HD video of UFO Stalking Chilean Jets Over Santiago Air Base

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
So I'm going to go with the proven professional. Who are you again?

Wow that is so pathetic. Appeal to authority much? You obviously don't have a mind of your own and need a professional to hold your hand.

If I didn't care about anonymity I would start name dropping and flashing credentials to win over your feeble mind. But, at this point, since I dislike you, I'd rather watch the humiliation you feel when all this is proven to simply be insects flying in front of a camera, and you blindly trusted some "professionals" who probably have to regurgitate inconclusive evidence in order to justify the existence of their organization and continue to receive funding.

Good day.

Hi again UFOGlobe!!

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Ok, this is just getting ridiculous...

“Ridiculous”?

Ah well, it’s not what I was hoping for but I’ve been called a lot worse, just not usually for seeking clarification and attempting to remove all ambiguity. However now I know & understand what you think and for all I don’t agree with you I will try to seek further confirmation, although unfortunately it’s not guaranteed at this juncture (from Barrera anyway).

My reasons for not agreeing however are as Barrera obviously denies that the words supplied are his, so if they’re not his words and as he has stated that his analysis is different to what the words describe then why do you still then assume the picture which the words are describing is representative of his analysis in any way?

He was very specific regarding what his analysis entailed and I don’t understand why even though he has specifically stated that his analysis consists only of “the study of asymmetries in order to detect mass loss around the object” that you still disregard this and proceed to state that:

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
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.

M’kay I agree and will happily concede that he didn’t deny that but he did tell us what the scope of his research was and that it was “the study of asymmetries in order to detect mass loss around the object” yet this is ignored and you still contend that he, “highlighted heat on top and in the band below” when he has already told us exactly what his research was and what he hoped to detect, neither of which have anything to do with highlighting any heat anywhere.

Also the words originated from Kean who didn’t blog about it until over two weeks after the event (UFO Conference) she posted a different date to which had been posted in earlier accounts and she further claimed that the information had just been released earlier that day (13th March). So there is one doubtful statement & one demonstrably false statement and there are also another two demonstrably false attributions to Barrera (wrongfully attributing a quote to Barrera and wrongly stating what analysis Barrera used). Furthermore she’s the only person to wrongfully attribute this quote to Barrera and yet you’re still willing to give her a pass on all of these factual errors and happily assume she’s correct regarding its origins even though Barrera’s research bears absolutely no correlation at all to what the image depicts?

More power to you brother and I honestly wish I was capable of a faith as strong as yours, it reminds me of a Russell quote that can used to describe a certain stenghth of belief and can be applied equally as well to dogmatic thinking of any variety.

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

The origin of myths is explained in this way.

(Bertrand Russell)

Don’t get me wrong UFOGlobe, you’ve done some great work on this thread and for what it’s worth I still personally believe it’s a bug, but regardless of what I personally believe I am still compelled to accept a fact as a fact whether it complements my personal beliefs & theories or contradicts them.

I guess I just struggle with arriving at what I perceive as an illogical conclusion (i.e. one that contradicts everything we already know) such as you suggest without some (any) kind of persuasive evidence to support it.

Different strokes for different folks I guess…..


Cheers.

reply to post by DrDil


Sorry DrDil, when I said "this is getting ridiculous" it was more of a reaction to TeaAndStrumpets long winded post just above that post, and the fact that all this confusion around who said what and who did what exists when I honestly don't care because the fact remains that SOMEONE from CEFAA made those images and those remarks about "heat". I didn't mean to direct that at you at all.

It would be nice if you can confirm Barrera's involvement in the creation of those manipulated images, because from what I have gathered from his response is that he was involved in the creation of those images just not for the reasons of "heat".

Originally posted by DrDil
M’kay I agree and will happily concede that he didn’t deny that but he did tell us what the scope of his research was and that it was “the study of asymmetries in order to detect mass loss around the object” yet this is ignored and you still contend that he, “highlighted heat on top and in the band below” when he has already told us exactly what his research was and what he hoped to detect, neither of which have anything to do with highlighting any heat anywhere.

No I did not ignore the scope of his research, and I did not mean to contend that he "highlighted heat". Let me explain again and I'll try to be more clear this time;

It is my opinion that Leslie Kean only misquoted the purpose and the conclusions of the manipulated images, but was correct in saying that Barrera was responsible for "highlighting" those areas of the UFO. Although he may not have highlighted those areas to detect "heat", he probably instead highlighted those areas to detect mass loss around the edges of the UFO.

