HD video of UFO Stalking Chilean Jets Over Santiago Air Base, page 23

Pages: << 20 21 22 23 24 25 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 55 times

reply posted on 20-3-2012 @ 11:30 PM by UFOGlobe

Originally posted by pla123
reply to post by UFOGlobe

thank you for the images , and you can see in Drdrill´s picture where there are parts when there is absolutelly nothing.... A blank red circle, for example next to the montains.

There are no parts where there is nothing. I think you need to look at the video for your self. There is one on the mountains. That one is clearly visible in this video too:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by pla123
Other than the fact that this is not the only time the UFO appears in this footage if this is really a bug like you say, why it keeps coming back ? Like it is patroling the area ?

There is probably more than one bug...

Originally posted by pla123
My eyes are very well so well that i can see the UFO without having to slow it down . Including the metalic appearence never heard of a METALIC bug before...

Not all things that reflect light are metallic. It just needs to be smooth, or even wet. There are many examples already posted in this topic..

Here are some common bees reflecting light: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by pla123
For me this is already a UFO , Assuming this is a craft of somekind I can conclude that it can reach incredible speeds because of the gravitational technology

Ok.......

reply posted on 20-3-2012 @ 11:36 PM by pla123

A bug flying above clouds 6000 ft at the speed of 160-180mph (140-160 knots)??(average take of speed of a Boeing 767 if not more)
For everyone that want to see the similarities are there....
Both objects looks the same eliptical shape and metalic like

here is the full report:
travel.aol.co.uk...

Originally posted by pla123
Ok is it just me or the UFO "bug" that appear in that footage really resemble the one appearing in this one?

YouTube Link

i didnt know bugs could fly above clouds....

here is a picture of the event... doesnt it look very familiar to you ??
Compare the object of the 2 images see the similarities ??

I still believe this is a UFO , craft of somekind clearly...
edit on 20-3-2012 by pla123 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-3-2012 by pla123 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-3-2012 by pla123 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2012 by pla123 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-3-2012 @ 11:40 PM by UFOGlobe

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
well, now what are the odds that they're sitting on something golden down there and saving the best for last?

If you read Kean's website, just a little bit below where you can download the first 3 videos, it says this:

"There are 7 videos of the three flybys from different vantage points. This is the best of the seven." -Leslie Kean

So I think they saved the worst for last.

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 02:41 AM by justwokeup

Its looking more and more that both Kean and CEFAA have shot themselves in the foot here.

Kean because she assumed CEFAA, as a government body, knew what it was talking about.

CEFAA because it looking like they really didn't.

Barring some miraculous piece of new evidence I think this goes in the bug pile. Disappointing, but it is what it is.

Kudos to those who took the time to analyse the videos in this thread.

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 04:11 AM by cripmeister

reply to post by greeneyedleo

Chilean UFO

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 12:29 PM by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by DrDil

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
reply to post by pla123

Does this help at all?

click here to see a larger version]

Resized to 400px and Slowed down a touch.....

Cheers.

Fantastic work. Hat's off to those who did some real ground work and sleuthing here. This, combined with the f-22 video, indicate to me that it's a bug. There's still a chance it's not (pending the release of additional data), but without any more information or videos, I'd say you guys have done a great job of debunking this.

I'm a little surprised the investigators who studied the footage didn't come to the same conclusion. Specifically, I'd like to know why they didn't come to that conclusion.

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 01:54 PM by revellyre

Originally posted by Idonthaveabeard
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets

Probably when it doesnt agree with his way of thinking.....

If some insect guy came out and said 'yea thats a bug' he would be quoting his ass off.

That's the way it works. Actually, both sides of the argument employ this technique. It doesn't look like a bug to me but those other videos would have helped clarify this, especially if they could triagulate the object's speed that way.

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 02:36 PM by DrDil

Originally posted by revellyre

Originally posted by Idonthaveabeard
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
Probably when it doesnt agree with his way of thinking.....

If some insect guy came out and said 'yea thats a bug' he would be quoting his ass off.

That's the way it works. Actually, both sides of the argument employ this technique. It doesn't look like a bug to me but those other videos would have helped clarify this, especially if they could triagulate the object's speed that way.

From page 6?!

We have three (unedited) of the alleged seven and if you search on YouTube for other videos then there are plenty to be had as Cripmeister pointed out a couple of pages back:

Originally posted by cripmeister
Well that wasn't much of a challenge A youtube search for "airshow chile" yielded several results.
[…]
Behold, the F-22 Raptor, filmed at FIDAE 2010 in Santiago Chile.
{video snipped}
I didn't even have to watch the whole video to come across this

You can see bugs fly by several times during the video.

Also I suspect that the crowd were located at a staging area of sorts so all the videos will most probably be filmed from a similar vantage point and the angular difference in location will be negligible. This would make triangulating their position in relation to one another in order to estimate the size of the targets a futile exercise. I base this speculation on the fact that the three videos we do have fulfil this criteria and also that I couldn’t see any other spectators anywhere in the footage released to date.

