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: 20
56
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by jclmavg
 


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!



But that's the vital part, isn't it? Not ALL of the evidence has been released yet. Hopefully it will be soon and then EVERYBODY, no matter what side of the fence they're sat on, will be able to make an informed judgement.

Until then, everybody, hoaxkiller included, is working from only a fraction of the evidence and therefore, it seems completely unscientific and wildly premature to claim any definitive conclusion (one way or the other), no matter how extensive the analysis.

Of course, if this additional evidence does not materalise or, after we've combed through it, proves to be unsatisfactory then by all means file this one in the ever expanding "could be anything really, but it's probably bugs" bin. But, as it stands right now, to dismiss it without even bothering to wait for the promised supporting evidence seems to run in complete contradiction to the spirit of this site.

It's only been two days - have a bit of patience.
edit on 19-3-2012 by Antony270381 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
If there was people coming on here saying it was an alien spacecraft I would say the same thing to them.



Originally posted by pla123
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....


Geez, ask and you shall receive I guess. Ten fold.

Not hard to see the blatant disruption being caused here.
edit on 19-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   


Geez, ask and you shall receive I guess. Ten fold.

Not hard to see the blatant disruption being caused here.
edit on 19-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


All Im saying is that if really was an Alien spacecraft or not this is not our concern , none of us here is a member of the "shadow Government" that takes care of these things (Aliens, UFO) , neither we have the abilities or technonlogy to determine what that was including CEFAA. So we should humbly stop trying to determine what it was and leave it to the professionals, but guess what ? Those professionals dont share information with cattle like us. So I guess we should pretend it was a bug and move on with our lifes.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
One can presume you did not bother to read any of it.


You are right! I didn't bother to read anything HOAXKiller wrote.



Originally posted by jclmavg
According to Hoaxkiller (lol, what is in a name, eh?):


Now look who's poisoning the well.


Originally posted by jclmavg
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.


You must be new to UFOlogy because you obviously have no idea how all this works. First you must rule out the ordinary and mundane (explainable things that makes sense) and then you work your way to the extraordinary (unexplained things that don't make sense).

HOAXKiller was obviously just building the case for the ordinary and mundane by highlighting the speeds that "make sense" in regards to the explainable. Any numskull can just create pseudo-scientific claims of super high-tech gravity canceling zero-point energy transforming mega spiral vortex shaped magnetic lay line harvesting multidimensional wormhole manifesting anti-matter decay powered over unity spaceships that travel a gazillion miles per hour.

I don't think you should claim to know what HOAXKiller is considering as viable explanations, or assume what he is dismissing, when you don't know a single thing about him or his methods. Sound familiar?



Originally posted by jclmavg
The fact that the object passes in front of the hills does not exclude extraordinary speeds.


Nobody ever claimed that because the objects passed in front of the hills it excludes extraordinary speeds.

However, the fact that it passes in front of the hill does throw many things into question. Before everyone assumed one of the objects came from over the hill in the background, but now in light of new evidence found, it turns out that object came from somewhere in the foreground. This actually supports the bug theory that the objects are small and close, and not big and far.

Before, everyone assumed the objects were big and far and fast, because they were in the sky. However, now with the evidence of the objects passing in front of the hills it means the objects are more likely small and close to the camera.


Originally posted by jclmavg
Hoaxkiller seems to ignore the fact that the object was picked up on multiple cameras.


No, Hoaxkiller did not ignore that, and mentions the videos multiple times through his website. Also, it is not a "fact" until it is proven to be true. YOU seem to ignore the fact that the videos have not been released, nor have they been proven to show the same objects in every video. In fact, all you are basing your "fact" on is hearsay and rumors.


Originally posted by jclmavg
He has merely assumed his conclusion: bugs.


Actually, I'm pretty sure he is basing his conclusions on many years of experience, many hours of analysis, and even a little common sense.

edit on 19-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrDil
Nice video UFOGlobe, do you know who this YouTube user is?


Yes, I do know who that YouTube user is. I'm sure you do as well.


