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: 19
56
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadfortruth1
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?

see...lets just say for a minute just for the sake of argument that ETs do exist and this is a real flying saucer....you would be assuming that aliens use the same propulsion systems that humans do.....why can't they use a different propulsion system where it would seem that it would suddenly appear instead of acceleration where motion blur would show in it's acceleration ??




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by stiver
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.


Perhaps they could be handling this better. However, at least they are willing to try. I can't recall another governmental organisation tackling this topic in this manner, can you?

You wouldn't get an equivalent FAA press release if a flying saucer landed at Newark and the occupants started dancing the Macarena on the runway.

Given they are unlikely to be awash in funding and given the career hazard involved they should be applauded.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Check out this analysis...



At 0:20 in the above video you can see the "UFO" in front of the hill.


At 0:45 you can see another "UFO" pass in front of the hill.


At 0:58 you can see what looks like another "UFO" near the ground for a moment.


I think the analysis is pretty devastating to anyone who thinks these are spaceships flying 4000 to 6000 MPH. How do you explain the first object that seems to shoot up from the ground in front of the hill? Did a UFO just decide to leave its underground base at 4000 MPH?
What about the other UFO that seems to crash into the hill at 4000 MPH?
That little dot you can see at 0:58, that is just another UFO flying low to the ground right?


Follow the link in the description of that video and you can see some speed and distance calculations. It seems HOAXKiller1 single-handedly schooled all the scientists at CEFAA in a fraction of the time... IMHO.
edit on 19-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stiver

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

Let me stress this again - professional researchers, appealing for scientific investigation, should show professionalism yet in their introductory attempt to convince the audience.
Oh puh-lease, where is your "professionalism" when you assert they may be hoaxing because they've got books to sell.

The bug believers seem to be in quite a hurry to tar and post unsubstantiated criticisms. We've seen enough of those in this thread already.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 



The bug believers seem to be in quite a hurry to tar and post unsubstantiated criticisms. We've seen enough of those in this thread already....


I don't think we need to label them "bug believers". Just because they require a higher level of evidence and have a higher level of understanding when it comes to high school video basics doesn't mean they are "bug believers".

At the same time, those that push utter trip like the moronic evidence this thread is based on make us all look like ignorant fools. I hope your happy.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Follow the link in the description of that video and you can see some speed and distance calculations. It seems HOAXKiller1 single-handedly schooled all the scientists at CEFAA in a fraction of the time... IMHO.
edit on 19-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)
One can presume you did not bother to read any of it. According to Hoaxkiller (lol, what is in a name, eh?):

Basically you divide our initial distance traveled (755 feet) by our initial distance away (12500 feet) and you will get 0.0604 feet. That means;

If the UFO was only 1 foot away from the camera, it only traveled 0.0604 feet in 100 milliseconds which is
0.41 Miles Per Hour.

If the UFO was only 5 feet away from the camera, it only traveled 0.302 feet in 100 milliseconds which is
2 Miles Per Hour.

If the UFO was only 10 feet away from the camera, it only traveled 0.604 feet in 100 milliseconds which is
4 Miles Per Hour.

If the UFO was 6250 feet away from the camera, it traveled 377.5 feet in 100 milliseconds which is
2574 Miles Per Hour. (see the chart above)

If we assume the object is 12500 feet away, then the object traveled 755 feet per 100 milliseconds which is 5147 Miles Per Hour. That is pretty fast...

Hoaxkiller then begs the question when he argues:

From the looks of it, the only speeds that make sense (if you are not thinking about sci-fi spaceships) are the ones that are in close proximity to the camera. It makes sense when you think about the average speed of most flying insects...
Thus, to Hoaxkiller only slow speeds "make sense" because he is considering only insects as a viable explanation. Not a fast moving flying machine which he dismisses merely by waving hands. The fact that the object passes in front of the hills does not exclude extraordinary speeds. Hoaxkiller seems to ignore the fact that the object was picked up on multiple cameras. He has merely assumed his conclusion: bugs.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


ignoring what hoaxkiller "said".....are you saying that after watching the video and the things pointed out, you still think this is not a bug, but something truly unidentifiable?

because that video sealed the deal for me. i see more analysis on that video by "hoaxkiller" than the alleged people mentioned in the article did - which is almost zero from what has been released and who still have not released any updates on this amazing sighting!