In my opinion this should have been the first course of action for the CEFAA analysts as I suggested when the edited footage was first released, not least because it would have added some much needed credibility to their theories due to the fact that other researchers could have duplicated their findings, as well of course as ultimately validating their conclusions.

The fact that it has never been mentioned would seem to suggest that it simply wasn't possible.

Cheers.

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 02:41 PM by DrDil

Originally posted by pla123
reply to post by UFOGlobe

thank you for the images , and you can see in Drdrill´s picture where there are parts when there is absolutelly nothing.... A blank red circle, for example next to the montains.

I appreciate what you’re saying here and I must admit I was inclined to agree with you that in the 5th frame the bug is almost invisible but regardless of this I double-checked everything that UFOGlobe posted and personally I think it's all in the eye of the beholder. But irrespective of whether this is/was the case then it’s nothing to do with UFOGlobe and is merely due to the equipment and the photographer as UFOGlobe just presented the data as he found it, besides which the fact is entirely inconsequential to the validity of the conclusion that this particular target is actually an insect.

Here are the numbered first 6 frames:

Click here for frames 1 + 2.

Click here for frames 2 + 3.

Click here for frames 3 + 4.

Here are frames 4 + 5:

And here are frames 5 + 6:

So whilst the bug may or may not be visible in the 5th frame the fact that it can be seen taking off from/or very near to the ground still indicates -to me at least- that it is in fact a bug. Applying this reasoning then even if it isn’t visible in the 5th frame then this wouldn’t -and so doesn’t -alter the inevitable conclusion that this particular target is a bug.

Or on the off-chance you like your contrary evidence to be absolute then even if you don’t agree it’s a bug I’m sure you can’t contest the fact that it’s incredibly small for a UFO, and in my opinion certainly small enough for this particular object to be discarded when considered along with the current evidence supporting the bug theory.

Cheers.

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 03:10 PM by pla123

reply to post by DrDil

Even if it is actually comming from the ground it does not make it necessarily small , you can see trees in there and also some houses near , and also it does not explain why it "disapears" on some frames including the frame 5 as you mentioned if it was a bug why there is nothing in this frame ? Something had to be there.

Also doesnt explain the incredible similarities with the object from the video I posted of an UFO next to the airplane.... why no one metioned it? Weird if you ask me... im not saying people are trying to cover this up but come on the similarities are visible...

Also what makes me doubt about about this is this frame:

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 03:25 PM by MainLineThis

Does anyone want to comment on the fact that this thread has reached over 22 pages?!? i think that is the most important thing to discuss here. I know this place is a business, and we need clicks to survive, but do we need to let stuff like this go for so many pages when the first page posted already makes us look like idiots.

Seriously, consider what I said. this is not GLP or some lesser board. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards. And to do that we need to know that the majority of our members have the ability to use common sense, reason and logic.....well, there goes our clicks......lol.

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 03:43 PM by DrDil

Originally posted by pla123
reply to post by DrDil

Even if it is actually comming from the ground it does not make it necessarily small , you can see trees in there and also some houses near , and also it does not explain why it "disapears" on some frames including the frame 5 as you mentioned if it was a bug why there is nothing in this frame ? Something had to be there.

Hi Pla123,

M’kay but what are your visual reference points?

Or another way of looking at it is:

How far away do you think the spot of ground from where it originates is from the photographer?
How far away do you think the two paths are that the target obviously passes in front of?
How far away do you think those trees are that the target obviously passes in front of?

Originally posted by pla123
Also doesnt explain the incredible similarities with the object from the video I posted of an UFO next to the airplane.... why no one metioned it? Weird if you ask me... im not saying people are trying to cover this up but come on the similarities are visible...

No problems (and speaking only for myself) unless the posted video references the Chilean reports, is by the same photographer or has some other relevance apart from aesthetically then it’s interesting but has no direct bearing on how I assess the Chilean reports. Mainly as I tend to look at each report on a case-by-case basis.

Plus I believe we’re deep into logical fallacy territory if (believing as you do that the Chilean objects are actually UFOs) we start using one video of an unidentified object to validate the reality of another unidentified object as what will it prove and what can possibly be achieved except an -almost inevitably- erroneous conclusion?

Cheers.

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 03:46 PM by DrDil

Originally posted by MainLineThis
Does anyone want to comment on the fact that this thread has reached over 22 pages?!? i think that is the most important thing to discuss here. I know this place is a business, and we need clicks to survive, but do we need to let stuff like this go for so many pages when the first page posted already makes us look like idiots.

Seriously, consider what I said. this is not GLP or some lesser board. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards. And to do that we need to know that the majority of our members have the ability to use common sense, reason and logic.....well, there goes our clicks......lol.

Well, it is still being picked up by the MSM and still being touted as proof on practically every other UFO-related website out there.

A higher standard to be sure but no loose ends is nice too…..

Besides, it reminds me of the good ol’ days as what about the size of this one?

Cheers.

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 03:51 PM by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by MainLineThis
Does anyone want to comment on the fact that this thread has reached over 22 pages?!? i think that is the most important thing to discuss here. I know this place is a business, and we need clicks to survive, but do we need to let stuff like this go for so many pages when the first page posted already makes us look like idiots.

