeister
By flare I think elevenaugust was referring to lens flare,

Yes, and thanks for correcting me!

BTW, I have done some work about this very subject, please take a look here.

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
At this point, it DOES NOT MATTER who did what. It's quite clear that the CEFAA investigation as a whole is very amateur and has been caught manipulating images in unscientific ways to come to erroneous conclusions.

Apparently, UFOGlobe has no intention of educating himself. In reality it does matter who did what or who said or wrote what, since your supposed "unscientific ways" may be mere reporting errors by Kean and have nothing to do with the actual quality and extent of the CEFAA investigations. DrDil's communications with the astronomer involved - which you conveniently ignore - shows this. Your attempt to poison the well (again) is deliberate.

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
I knew someone would attack me for my mistake. Since you have NOTHING of ANY value to add here, you result to personal attacks. Predictable....

My question to you directly above, and which you've just failed to answer, is not a personal attack at all and actually does add quite a bit of value here: it distinctly illuminates your biases, which have led to error after error in your "analyses."

In my last post I asked you, specifically as to this this case, "What is the 'amateur mistake' that [astronomer] Barrera is making?" Because you had just said, unambiguously, that Barrera is making "amateur mistakes" in his analysis of this present case. [Your 18-3-2012 @ 11:32 AM post, 2nd to last sentence.]

Most people know that the only acceptable answer to the question I posed would be "I don't know." That's because Barrera's methodologies, reasoning and analyses have not yet been released (or translated or whatever). So how could we fairly accuse him of amateur mistakes, especially given his public statements?

But what was YOUR answer re: Barrera's specific mistakes in this case? Something best paraphrased as "He must be wrong.... he just MUST be... because look, Haines did 'heat studies' in the past, and someone else said that Barrera had done them here."

In other words, you've ignored once again that Barrera has specifically said he's done no heat study. (Even after apologizing for your mix-up on the directly related issue!) So... will you ignore this information and go after Barrera yet again? We'll see.

And it's not surprising that you'd label a message which plainly reveals your biases as a 'personal attack.' But it's not personal for me. It's intellectual. Definitely. Because you're being *intellectually* disingenuous. So much so, at times, that I have to wonder whether it's intentional. And if it is... what's the agenda?

Here's the bottom line: for 20 pages, reasonable people have simply been asking you and a few others to withhold judgment on the insect issue until the remaining data and the details of the scientists' methods are released. But you've persisted in aggressively and obnoxiously pushing the "bug theory", which people supremely more qualified than you have said they've specifically ruled out, and described how.

Maybe the best approach is to wait until you've actually READ the analysis by THIS scientist (Barrera), as to THIS case (El Bosque), before actually accusing him of professional negligence in it?

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


Took the woirds out of my mouth, Barrera has been in touch with an ATS member TELLING us how he has been analysing the video.

Il say it again, THE GUY who analysed this video or part of it has been in touch with someone from ATS and that conversation is here on THIS thread.

Yet nobody has mentioned it, even though (apart from the actuall video) it is the most relevant piece of information posted on this whole thread.

The guy is telling you he didnt do heat analysis and the photo is like that for a completely different reason. Infact he filtered the picture like that to find out wether it was a bug!!! LOL. Yet you still argue against him!!

Defies belief

Originally posted by jclmavg
In reality it does matter who did what or who said or wrote what, since your supposed "unscientific ways" may be mere reporting errors by Kean and have nothing to do with the actual quality and extent of the CEFAA investigations.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

It wasn't just Leslie Kean that called it a heat study. It was also Gen. Bermúdez when he was quoted saying this image contains a "heat study".

As explained by Gen. Bermúdez in his 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 image which was provided by the CEFAA contains nothing more than a regular image with a gradient-map applied to it. This is pure nonsense. This throws into question the quality and extent of the CEFAA investigations and investigators. Why are they presenting these nonsense images as if they hold any value?

Originally posted by jclmavg
DrDil's communications with the astronomer involved - which you conveniently ignore - shows this. Your attempt to poison the well (again) is deliberate.