Id also check out his analysis over on his site.....much more analysis than anyone else has done anywhere!
edit on March 19th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MainLineThis
reply to post by jclmavg
 

I don't think we need to label them "bug believers". Just because they require a higher level of evidence and have a higher level of understanding when it comes to high school video basics doesn't mean they are "bug believers".
Lemme see, so far these "critics" have done nothing but make assumptions about what the experts supposedly had, did, say, or write down, and then continue to persist in repeating those - demonstrable! - misrepresentations and accusations as if nothing was the matter and nothing was said or written about it. If that is the "higher quality of evidence" these critics go for, then I'll pass.


At the same time, those that push utter trip like the moronic evidence this thread is based on make us all look like ignorant fools. I hope your happy.
Ah, I see, mind made up. No wonder you sound so sour.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Check out this analysis...


Nice video UFOGlobe, do you know who this YouTube user is?

I’ll be honest when I read one of your earlier comments about *elevenaugust* and myself having been around the block as it were, coupled with your ‘special’ style of posting l was fairly certain I recognised your writing style…..

Testing, one, one, one, one…..?

Ah, nevermind, nice find either way.



Cheers!!



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by jclmavg
 


ignoring what hoaxkiller "said".....are you saying that after watching the video and the things pointed out, you still think this is not a bug, but something truly unidentifiable?

because that video sealed the deal for me. i see more analysis on that video by "hoaxkiller" than the alleged people mentioned in the article did - which is almost zero from what has been released and who still have not received any updates on this amazing sighting!
and more anlaysis than those who are name calling the members who think it is a bug....

Id also check out his analysis over on his site.....much more analysis than anyone else has done anywhere!
edit on March 19th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)


On the face of it, its compelling.

Next step is to present the CEFAA with the 'hoaxkiller' analysis and let them defend their position with their own analysis or fold.

Still waiting on the CEFAA analysis to see what convinced them to such an extent much they felt the need to gamble their reputations on it.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 

The following was a quote from a post by Antony270381, on which I commented:


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

I hope this will correct your confusion and misinterpretation of my post.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by jclmavg
 


ignoring what hoaxkiller "said".....are you saying that after watching the video and the things pointed out, you still think this is not a bug, but something truly unidentifiable?

because that video sealed the deal for me. i see more analysis on that video by "hoaxkiller" than the alleged people mentioned in the article did - which is almost zero from what has been released and who still have not released any updates on this amazing sighting!


Id also check out his analysis over on his site.....much more analysis than anyone else has done anywhere!
edit on March 19th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)
You do realize that your post here has no actual content, it boils down to saying that you *prefer* Hoaxkiller's conclusion. Gee, well great for you. I'll * prefer * to wait until more data comes available to draw a conclusion from.

And what exactly in the Hoaxkiller vid should make me swing towards any explanation now? The fact that the object moves in front of the mountain range? Since the size of the object is unknown, high velocities are still possible. The thing is, you're not content to let that stand as an open question since you've already decided pages ago that it is a bug. Gee! And the most crude thing to say would be that Hoaxkiller has done "more analysis than anyone else has done anywhere!" What a silly thing to say, I guess all those experts - including Barerra - where just eating out of their nose all the time. Yep, them critics sure got high standards! (Iinsert laughing track here)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by MainLineThis
reply to post by jclmavg
 

I don't think we need to label them "bug believers". Just because they require a higher level of evidence and have a higher level of understanding when it comes to high school video basics doesn't mean they are "bug believers".
Lemme see, so far these "critics" have done nothing but make assumptions about what the experts supposedly had, did, say, or write down, and then continue to persist in repeating those - demonstrable! - misrepresentations and accusations as if nothing was the matter and nothing was said or written about it. If that is the "higher quality of evidence" these critics go for, then I'll pass.


