It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 8
56
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:26 AM

Originally posted by Turq1

For the object to have been a bee for example, it would have to be about no closer than 10ft maybe to the camera to get the right size. Not sure what that would translate to for the distance between one side of the picture to the other, but let's say 30 ft...a bug traveling 30 ft in around .15 seconds?

I like how you pulled those numbers from thin air.

If you want to get technical so be it.

Lets assume the first object that shows up on the camera is an average honey bee. Honey bee workers have an average size of 0.4 to 0.6 inches, so lets just use 0.5 as an example.

Here is a starting frame:

Here is an ending frame:

The video I downloaded was playing at 30 frames per second. The start and end frame were 3 frames apart. That means 100 milliseconds passed between the start and end frame.

Using the length of the object in the view, I measured how many times it traveled its own length.

From the above measurement we can see that the object traveled its own length 'L' about 44 times in 100 milliseconds. Using those measurements we can calculate the approximate speed of the object at various lengths by changing 'L'.

In this case, 'L' is the average size of a honey bee worker, 0.5 inches.

0.5 x 44 = 22 Inches Per 100 milliseconds = 12.5 Miles Per Hour.

So if the object was 0.5 inches in length then it was only traveling +/- 12.5 MPH.

The average speed of a honey bee worker is 15 MPH.
edit on 16-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:35 AM
The funny part about my above post is that it puts this following quote from the article in perspective:

This extraordinary machine was flying at velocities too high to be man-made. Scientists have estimated the speed, depending on the size of the object, to be at least 4000 - 6000 mph.

source

Take note of the boldly underlined text above. "...depending on the size..."

If the object is only 0.5 inches then it's traveling 12.5 mph.

For the object to be traveling between 4000 to 6000 mph, it would have to be 160 to 239 feet in length. A Boeing 747 is 250 feet in length. I highly doubt these objects are the size of a Boeing 747.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:51 AM

I think we can safely say that there hasn't been a scientific analysis of this then
More like bad guesswork which is not a big surprise.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:12 AM

Good work!

And about the technical aspects of "blurfos", I'll quote the excellent DrDil's blog here that perfectly explained how it works:

My personal files are full of these Blurfo...

Bug:

Bird:

Blurfo collection:

The "UFO" shape can have a weird aspect as well:

edit on 16-3-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:13 AM

they couldn't be birds close to the camera?

p.s.
I wouldn't consider what is shown to be "stalking"
edit on 16-3-2012 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:16 AM

That doesn't seem to account for traveling toward/away from the camera. If it's flying perfectly perpendicular to the camera yes, but if it's flying at an odd angle relative to the camera it would throw all of that off. Really need to look at the other videos in order to determine it's size and position.

If it is a bug or a hoax, so be it; If it is not, then we may have something interesting here for once. If the other videos come out and show the same object in the distance then this bug hypothesis will go away; that still leaves hoax, though if it is this is no youtube hoax by now. If someone tried to perpetrate a hoax they will probably be hung out to dry by now, since a bunch of people got involved Chilean general and all.

Bug gifs and calculations are nice for making a point, but it really doesn't say anything about what's on the video. Like someone else pointed out Leslie Kean said on her facebook page she will write some more today, hopefully she'll tell us when (and I suppose if) these videos are going to be released. I would ask her, but I don't have a facebook account nor do I want one.

Either way, I want to see how this pans out. If it's explainable (rationally I mean, not chinese lanterns or swamp gas) that will be a letdown, but c'est la vie. It's the 7 independent videos that make this interesting, hopefully that doesn't turn out to be BS.

I like this story - he did a fair job and it's interesting to see what the debunkers are coming up with. I think it's a bit insulting to say that the Chileans were not smart enough to determine if the footage depicted (b)ugs [sic]. They had their best experts on this. To be fair, when they first looked at just the one film - the one I posted - they thought it was a bug. But when they found 6 other films of the same thing from different distances away, they knew it could not be an insect. So they studied it more closely, and learned about the properties of the object.... and we have a UFO.

Kind of an interesting comment on Leslie Kean's facebook page. Unless this is some grand hoax then it seems safe to say the videos exist and show the same object. Who knows how good they will be, but this is a national government analyzing these after all. Right?

I wonder what they mean by "properties of the object"?
edit on 16-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:18 AM

it would help if they presented the seven other videos along with this one instead of just making the claim. I'm totally into ufos but this isn't anything special if you ask me.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:20 AM

Originally posted by cripmeister
Tim Printy has some valid points in the MSNBC article linked to earlier.
1, 2, and 4 are very much crappy points. And if Printy can point to a respected journal that is willing to publish a UFO case, then by all means let's hear it.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:32 AM
What they did to the presentation and the compression makes it very difficult to understand the video. Did somebody look at it frame by frame? I would like to ask for your opinion.

The screenshots below show a frame from the video where they marked the position of the object with a light spot marker. The other picture is the same frame from the original video. I am not able to bring out the black speckle from the marked frame. It seems to be missing. Is someone able to look at it? Maybe I am the one that cannot see it.

The frame in the marked video is at 00:30:28
The same frame in the original video is at 00:27:22
Timecode - 30 fps, drop frame

The other two pictures are close-ups of the same frames.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:47 AM

The marked video looks slightly after the unmarked one to me judging from the position of the jets relative to that closest cloud, I might be wrong though. Given the speed it travels across the screen it might make a difference.

Or it could point toward a hoax or some other extraordinary thing?
edit on 16-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:51 AM
So. Bugs?