I did not ignore DrDil's communications. Actually, if YOU wouldn't have ignored DrDil's reply you would have known that Luis Barrera ADMITTED to using this image to study asymmetries of the object! I'm sorry, but adding a gradient-map to an image doesn't really help when studying the asymmetries of an object...especially after they applied bilinear or bicubic interpolation to it! This throws into question Luis Barrera's and the CEFAA's practices.

I already went over the several flaws in Dr. Richard F. Haines previous analyses in other cases.

This is not an attempt to "poison the well" like you ignorantly claim. This is me pointing out serious flaws in the analyses. This goes a long way when people such as your self appeal to authority and ignorantly insist the analyses from these "authorities" are perfect and accurate.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
My question to you directly above, and which you've just failed to answer, is not a personal attack at all and actually does add quite a bit of value here: it distinctly illuminates your biases, which have led to error after error in your "analyses."

Error after error? I'm sorry I only made two errors, thanks. One was a slight calculation error (not even a calculation error just a unit of measurement error), and the other was a slight swap of names of characters. Big deal. This case is so poorly reported that anyone could make the same error.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
In my last post I asked you, specifically as to this this case, "What is the 'amateur mistake' that [astronomer] Barrera is making?" Because you had just said, unambiguously, that Barrera is making "amateur mistakes" in his analysis of this present case.

Luis Barrera admitted to DrDil that this image which contains nothing more than a gradient-map applied to a normal image was used to study asymmetries. This gradient-map does nothing but contaminate the evidence by manipulating the pixel data artificially. It is a very amateur mistake. Secondly, the section of the image that shows an enlarged view of the UFO shows signs of bilinear or bicubic interpolation which ALSO contaminates the evidence by adding pixel data that did not exist in the original image. That too is also an amateur mistake.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
But what was YOUR answer re: Barrera's specific mistakes in this case? Something best paraphrased as "He must be wrong.... he just MUST be... because look, Haines did 'heat studies' in the past, and someone else said that Barrera had done them here."

That is NOT AT ALL what I claimed. My overall stance was to show that the scientists involved in investigating the case (Barrera and Hains) both have and are making amateur mistakes.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Here's the bottom line: for 20 pages, reasonable people have simply been asking you and a few others to withhold judgment on the insect issue until the remaining data and the details of the scientists' methods are released. But you've persisted in aggressively and obnoxiously pushing the "bug theory", which people supremely more qualified than you have said they've specifically ruled out, and described how.

I don't need to hold judgement. It's plainly obvious the video is of flying insects. I know this for a fact because I can see it in the video just like you can see there are F16's in the video. Just because you don't know what it is, doesn't mean others don't.

Since I know these are insects, I know that the entire investigation from CEFAA is flawed. It will be very easy for me to find every flaw in their investigation too.

I will bet you anything this will be proven to be flying insects in the near future, and I will be laughing last.

Originally posted by DrDil

"Fortunately in some videos it is possible to observe birds, which showed the expected pattern of changing asymmetries due to the flap of the wings. But this is not the case of the target!!" - Luis Barrera

It seems as though Luis Barrera is alluding to the idea that the objects are not insects because they don't show any detectable change in asymmetry. I hope he understands the several causes of such a result.

1) Most insect wings are translucent, so they will blend with the background light quite easily. That would make them more difficult to see on video.

2) Most insect wings while in flight move at high speeds which causes motion blur, and that would make the wings even more transparent.

3) The forward flight of insects also causes motion blur, and that would even further hide the wings.

4) Most insect wings are small, so combine that with dual motion blur and transparencies and the wings could easily become invisible to low resolution cameras.

5) Insects outside of the depth of field (focus) will become "blurfos" which would also hide their wings.

6) Combine all the above with image / video compression and insect wings will become hidden by the compression algorithm.

All of the above could cause the insects to not have any significant or detectable changes in asymmetry. So their study is inconclusive so far.

reply to post by RSF77


Are you kidding me? Whats with the personal attacks....

This case has been so horribly documented that many people, including my self, didn't even realize that the public video we all have seen is comprised of "multiple videos". We all figured it was considered "one" video, but it turns out it is considered "three" videos by the CEFAA and Kean. Even you were not exactly sure that is why you said, "Incorrect I think.".