In your communication with Barrera he never confirmed or denied creating the manipulated images, and the way I interpreted his reply was that he was explaining the real purpose for highlighting those areas, which was to detect mass loss.

I guess I was the only one that considered the context? You asked him about the image, he denied the remarks about heat, but went on to explain the actual reasons for the images. That is what it seemed like to me.

Anyway, I'm about ready to move on now from this point because this seems to be going nowhere and my original point has been hidden from view, and lost in the mayhem.

One last thing...

Originally posted by DrDil
Furthermore she’s the only person to wrongfully attribute this quote to Barrera and yet you’re still willing to give her a pass on all of these factual errors and happily assume she’s correct regarding its origins even though Barrera’s research bears absolutely no correlation at all to what the image depicts?

Honestly, I can see how Kean would misquote or misinterpret conclusions, but I have doubts that she incorrectly credited the wrong person for making the images. That was what I was thinking..

Also, in my opinion, those images are quite useless for any form of analysis. Since all things are possible, I was being open minded to the idea that Barrera's research is a bunch of nonsense, and since those images are nonsense, I figured they might be correlated.

The fact remains.. those images are from CEFAA and they are nonsense...

reply to post by UFOGlobe


UFOGlobe do you always read statements with your own personal interpretation in order to justify your theories or discredit someone with a different idea? You addressed many reasons why what he stated wouldn't apply to a bug and somehow felt that was relevant to the below quote. Do you realize many statements you make keep showing that you are trying to force information into places to make your theory make sense and/or to discredit others with a different opinion?

"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

Notice he was discussing Birds ONLY and did not attribute this study in any way as a way to make a determination on bugs at all. Again per their claims they have multiple videos, with multiple videos any amateur could make a determination if that object was a bug or not easily. Even two people side by side filming the same event would not catch the same bug the same way if it flew by close.

Unless of course we are assuming somehow only a single bug flew close in front of every camera and synchronized their distance and movements so that in each camera the object appeared in the same position in relation to the jets and moving the same direction. If they actually have the multiple videos and all have the same object then the bug theory holds absolutely no weight, the next likely theory would be a bird which apparently they have disproven from the above statements.

With your name I would think you cared about the subject at one point and likely wanted to believe, it sure seems you were dissalusioned with MANY (I'm sure there are a lot out there) videos and/or pictures that had pretty high claims that all turned out to be false. You seem to not be operating from a nuetral standpoint, you made your mind up in advance and keep looking for ways to justify it instead of allowing a little tme for the story to develop and take everything in if we are provided with additional evidence.

This is just my opinion of course, I mean no offense by it and I would still agree by the video I have seen that really appears to be a bug. There is a possibility of much more here, no one should be shooting that possibility down offhand without attempting to at least take everything in. You have had some very good posts but in my opinion you kill your own credability being so fiercely one sided, just as anyone being fiercely on the other side would as well right now with incomplete information.

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Wow that is so pathetic. Appeal to authority much? You obviously don't have a mind of your own and need a professional to hold your hand.

Obviously. Anyone who'd trust the word of a recognized, published astrophysicist over some anonymous internet guy suffering from obvious bias and agenda issues is clearly not thinking for himself. Poor me. And the pack mentality I suffer from is most acute, I admit, when the data being discussed hasn't been released, and the topic relates directly to said scientist's daily work....

And beyond qualifications, compare what HE has to lose by so publicly backing erroneous scientific results regarding a topic that is already taboo (his career!) vs. what you, anonymous Mr. UFOGlobe, have to lose by being wrong (precisely nothing). Further, only one of you two has all the data and knows the methods used, right? And that's HIM. So don't characterize my position as a mere appeal to authority; it's an appeal to COMMON SENSE.

If I didn't care about anonymity I would start name dropping and flashing credentials to win over your feeble mind.

No credential you could invent would ever "win me over" to your way of thinking, given the dishonesty and dis-ingenuousness I've seen from you in this thread. Be happy I don't go back and make a "UFOGlobe's Greatest Hits" collection to really highlight your slipperiness and shifting arguments.