Originally posted by DrDil
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…..?


Shhhhh




Glad to see you around buddy.
edit on 19-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
the bug posters still haven't shown me any proof that this is a bug...there is about as much proof as ET phone home is piloting that UFO as it is a bug



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe

However, the fact that it passes in front of the hill does throw many things into question. Before everyone assumed one of the objects came from over the hill in the background, but now in light of new evidence found, it turns out that object came from somewhere in the foreground. This actually supports the bug theory that the objects are small and close, and not big and far.

Before, everyone assumed the objects were big and far and fast, because they were in the sky. However, now with the evidence of the objects passing in front of the hills it means the objects are more likely small and close to the camera.


So how do you know that Hoaxkiller1 isn't just pointing out the "birds" that Barrera said where present and in some of the videos?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Dont forget, legitimate people have made statements that the Military black project are at least 50 Years ahead of what "Ordinary Folk" are aware of now.
The Beautiful SR71 (I love that craft), was designed in 1959, 50 years later, "Conventional" Jet fighters have similar stealth technology to the Lockheed SR71.
At the time of the SR71, the Super Sabre was still around, as was the Voodoo, as was the F104 Starfighter (also Lockheed).......These "Conventional" fighters were 50 years behind the SR71, in design, BUT were contemporary for the time..

Having seen a "Triangle" 13 years ago, and those various videos of Area 51 from the late 80s, imagine what is flying around the skys now....and they are ours!!!



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 

reply to post by jclmavg
 


It's too bad you can't recognize valuable evidence when it's handed to you.


Originally posted by jclmavg
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?


Well, for one, it's pretty compelling in itself that CEFAA failed to highlight the objects as they pass over the hills. Intentional or not is hard to say yet. However, there has been a few fishy things going on with this study, but that's a whole other issue.

Two, in the beginning everyone was led to believe the UFOs were big, far, and fast because they only appeared in the sky. Now that they have been found to appear on top of the hills, this supports the idea that they are small, close, and not-so-fast bugs in the foreground.

Three, one of the objects which was assumed to have come from beyond the hill tops has now been confirmed to come from somewhere in front of the hill tops. Since the origin of the object is now somewhere below the horizon, this massively supports the idea that these are bugs flying in the foreground and not spaceships flying in the atmosphere.

Four, I'm guessing you completely ignored the object that was found below the horizon by itself. In an attempt to find insects that were not flying in the sky but in the foreground, one was actually found, and it looks identical to the other objects, and moves at appears and disappears at the same speeds as other objects. This is devastating to the theory that they are spacecraft...


Originally posted by jclmavg
Hoaxkiller (sheesh)


Your prejudice is showing...


Originally posted by jclmavg
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?


Actually that is compelling... It's compelling because here we have HOAXKiller independently analyzing the speed of the objects for himself and for fellow UFOlogists while simultaneously teaching people how it is done, but YOU are doing NOTHING but criticizing him for it while you wait to be spoon fed your information from other sources. That is compelling...



Originally posted by jclmavg
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?


As stated in another post, you obviously misinterpreted what he was saying because you are clueless when it comes to debating a UFO sighting. First you rule out the explainable conclusions, then you move on to the unexplainable conclusions. Things that "makes sense" fall under the category of explainable, and they need to be outlined and ruled out (in this case they are not ruled out). Then you can move to the things that do NOT "make sense" like breaking several laws of physics and otherworldly unknown objects.

I hope you learned something from this.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
So how do you know that Hoaxkiller1 isn't just pointing out the "birds" that Barrera said where present and in some of the videos?


Did you not watch the video?



He only pointed out the UFOs that were highlighted by the CEFAA that were passing over hill tops. The other object found is not a bird, it is an identical object to the UFOs.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by primetime2123
the bug posters still haven't shown me any proof that this is a bug...there is about as much proof as ET phone home is piloting that UFO as it is a bug


The space craft posters still haven't shown any proof that this is a space craft.. there is about as much proof as Santa Clause piloting his reindeer sleigh as there is space craft traveling 200 feet above ground going 6000 MPH back and fourth during an air show multiple times without it being seen by anybody at all yet clearly visible in video cameras.