After that post, I, as did many others, realized that the video did contain 3 different videos of 3 different events. So immediately after your post I made a post about it.

Your ignorant claim that I am "skirting around facts" is just a personal attack because you have nothing of any substance to add to this subject.

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
I did not ignore DrDil's communications. Actually, if YOU wouldn't have ignored DrDil's reply you would have known that Luis Barrera ADMITTED to using this image to study asymmetries of the object! I'm sorry, but adding a gradient-map to an image doesn't really help when studying the asymmetries of an object...especially after they applied bilinear or bicubic interpolation to it!

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Luis Barrera admitted to DrDil that this image which contains nothing more than a gradient-map applied to a normal image was used to study asymmetries.

Hi again UFOGlobe,

I’m not entirely sure how you arrived at the above conclusions from what I wrote. Barrera never stated what you allege and to the best of my powers of deduction it wasn’t even implied.

Obviously I’m in no position to presume what was being inferred by Gen. Bermúdez when he referred to the heat study but I think it’s a safe conclusion that whatever heat study was performned that the astronomer who was quoted (Luis Barrera) played no part in it whatsoever.

I asked Barrera to comment on what Kean posted and I actually used your image as the medium UFOGlobe, mainly as I’m lazy(! ) but also because the text was already highlighted, linked and had been copied/pasted as plain text:



Here is a screen capture of the email/question I first sent:



And here is the subsequent reply (the reason his own name is included in the reply was because he copied & pasted what I’d sent to him and didn’t remove his own name):



As you can see Luis never claimed ownership or even prior knowledge of the images & quote I supplied him, writing:

“I have never concluded that ‘The black area is some kind of energy, and the neutral blue represents solid mass.’

During the analysis of those videos, the main idea was the study of asymmetries in order to detect mass loss around the "object" (which is typically observed in small bodies falling to the earth).

On the other hand, such asymmetries can be used to compare it with the expected pattern of insect or birds flying in the field of view.”

Cheers.

Originally posted by UFOGlobe

Originally posted by DrDil

"Fortunately in some videos it is possible to observe birds, which showed the expected pattern of changing asymmetries due to the flap of the wings. But this is not the case of the target!!" - Luis Barrera

It seems as though Luis Barrera is alluding to the idea that the objects are not insects because they don't show any detectable change in asymmetry. I hope he understands the several causes of such a result.

1) Most insect wings are translucent, so they will blend with the background light quite easily. That would make them more difficult to see on video.

2) Most insect wings while in flight move at high speeds which causes motion blur, and that would make the wings even more transparent.

3) The forward flight of insects also causes motion blur, and that would even further hide the wings.

4) Most insect wings are small, so combine that with dual motion blur and transparencies and the wings could easily become invisible to low resolution cameras.

5) Insects outside of the depth of field (focus) will become "blurfos" which would also hide their wings.

6) Combine all the above with image / video compression and insect wings will become hidden by the compression algorithm.

All of the above could cause the insects to not have any significant or detectable changes in asymmetry. So their study is inconclusive so far.

That is more or less exactly what I emailed him just a little more condensed, this was after he explained how easy it was to determine whether it was the wings of a bird or not:

“I always favoured the insect theory. Admittedly this is mainly as I’ve seen quite a bit of footage that bore more than a passing resemblance to screen-captures of the released video. Namely that the -out of focus- rapid motion of the translucent wings coupled with severe motion-blur often resembles a ‘classic domed saucer’ shape (with the wings creating the domed illusion).

Would the equipment you were using be sensitive enough to detect the fluctuations in the asymmetry of an insect wing analysed frame-by-frame at 30fps and also not being the (optimal) focal point which lay far beyond the target (if target was considerably closer than previously calculated)?

Or would the relative speed & close proximity of the insect in relation to the camera cause it to appear in alternate frames as more of a solid object?”

Cheers.

So what exactly would it take for the people of ATS to see something they believe is real? Specifically Aliens or UFO's....?