At the same time, those that push utter trip like the moronic evidence this thread is based on make us all look like ignorant fools. I hope your happy.
Ah, I see, mind made up. No wonder you sound so sour.


what the critics say is open to crictisim. they put what they put out there.....it is free game. it is up to THEM to prove their theory. it is perfectly fine for us to question them...and to either believe them or dismiss them or whatever...

i have seen many of these "critics" as you call them spend time and effort showing that the bug theory is truth....
i wouldnt be knocking such effort if i were you...unless you have your own analysis to put forth....



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


Do you have anything to add to the SUBJECT or is your sole purpose here to trash other members for their OPINION. I believe the subject is HD video of UFO Stalking Chilean Jets Over Santiago Air Base



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
On the face of it, its compelling.
What part of it is compelling? On Youtube he writes "The fact that they appear in front of the hills means the objects are fairly close". Is this the compelling part? Let's assume his estimation of the distance to the hills is accurate, that would be 12.500 feet. Is this "fairly close"? Is this the compelling part?

Hoaxkiller (sheesh) himself comments that at this distance "755 feet per 100 milliseconds" translates into a speed for the object of "5147 Miles Per Hour". Is this compelling? Seems to be far from it, the opposite in fact. Hoaxkiller then begs the question by saying the only speed which makes "sense" (within a framework of prosaic causes, obviously) would be the lower velocities. Higher velocities do not make "sense" because I suppose Hoaxkiller does not expect to find higher velocities since they can't be true. But wait a minute, that is not evidence, it is an assumption. Is that the compelling part?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by MainLineThis
reply to post by jclmavg
 

I don't think we need to label them "bug believers". Just because they require a higher level of evidence and have a higher level of understanding when it comes to high school video basics doesn't mean they are "bug believers".
Lemme see, so far these "critics" have done nothing but make assumptions about what the experts supposedly had, did, say, or write down, and then continue to persist in repeating those - demonstrable! - misrepresentations and accusations as if nothing was the matter and nothing was said or written about it. If that is the "higher quality of evidence" these critics go for, then I'll pass.


At the same time, those that push utter trip like the moronic evidence this thread is based on make us all look like ignorant fools. I hope your happy.
Ah, I see, mind made up. No wonder you sound so sour.


what the critics say is open to crictisim. they put what they put out there.....it is free game. it is up to THEM to prove their theory. it is perfectly fine for us to question them...and to either believe them or dismiss them or whatever...

i have seen many of these "critics" as you call them spend time and effort showing that the bug theory is truth....
i wouldnt be knocking such effort if i were you...unless you have your own analysis to put forth....
It is funny though, you seem to have no problem with critics who call those who sit on the fence "ignorant fools". You comment on how I supposedly am out to "trash" critics, but no word from you on that remark. That, I find quite surprising. And I'm not knocking anyone's effort, nor do I promote my own ideas about the video and nor should I have to, but as more people have observed some critics - who I will not name but they will be obvious to anyone - seem to have more of an interest in promoting their opinion than looking critically at all sides. They rush to judgement, even when the full videos and analysis have not been released yet.

And one more thing. Did you know that in science it can take years before a paper gets peer-reviewed and published? Now square this with your assumption that if any of the analyses are legitimate and they have made enormous efforts in their investigations, they should release and publish immediately. The assumption is invalid. It shows little respect for the sophisticate processes and channels which are involved.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by justwokeup
On the face of it, its compelling.
What part of it is compelling? On Youtube he writes "The fact that they appear in front of the hills means the objects are fairly close". Is this the compelling part? Let's assume his estimation of the distance to the hills is accurate, that would be 12.500 feet. Is this "fairly close"? Is this the compelling part?

Hoaxkiller (sheesh) himself comments that at this distance "755 feet per 100 milliseconds" translates into a speed for the object of "5147 Miles Per Hour". Is this compelling? Seems to be far from it, the opposite in fact. Hoaxkiller then begs the question by saying the only speed which makes "sense" (within a framework of prosaic causes, obviously) would be the lower velocities. Higher velocities do not make "sense" because I suppose Hoaxkiller does not expect to find higher velocities since they can't be true. But wait a minute, that is not evidence, it is an assumption. Is that the compelling part?