At this point, the evidence that these are explainable (insects) outweighs the evidence of every other explanation.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Now that they have been found to appear on top of the hills, this supports the idea that they are small, close, and not-so-fast bugs in the foreground.


What difference does it make?


Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Three, one of the objects which was assumed to have come from beyond the hill tops has now been confirmed to come from somewhere in front of the hill tops. Since the origin of the object is now somewhere below the horizon, this massively supports the idea that these are bugs flying in the foreground and not spaceships flying in the atmosphere.


And what evidence supports this?

It better be real evidence because you have done this over and over again through the whole thread, I better had missed something somewhere in all this besides your opinion.


Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Four, I'm guessing you completely ignored the object that was found below the horizon by itself. In an attempt to find insects that were not flying in the sky but in the foreground, one was actually found, and it looks identical to the other objects, and moves at appears and disappears at the same speeds as other objects. This is devastating to the theory that they are spacecraft...


Five, the last three of your points are the exact same one.

Link?

Regardless of whether it is above or below the horizon, it still doesn't prove one thing or another. Look at the size of the jets, they are also closer than the hills on the horizon. You seem more interested in coming to a quick conclusion (bugs) than you do anything else.

FYI jets are much bigger than bugs.
edit on 19-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Now that they have been found to appear on top of the hills, this supports the idea that they are small, close, and not-so-fast bugs in the foreground.


What difference does it make?


If I have to explain that then I don't think you would understand what I said if I did explain it.


Originally posted by RSF77

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Three, one of the objects which was assumed to have come from beyond the hill tops has now been confirmed to come from somewhere in front of the hill tops. Since the origin of the object is now somewhere below the horizon, this massively supports the idea that these are bugs flying in the foreground and not spaceships flying in the atmosphere.


And what evidence supports this?


The video evidence..............................

www.youtube.com...

Watch the above video at 0:20 and you will see the object first appears in the middle of the 400 foot tall hill. Although it first appears there, the origin must have been somewhere lower because it is nowhere to be found before that. This supports the idea that we are simply seeing insects flying much closer to the camera. The insects are most likely flying in the foreground (which we can't see because they are blending in with the ground) before they decide to gain altitude and they become visible.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by UFOGlobe
 


Okay, how does that prove the object is right in front of the camera as opposed to a distance off and in front of the hill? The jet's are also bigger than bugs and they are no doubt closer than the hill, if they flew between the observer and the hill would that make them bugs as well?


Originally posted by UFOGlobe
If I have to explain that then I don't think you would understand what I said if I did explain it.


Why not? I've had to explain things to you to get them through your stubborn head.
edit on 19-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I see you edited your post mid way, so I will continue the reply...


Originally posted by RSF77
It better be real evidence because you have done this over and over again through the whole thread, I better had missed something somewhere in all this besides your opinion.


You know what you have done over and over again? Continually attack me and my involvement in this topic. Never once, until now, have I pointed out just how useless you have been in this entire topic doing nothing but denying and nagging over little things.

Learn to read... that is all I can say. Half of the things you accuse me of are caused by your own inability to read and comprehend what people are saying.



Originally posted by RSF77
Five, the last three of your points are the exact same one.


No they were not the exact same. They were both regarding multiple objects. One of those objects being spotted by no one until recently.


Originally posted by RSF77
Link?


www.youtube.com...


Originally posted by RSF77
Regardless of whether it is above or below the horizon, it still doesn't prove one thing or another. Look at the size of the jets, they are also closer than the hills on the horizon. You seem more interested in coming to a quick conclusion (bugs) than you do anything else.

FYI jets are much bigger than bugs.


Wrong... it proves the objects could be smaller than we think. It also supports the idea that they are bugs in the foreground. It actually really hurts the idea that these objects are flying 4000 to 6000 MPH when they are close to the ground. It actually makes the claims look insane.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
I see you edited your post mid way, so I will continue the reply...