What would definitely "win me over" in the sense of happening to agree with you on this topic would be facts. And the only facts you've presented are that you "just know" Barrera was working with simple gradient maps, because it is "plainly obvious." But I'm afraid I need a little more than that....

Are you honest enough to admit that you know very little about what image manipulations have been performed, and very little about which of those analyses contribute to, and in what proportions, the conclusion that the object in question is not an insect?

But, at this point, since I dislike you, I'd rather watch the humiliation you feel when all this is proven to simply be insects flying in front of a camera, and you blindly trusted some "professionals" ...
Good day.

Were this all shown to be insects, this very minute, WHY exactly would I feel 'humiliation'? I don't think you've ever understood the point here.... Would that outcome mean my recommendation that we withhold judgment until all data is in had just been proven poor advice?

reply to post by UFOGlobe


So I'm curious... By your logic if they just look at the RAW images then they can make a professional analysis of the photo then?

Is there any reason to think they didn't examine the RAW image data?

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 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)

Towards the end of this video, they have soe sort of radio communications with what appears to be a pilot? Are the pilots of the jets discussing seeing the object for themselves? Since I dont understand the language I could be way off the mark, just throwing it out there.

if u missed it case is not a bug,....lmao
this post is the proof>www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by paradiselost333


The argument against that is that they dont specifficaly mention 'insects'. It could be pedantic or that could be something in it. Again as with this whole things, its unclear so a definitive explanation cannot be logically offered.

Either the UFO disc metalic pictures were inserted frame by frame into the video footage using a software or it is a real UFO of Alien or human origin ,I never saw any metalic looking disc shape bugs ,,,,

The reason I say this is because UFO´s can travel with a speed so high it is almost impossible for the human eye to follow it and for the guy that is sayin gthat there are only fake videos in youtube i present to you a real one... metalic shaped disc in an amazing footage from 1991.

As stated early on this thread, Haines did, on January 6, 2011 a study called "Photo Analysis of Color Digital Images of Anomalous Aerial Object Taken on September 17, 2010 above Santiago, Chile" and that can be found here.

In this study, "twelve high resolution, color, digital photographs (were) taken on Friday, September 17, 2010 in downtown Santiago, Chile (and) were analyzed because of the presence of a small, dark, unidentified aerial phenomenon that appeared in the sky behind a formation of single engine, acrobatic propeller-driven airplanes."

One of the main goal of this study was to show that there was at the time some heat radiating from the UFO and that "this UFO might have been a contained plasma whose energy level was sufficient to ionize gases in the atmosphere and produce various desaturated hues along with white.

To conduct its analysis, Haines stated that "Luminance stretching disclosed a light colored halo around and generally above most of the UFO images which may represent heat radiating (and rising) from the core of the UFO" (p1) and "Luminance stretched images in the green and blue hues for these same figures show a less pronounced halo, suggesting that the halo exists in the longer (red) (heat?) wavelengths.". (Note that in this last sentence, he seemed not sure about the red wavelengths to be able to exhibits heat).
On this same page (p25), he also said ""I assert that this lighter region represents heat that is rising from the surface of the UFO.", and also later (p27): "it is asserted that the pink regions represent heat that is being given off from the body of the UFO and is rising and dissipating with distance"

The camera used was a Nikon D300 and Haines, in appendix 6 (p38), reproduce its spectral sensitivity. (See below)
However, and as Haines stated himself p21, "a stock (off-the-shelf) model Nikon D300 is not sensitive beyond 700 nm in the infrared the camera used for the data of Appendix 6 was modified to extend its sensitivity farther into the infrared as is shown."





Now, the problem is that nowhere in its study, Haines stated that the Nikon D300 that the Chilean Air Force photographer used was also modified this way to be IR sensitive (And further more I don't see any reasons why it should be).
So we can reasonably say that it wasn't the case and therefore that the camera wasn't IR sensitive and wasn't even sensitive to the red channel from 700nm to 750nm...



The question now is: "Besides the fact that there are serious doubts as to how any "heat signature" can be extracted from a JPEG file, one can wonder how is it possible to conduct a "heat study" on a camera that wasn't even neither IR sensitive nor higher red wavelengths sensitive ?"