To be honest, i was focusing more on the fact that the video 'appears' to show the same object in place where the original video doesn't.

However, as I made clear, I won't make a judgement until I see the entirety of the CEFAA case.

I have a lot of goodwill toward them for trying but their slowness in following up their initial release isn't helping their case.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I put forth a lot of work trying to disprove the bug theory also with actual common sense and not opinion, but it was largely forgotten and it was chalked off (by you specifically) as "we can't be sure about anything we read". If that's true then why doesn't it also apply to the bug theory? Or anything? UFOGlobe is posting his opinion in a plethora of posts over pages and pages catering to people who don't care to read the thread trying to dilute the thread with nonsensical arguments not based on anything his "analysis" which of course we don't get to see. Occasionally he makes a good point, but the majority of it is ridiculous.

If the end result of everything is that we can't be sure about anything then why does this even matter? Now my posts that highlight inconsistencies in other peoples arguments and their general trends, which would seem to be relevant, are being deleted as "Off-topic". Allowing people to run rampant with misinformation and hidden "personal analysis" is not in the spirit of denying any ignorance and if so this site shouldn't be able to use that slogan.

I still hold my belief that the multiple camera angles and vantage points that existed in the video from square one, discredits the bug theory somewhat. Here recently, you scoff at people who would seek to call it anything other than a bug, but ironically nobody on here really knows what it is anyways. So you are being hypocritical and unscientific, therefore your opinion shouldn't be taken anymore seriously than someone who says it's a flying spaghetti monster.


Originally posted by greeneyedleo
 


Do you have anything to add to the SUBJECT or is your sole purpose here to trash other members for their OPINION. I believe the subject is HD video of UFO Stalking Chilean Jets Over Santiago Air Base


Rooting out actual investigation from nonsense would seem to be relevant to not only this thread, but this A&U forum and ufology in its entirety. How can you discuss something without first rooting out the facts, opinion, heresay and everything and the legitimacy of their sources?

I would say legitimizing people that state their opinion as if it is a fact is very relevant. But let's wait and watch this post get deleted for being "Off-Topic" as well while UFOGlobe tries to spread his misinformation and opinion over 50+ pages of the same arguments that people don't want to read, over and over again.

Sometimes I think the mods don't actually read the threads or any of the posts, they just read the first few lines, decide whether they personally agree with the post or not and take action accordingly. If you are really trying to find the truth, you would apply the same skepticism to all arguments and not favor one that you believe with absolutely no ground to stand on. If I was to pull something out of my butt, I would say it's a hoax before I started calling it a bug.

I was hoping maybe this thread would continue like it did for a while in the first 10 or so pages, it was a good thread until it was killed. But c'est la vie I guess, when there is no new information out come the speculators and the oxymoron know it alls.

The only evidence for it being a bug is it could vaguely resemble a blurry out of focus bug so = bug? That's not thorough enough for me considering we are talking about what this could potentially be. Once again, if its a bug so be it, close the thread. If it's not proven to be a bug, then the bug theory is just as ridiculous as any explanation and you shouldn't talk about it as if anyone who reserves judgement is crazy.

If there was people coming on here saying it was an alien spacecraft I would say the same thing to them. For all intents and purposes, the "skeptics" on this thread are essentially the same as "believers" on another.


Originally posted by greeneyedleo
i have seen many of these "critics" as you call them spend time and effort showing that the bug theory is truth....

I haven't, I don't know what you saw in this thread that I didn't, but I haven't seen anything in this thread other than opinion that says this is a bug. Where is this proof you speak of that that the "bug theory is truth"?

If it is then close the thread, I'll go somewhere else and discuss it.


Originally posted by UFOGlobe
 

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.


No, I said "Incorrect I think" because I didn't want to start an argument about it, I wanted you to find out yourself. Turns out I had to spell it out for you in order to get you to read the article. I also caught you editing out the part where you were admitting you were wrong. You should have left it, I for one would have had a lot higher opinion of you then. You have been playing word games just about through this entire thread, now people are beginning to notice and when they bring it up you call it personal attacks because your credibility and motive are being called into question.