Ahhh, UFOGlobe, now your accusation changes. First Barrera was guilty because he tried to do a "heat study" on an image which should not allow it. That accusation of yours having just been shown to be false, a few posts above, you now modify it to this: Barrera is guilty of using a modified image that is "nothing more than a gradient-map applied to a normal image" to study asymmetries, which "is a very amateur mistake."

UFOGlobe:
"Luis Barrera admitted to DrDil that this image which contains nothing more than a gradient-map applied to a normal image was used to study asymmetries. This gradient-map does nothing but contaminate the evidence by manipulating the pixel data artificially. It is a very amateur mistake."

With the first sentence, you're just plain LYING. Here's the link to DrDil's well-done blog, which contains Barrera's words.

1) Nowhere does Barrera say that the image you reference was used to study asymmetries, or at all. (Not a minor point, or just nit-picking!)
2) Most importantly, nowhere does Barrera say that the image you reference is "a gradient-map applied to a normal image."

Here's what Barrera does say: "During the analysis of those videos, the main idea was the study of asymmetries in order to detect mass loss around the "object" (which is typically observed in small bodies falling to the earth). On the other hand, such asymmetries can be used to compare it with the expected pattern of insect or birds flying in the field of view."

So, think carefully about this one UFOGlobe: HOW do you know that the image that's been used in news stories "contains nothing more than a gradient-map applied to a normal image" AND is also the image (or of the type) that Barrera used to reach a substantial portion of his "not an insect" conclusion?

What, you know this because it kinda looks like an example of gradient-mapping posted up above by an entomologist? (That's not a shot at user 'entoman'; his words I'm much more inclined to trust.) Be precise as to how you know these things, so that you can be proven precisely wrong once the actual professional analyses/methods are released.

And this part of your post, UFOGlobe, is priceless: "This gradient-map does nothing but contaminate the evidence by manipulating the pixel data artificially."

"Contaminate", really? That sounds serious. (What, those silly Ph.D.'s did a CTRL-S "Save" instead of a "Save As", and lost the original images and data? ;- ) Or do you think maybe they still have BOTH, the originals and all modifieds? The fact is you have no idea what they've done or what processes they've used. Because they've not yet detailed their methods!

And doesn't any image editing algorithm "contaminate the evidence by manipulating the pixel data artificially"? Suppose I take a picture in the dark, and then mess around with the brightness and contrast and gamma in my photo software. Did I just "contaminate the evidence by manipulating the pixel data artificially"? Where can I find a list of the photo-manipulation operations that "contaminate... by manipulating the pixel data artificially"? Because I want to compare that list with the operations that Barrera says he used in his study. (Wait... do we have that yet?)

Secondly, the section of the image that shows an enlarged view of the UFO shows signs of bilinear or bicubic interpolation which ALSO contaminates the evidence by adding pixel data that did not exist in the original image. That too is also an amateur mistake.

You need to either prove your qualifications, or refer me to something that would allow me to confirm what you assert. Because you've done plenty of mis-characterizing above. And your prior posts simply aren't convincing. (Nevermind that we have no idea how, specifically, the images from news stories were or were not used!)

To put it all another way... given what I've seen from you so far, who do you think most people are going to believe? A random anonymous guy in a message forum who twists and turns, modifies accusations as needed, casually alleges a scientist is guilty of fraud or incompetence, etc... or will people trust the credentialed and professional scientists, in particular here an astrophysicist who has written things like this and like this? (Notice anything in those papers that suggests he knows a a fair bit about image processing and analysis?) So I'm going to go with the proven professional. Who are you again?

Ok, this is just getting ridiculous...

reply to post by DrDil


DrDil, in the image you sent Luis Barrera it says;

Astronomer Luis Barrera highlighted heat on top and in the band below during his analysis. The black area is some kind of energy, and the neutral blue represents solid mass, according to Barrera.

Luis Barrera replied to you saying;

"I have never concluded that ‘The black area is some kind of energy, and the neutral blue represents solid mass."

As you can see, he ONLY denied the conclusion. He did NOT deny that he "highlighted heat on top and in the band below during his analysis". This tells me that HE WAS responsible for that image.

Then, in the CONTEXT of the image he said;

During the analysis of those videos, the main idea was the study of asymmetries in order to detect mass loss around the "object" (which is typically observed in small bodies falling to the earth).