Originally posted by RSF77
It better be real evidence because you have done this over and over again through the whole thread, I better had missed something somewhere in all this besides your opinion.


You know what you have done over and over again? Continually attack me and my involvement in this topic. Never once, until now, have I pointed out just how useless you have been in this entire topic doing nothing but denying and nagging over little things.

Learn to read... that is all I can say. Half of the things you accuse me of are caused by your own inability to read and comprehend what people are saying.



Originally posted by RSF77
Five, the last three of your points are the exact same one.


No they were not the exact same. They were both regarding multiple objects. One of those objects being spotted by no one until recently.


Originally posted by RSF77
Link?


www.youtube.com...


Originally posted by RSF77
Regardless of whether it is above or below the horizon, it still doesn't prove one thing or another. Look at the size of the jets, they are also closer than the hills on the horizon. You seem more interested in coming to a quick conclusion (bugs) than you do anything else.

FYI jets are much bigger than bugs.


Wrong... it proves the objects could be smaller than we think. It also supports the idea that they are bugs in the foreground. It actually really hurts the idea that these objects are flying 4000 to 6000 MPH when they are close to the ground. It actually makes the claims look insane.


None of that really makes any sense, nor do you have any real evidence to prove what you have been trying to say for 10 pages. I guess anyone who questions your almighty opinion gets this:


Originally posted by UFOGlobe
just how useless you have been in this entire topic doing nothing but denying and nagging over little things.


Just like I figured.

Also, how do you know the hill is 400ft? Or is that just an assumption as well?
edit on 19-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
Okay, how does that prove the object is right in front of the camera as opposed to a distance off and in front of the hill? The jet's are also bigger than bugs and they are no doubt closer than the hill, if they flew between the observer and the hill would that make them bugs as well?


Now you are just being silly.

These are just analyses. The analyses confirm the objects are closer than previously considered.

Obviously you didn't realize that the "spacecraft believers" had the upper hand because the objects would only appear to be in the sky, so you could make any claim as to their height and distance.

But now "bug believers" got a break because the objects were found to appear in front of the hills. This means the objects could be closer. Now you "spacecraft believers" have a limit in some places as to how far you can claim the objects are.

Man, I can't believe I have to explain this like I would to a child.

I'm done babysitting... see ya.
edit on 19-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOGlobe

Originally posted by RSF77
Okay, how does that prove the object is right in front of the camera as opposed to a distance off and in front of the hill? The jet's are also bigger than bugs and they are no doubt closer than the hill, if they flew between the observer and the hill would that make them bugs as well?


Now you are just being silly.

These are just analyses. The analyses confirm the objects are closer than previously considered.

Obviously you didn't realize that the "spacecraft believers" had the upper hand because the objects would only appear to be in the sky, so you could make any claim as to their height and distance.

But now "bug believers" got a break because the objects were found to appear in front of the hills. This means the objects could be closer. Now you "spacecraft believers" have a limit in some places as to how far you can claim the objects are.

Man, I can't believe I have to explain this like I would to a child.

I'm done babysitting... see ya.


I don't care about spacecraft or bug believers, I just want to know what this is.

And you told me I was resorting to personal attacks, look at this garbage you just posted.
edit on 19-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
Also, how do you know the hill is 400ft? Or is that just an assumption as well?


BECAUSE SOMEONE TOOK THE TIME TO MEASURE IT FOR YOU!

thehoaxkiller.com...

It would be nice if you took the time to read it!



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by UFOGlobe
 


So... that = bug?

From your article:


Again we cannot calculate the size and distance so cannot know how close the object is to the planes.


The person who wrote that article is also not aware they are separate videos:


Supposedly there are six other videos of this incident but unless these other videos are shown along with the scientific analysis there's nothing much to go on as to how 'scientific' conclusions were reached.


That looks more like an opinion piece as well, like you could have even wrote it. There is a ton more information in this thread than there is in that article you linked.
edit on 19-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
56
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join