That's a lot different than contradicting yourself in your own post.

In the end it just irks me that people speak as if they know what this is, when they really don't. That goes for both sides of the label, "believer" and "skeptic". I'll give you due credit, you pointed out some good stuff to me in the beginning I missed, but since then what happened man?

You joined the bug team and ran with it, when in reality nobody knows what this is yet.


Originally posted by UFOGlobe
 

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.


Oh yea?

The only reason people are "attacking" you (as you see it), is because you pretty much destroyed this thread and filled it full of nonsense. Now it's nothing more than an opinion, ego swinging exercise and it won't change until you leave. I left, came back and I find pages and pages of you arguing about things you can't (and in some cases refuse to) prove.

Honestly, everybody just needs to shut up until more information comes out. Unless you found something in the video.
edit on 19-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by MainLineThis
reply to post by jclmavg
 

I don't think we need to label them "bug believers". Just because they require a higher level of evidence and have a higher level of understanding when it comes to high school video basics doesn't mean they are "bug believers".
Lemme see, so far these "critics" have done nothing but make assumptions about what the experts supposedly had, did, say, or write down, and then continue to persist in repeating those - demonstrable! - misrepresentations and accusations as if nothing was the matter and nothing was said or written about it. If that is the "higher quality of evidence" these critics go for, then I'll pass.


At the same time, those that push utter trip like the moronic evidence this thread is based on make us all look like ignorant fools. I hope your happy.
Ah, I see, mind made up. No wonder you sound so sour.


what the critics say is open to crictisim. they put what they put out there.....it is free game. it is up to THEM to prove their theory. it is perfectly fine for us to question them...and to either believe them or dismiss them or whatever...

i have seen many of these "critics" as you call them spend time and effort showing that the bug theory is truth....
i wouldnt be knocking such effort if i were you...unless you have your own analysis to put forth....
It is funny though, you seem to have no problem with critics who call those who sit on the fence "ignorant fools". You comment on how I supposedly am out to "trash" critics, but no word from you on that remark. That, I find quite surprising. And I'm not knocking anyone's effort, nor do I promote my own ideas about the video and nor should I have to, but as more people have observed some critics - who I will not name but they will be obvious to anyone - seem to have more of an interest in promoting their opinion than looking critically at all sides. They rush to judgement, even when the full videos and analysis have not been released yet.

And one more thing. Did you know that in science it can take years before a paper gets peer-reviewed and published? Now square this with your assumption that if any of the analyses are legitimate and they have made enormous efforts in their investigations, they should release and publish immediately. The assumption is invalid. It shows little respect for the sophisticate processes and channels which are involved.


The concern is that this isn't like a normal academic publication.

They claim they have already done the analysis. If they delay in making the case they will be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Most people and especially most mainstream news outlets will ignore this if they possibly can.

Its not been picked up by the BBC for example. In fact the BBC webpage today for a long time had a link to an unrelated 2 year old UFO article linking UFO sighting frequency to Hollywood movie releases. Pure co-incidence i'm sure.

If they don't win the media battle it won't matter if a small number of those with an interest in the topic believe them or not.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by stiver
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.


CEFAA has nothing to do with the "inside government" (the true government which takes care of these type of things) ,therefore their opinion only matter to themselves , yes you can have your own opinion always but that neither make your opinion a fact nor it invalidates the possibility that Aliens have being visiting us constantly for a long time and that there are currently military underground bases & Alien underground bases & also Intraterrestrials living underground the true owners of this planet which the true name is SHAN , so when the Aliens speaks about the SHAN civilization they are refering to the Intraterrestrials not humans they consider us humans to be barbarian apes living on the surface, nothinhg more nothing lesss and believe me or not someone that works for the US airforce told me this personaly because he is my friend.
About books , well , I never purchased not one single book about this and if anyone is making this up to sell books , it is not working very well they should change their strattegy....



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join