To me it seems he was explaining the reason for applying those image effects to the image. It seems his justification for manipulating the image was to "detect mass loss around the object".

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Ahhh, UFOGlobe, now your accusation changes. First Barrera was guilty because he tried to do a "heat study" on an image which should not allow it. That accusation of yours having just been shown to be false, a few posts above, you now modify it to this: Barrera is guilty of using a modified image that is "nothing more than a gradient-map applied to a normal image" to study asymmetries, which "is a very amateur mistake."

No, not exactly...

Gen. Bermúdez was quoted saying the images were "heat studies". Up until this moment that still stands. Gen. Bermúdez is guilty for claiming those images were "heat studies".

Leslie Kean credited Luis Barrera for doing the highlighting of heat in those images. Till this moment, Barrera has NOT confirmed or denied that he is responsible for those images. He only denied certain asserted conclusions from those images.

Those images clearly show someone applied a simple gradient-map to them. That fact still remains, the CEFAA and people involved are using these images to support some wild claim that these are "unknown phenomena". Those images actually show nothing at all except that they know how to apply adjustment layers in Photoshop.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
With the first sentence, you're just plain LYING. Here's the link to DrDil's well-done blog, which contains Barrera's words.

1) Nowhere does Barrera say that the image you reference was used to study asymmetries, or at all. (Not a minor point, or just nit-picking!)
2) Most importantly, nowhere does Barrera say that the image you reference is "a gradient-map applied to a normal image."

No I was NOT lying. It's called CONTEXT.

1) In the CONTEXT of the image supplied by DrDil, Barrera seemed to justify the manipulation of the images to study the edges of the object for changes in asymmetry.

2) Barrera doesn't have to say the image is just a gradient-map, it is PLAINLY OBVIOUS that it is just a gradient-map.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
So, think carefully about this one UFOGlobe: HOW do you know that the image that's been used in news stories "contains nothing more than a gradient-map applied to a normal image" AND is also the image (or of the type) that Barrera used to reach a substantial portion of his "not an insect" conclusion?

I know it is just a gradient-map because I can make an exactly identical version of the image by applying a simple "Adjustment Layer" called a "Gradient-Map" to the image. Plus, the image is obviously an identical copy of the video, and SOMEBODY had to apply some type of adjustment layer to get the results shown.

Barrera said himself in the CONTEXT of the image sent by DrDil that he was using it to study the asymmetry. He was obviously explaining the purpose for the manipulation.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
What, you know this because it kinda looks like an example of gradient-mapping posted up above by an entomologist? Be precise as to how you know these things, so that you can be proven precisely wrong once the actual professional analyses/methods are released.

I am professional in image and video forensics. I can easily see they applied a simple gradient-map to the image. I can make an exact replica in 2 seconds right now. That is how I know.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
And this part of your post, UFOGlobe, is priceless: "This gradient-map does nothing but contaminate the evidence by manipulating the pixel data artificially."

"Contaminate", really? That sounds serious. (What, those silly Ph.D.'s did a CTRL-S "Save" instead of a "Save As", and lost the original images and data? ;- ) Or do you think maybe they still have BOTH, the originals and all modifieds? The fact is you have no idea what they've done or what processes they've used. Because they've not yet detailed their methods!

Your quote is simply ignorant. We are talking about image forensics. When analyzing images and video you want to study the RAW data. When you modify an image and change the pixel data using adjustment layers and filters the image is no longer RAW and you have "contaminated" the evidence which contaminates the test/analysis which makes the results inconclusive.

www.thefreedictionary.com...
contaiminated
1. To make impure or unclean by contact or mixture.

This is actually quite common with amateur UFOlogist who analyze their own images. They will scale their image using bilinear or bicubic interpolation and then apply filters to make certain color data stand out. They will then conclude their UFO has some sort of "energy" around it, and that it has specific characteristics. Little did they know that when they scaled their image they complete contaminated their analysis, and anything further would cause their analysis to be flawed. Then when they applied the filter they further contaminated their analysis and made their results even more flawed. By the end of their analysis they have made erroneous conclusions based on contaminated evidence.