Seriously, consider what I said. this is not GLP or some lesser board. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards. And to do that we need to know that the majority of our members have the ability to use common sense, reason and logic.....well, there goes our clicks......lol.

So you would suggest being narrow minded and not discussing the issue or investigating the claims made by these scientists and simply dismissing it due to your own ideas of reality and what is and isn't possible? It's a UFO forum... The object was claimed to be a UFO, and has since been identified. It may have taken 22 pages for a thorough analysis to be presented and vetted, but I don't see a problem with that. Healthy discussion and detective work, and the truth prevailed in the end.

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 04:47 PM by stiver

This is a bit too much. The animation of the video as in the gif files is not very helpful to track the appearance and disappearance of these smudges in the neighbor frames. I have VERY hard time finding them on the video. Actually, I'm not sure I'm finding them at all. I'm looking at the high res video downloaded from huffpost and particularly at the frames before the first marked by SEFAA. #5 is probably the easiest to see but I wouldn't put my money on it. #4 - I see "something", but if you look at the 3 still frames - even they aren't stable because of the compression. One has to enlarge about 400% to see something and still - I don't see such prominent dots. Only very faint smudges that could be easily video artifacts. I'm done with this now, but for me the last video/gifs are a little exaggerated.

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 04:52 PM by JimOberg

Well, the debunkers are pretty smug....

Flying Saucer, or Fly? Is this the case UFO skeptics have been dreading?

badufos.blogspot.com...

reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 06:43 PM by primetime2123

Originally posted by DrDil

Originally posted by pla123
reply to post by UFOGlobe

thank you for the images , and you can see in Drdrill´s picture where there are parts when there is absolutelly nothing.... A blank red circle, for example next to the montains.

I appreciate what you’re saying here and I must admit I was inclined to agree with you that in the 5th frame the bug is almost invisible but regardless of this I double-checked everything that UFOGlobe posted and personally I think it's all in the eye of the beholder. But irrespective of whether this is/was the case then it’s nothing to do with UFOGlobe and is merely due to the equipment and the photographer as UFOGlobe just presented the data as he found it, besides which the fact is entirely inconsequential to the validity of the conclusion that this particular target is actually an insect.

Here are the numbered first 6 frames:

Click here for frames 1 + 2.

Click here for frames 2 + 3.

Click here for frames 3 + 4.

Here are frames 4 + 5:

And here are frames 5 + 6:

So whilst the bug may or may not be visible in the 5th frame the fact that it can be seen taking off from/or very near to the ground still indicates -to me at least- that it is in fact a bug. Applying this reasoning then even if it isn’t visible in the 5th frame then this wouldn’t -and so doesn’t -alter the inevitable conclusion that this particular target is a bug.

Or on the off-chance you like your contrary evidence to be absolute then even if you don’t agree it’s a bug I’m sure you can’t contest the fact that it’s incredibly small for a UFO, and in my opinion certainly small enough for this particular object to be discarded when considered along with the current evidence supporting the bug theory.

Cheers.

when you look at that ..it looks like certain spots disappear and some appear...so the "bug" as you guys are saying it is looks consistent with the rest of the landscape...so you can even say that that isn't even a "bug" but a spot that appears and disappears with the rest of the landscape..so this video doesn't even show me that it is a "bug"

edit on 21-3-2012 by primetime2123 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-3-2012 @ 01:22 PM by an0ther0ne

reply to post by DrDil

The insect IS there on frame 5.

From hoaxkiller:

YouTube Link

Here is a fixed gif image:

I didn't align the bug in the circle very well when it was over the hill on the last gif image, but the one above is fixed.

edit on 22-3-2012 by an0ther0ne because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-3-2012 @ 03:22 PM by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by an0ther0ne
reply to post by DrDil

The insect IS there on frame 5.

From hoaxkiller:

YouTube Link

Here is a fixed gif image:

I didn't align the bug in the circle very well when it was over the hill on the last gif image, but the one above is fixed.

edit on 22-3-2012 by an0ther0ne because: (no reason given)

Case closed right there.

reply posted on 22-3-2012 @ 03:56 PM by DrDil

Originally posted by an0ther0ne
reply to post by DrDil

The insect IS there on frame 5.

{snip}

Fantastic work!! (+1)

However I should point out that you’re preaching to the choir as when I wrote:

DrDil wrote:
I appreciate what you’re saying here and I must admit I was inclined to agree with you that in the 5th frame the bug is almost invisible but regardless of this I double-checked everything that UFOGlobe posted and personally I think it's all in the eye of the beholder.

"Was inclined" being past tense, "almost invisible" meaning I could see it and besides which I knew it was there as I've pored over the clips myself. So I guess in short when I said it's in the eye of the beholder I was referring to those who couldn't see it (or didn't want to), sorry if I wasn’t clear.

But no matter as its presence is undeniable in the last (and aptly titled) animation.....

Cheers!!

edit on 22-3-2012 by DrDil because: {/exuberance}