Sources:
- Nikon D300 previewed
- Nikon D300 study
- Richard F. Haines report
- Electromagnetic spectrum
- Visible spectrum
- Red

The thing that gets me is, if this is either a bug close to the cameras lens or an actual ET craft, there is no motion blur in the still shots
I would guess the video was shot at 30fps maybe 60fps, either one would produce some motion blur in single frames if the bug or object was moving that fast across the screen.

Could this be interdimensional?

Originally posted by elevenaugust
The question now is: "Besides the fact that there are serious doubts as to how any "heat signature" can be extracted from a JPEG file, one can wonder how is it possible to conduct a "heat study" on a camera that wasn't even neither IR sensitive nor higher red wavelengths sensitive ?"

Why don't you ask Haines, rather than asking the question here?

What this thread might look like as a text conversation.

- Have you seen that video on ATS - the Chilean UFO?
- IT’S BUGS
- Yeah, that was my first thought, but experts who’ve seen all the evidence have ruled that out.
- IT’S BUGS.
- Yeah, like I said, I thought so too, but a lot of smart and qualified people, who’ve seen and analysed all the evidence, are saying it’s not.
- IT’S BUGS
- You’re probably right, but I think it might be a bit premature to make a definite statement when not all the evidence is available to us.
- IT’S BUGS
- Yeah, If all we had to go on was that single video then I’d have to agree.
- THAT IS ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON
- Really? So you’re just going to ignore a bunch of relevantly qualified people, who’ve analysed all the evidence?
- THEY’RE LYING/HOAXING
- What have they got to gain by lying or hoaxing?
- THEY’VE GOT BOOKS TO SELL
- They’d be completely ridiculed - it’d ruin their careers.
- THEY’RE IDIOTS THEN
- Highly educated idiots?
- APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - YOUR ARGUMENT IS VOID
- Not really an appeal to authority - more like not ignoring those who are better informed.
- I KNOW EVERYTHING.
- Fair enough. I think I’m going to wait until they reveal the full extent and details of their analysis though.
- IT’S BUGS









- BUGS

reply to post by Antony270381


Some of these you got almost accurate, others not, but IMO there is one point that is the most important and requires clarification:

- What have they got to gain by lying or hoaxing?
- THEY’VE GOT BOOKS TO SELL

The main purpose of including this case in the presentation of Gen. Bermudez aims much higher than just selling books and is reflected in the three main points of his proposal at the UFO conference:

It is necessary to a have a serious agency to direct the investigation in all the world.

This agency must collect and share information and proceed to make an effective scientific investigation.

I believe that this agency should be located in the United Nations as a part of the Space Affairs.

In my opinion this is a valuable goal. But when one appeals for scientific investigation, they need to show professionalism at any level of presenting a case, even at the very first stage of releasing an introductory batch of data to the public.

It's great that these videos were investigated by 6 or 12 highly educated people, but when this proposal and the supporting documents reach the respective authorities, which will have to decide on the creation and funding of such agency, this data will be analyzed again by 60-120 no-less educated people. I truly hope that the delay of the analysis and the other videos at the moment is because the CEFAA team is double checking their documentation. Because, you are correct, at the moment, judging by the released limited information and by some particular errors in the investigation process - yes, these objects look more like terrestrial bugs.

Let me stress this again - professional researchers, appealing for scientific investigation, should show professionalism yet in their introductory attempt to convince the audience.

reply to post by seeker1977


Great, so they link the whole site with the people jumping to conclusion.

reply to post by stiver


You want the authorirties to create a project so this can be analized by 60-120 highly educated people? Wake up this wil never happend ....
Im not saying this is real and this could be a hoax or natural phenomenon, regarding the UFO subject the Governtment already knows everyhting about this subject , they know what it is where it comes from , there is a government inside the actual government on every country in the world ., one is Available to the public the other is not... So the governmet that takes care of this UFO,ALIEN subject have a president , ministers , and everything else... they already know everything that there is to know either if this is actual an alien craft or not it is irrelevant...

reply to post by UFOGlobe


It wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation. Take it however you want.

reply to post by pla123


Well, I almost forgot that am visiting a conspiracy forum and your opinion is probably adequate to the general ideas expressed here However, I reserve my right to have a different opinion on the matter.

But my personal opinion doesn't really matter in this case. What matters is that the CEFAA team has high ambitions. Therefore, they need to stand to high standards. At the moment, the way they present their case betrays a certain level of unpreparedness and even incompetence.