What kind of yahoos did the Chilean Military hire that Teams of them couldn't tell it was a bug?

And I thought Ufologists had a credibility problem. Skeptics and debunkers, your arguments are getting a bit worn, and looking a little threadbare from where I sit.

While one video is not conclusive proof, a look at the entire situation certainly suggests more than Bugs.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:52 AM

This is from the same YouTube video that everyone is watching:

It's composed to show first the film at the original speed. Then they repeat the shot, holding at the positions of the object and mark them with the light spots.

I placed the all the corresponding frames over each other in a video editing program. It looks to me they are exactly the same, but am not absolutely sure. For this I would appreciate someone to look at it too.
edit on 16-3-2012 by stiver because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:07 AM

I don't see it either. The object is missing from that frame as far as I can tell too, I'm not really a video expert though so someone else will have to explain that in detail. It smells of video manipulation though. (Video has obviously been edited I know, but I mean of the UFO)

Good catch.

...

Odd, the picture of the same(?) frame on the huffington post image gallery shows it though? Not sure what is going on with this.

huffingtonpos t.com
edit on 16-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:44 AM
I'm not really sure what is up with that frame, but I think this one video is actually a compilation of multiple vantage points?

Watch the distance of the people on the left side of the screen at 0:25-26 when it changes from one series of frames to the next, is it two different cameras? Or at least a slightly different vantage point (but close together). That at least seems to disprove the bug parade, given this is correct.

Slightly different vantage point, two different videos or person walking backwards or something? The color contrast looks different too, didn't notice it before.

edit on 16-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:20 AM

Sorry guys, the issue you are all pointing at doesn't exist on the 720p version of the video. You all are working with 480p copies.

Originally posted by RSF77
Watch the distance of the people on the left side of the screen at 0:25-26 when it changes from one series of frames to the next, is it two different cameras? Or at least a slightly different vantage point (but close together). That at least seems to disprove the bug parade, lol weekend skeptics.

What are you ranting about? It's the same camera, it just moved a little. Nothing you said disproves these are bugs.

I see you changed your quote:

Originally posted by RSF77
That at least seems to disprove the bug parade, given this is correct.

edit on 16-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:21 AM
To me it is probably a bird, the men on the ground say it is travelling at "thousands" of MPH. This would create sonic booms which would surely deafen them as the object is low flying in my opinion.

Also, if the object showed up on radar i'm not sure the military would be flying casually in formation, but would send just 2 fighter jets to investigate.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:28 AM
I got to page 5 and stopped reading because people kept bickering about bugs.
Since everyone wants to play the "its a bug/its not a bug" back 'n forth game,
how bout I be "that guy" and say no one has ACTUAL PROOF OR EVIDENCE
that it is a bug, and no one has ACTUAL PROOF OR EVIDENCE that it isn't a bug.

The .GIFs on the 1st or 2nd page don't explain this bug theory away.
Just because they look similar (which they don't :@@
doesn't mean its a bug.
And taking these officials words that it wasn't a bug is technically not
proof anyway. Sure they were in the skies, but they didn't touch the
damn thing (bug or not). So whatever your beliefs are, either way your
going to have to do something better than constantly saying
"R U CRAZY?!? its definitely not a bug" or saying "Its 100% bug
because I say so on a forum". Sorry guys, deal with it.
edit on 16-3-2012 by Vandettas because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2012 by Vandettas because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:32 AM

Yes, there are 6 separate shots in this video:

The shots at normal speed are:

1. 09:04 - 11:11
2. 17:09 - 19:04
3. 26:09 - 29:15
4. 44:15 - 46:29
5. 51:18 - 52:28
6. 56:00 - 58:06

All after the normal shots are the marked with the light spots. The first 5 shots seem to be made by one person from the same position on the ground. I am not sure for the 6th take. But if these are the 7 "different" videos, I am not convinced.

edit on 16-3-2012 by stiver because: Edited to delete wrong conclusion.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Sorry guys, the issue you are all pointing at doesn't exist on the 720p version of the video. You all are working with 480p copies.

I see, why is it shown on the 480p marked frame then? It's just odd, that's all, I said I didn't really know what it was all about. You could be absolutely right, it's just weird and I don't know all that much about what would cause it. Maybe someone altered the contrast in the marked version so it was more visible or the marking itself highlights it in some way?

480p:

Also 480p:

???

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
What are you ranting about? It's the same camera, it just moved a little. Nothing you said disproves these are bugs.

I kind of already suspected this because it is said in this article I linked to a while back, but I wasn't sure how much faith to put in that as I didn't really know whether to trust the sources or not (One was blocked by ATS and no one ever gave me an answer about it). The other appeared to be a Chilean government site though.

Frame from the first video at the FACH Ceremony in El Bosque, Nov. 4, 2010, showing a clear image of the metallic looking object. (Credit: CEFAA).

The second video taken during the same FACH ceremony showed exactly the same metallic-looking unidentified object flying right below a formation of F5 jets.

...

Frame from the second El Bosque video with the F5s showing the heat signature of both the FACH jets and the UFO. (Credit: CEFAA)

The FACH’s El Bosque ceremony then proceeded with a flyby of eight F16s and once again the metallic-looking object appeared in yet another video.

“If you think it’s not enough I have another surprise for you,” said Gen. Bermúdez, “this appeared only one fraction of a second, our non-believer astronomers calculated the speed according to Newton’s law, 18 times the F-16 speed, that is over 10,000 KM per hour.

...

Frame from the third El Bosque video showing the F16s and UFO. The official analysis indicated the speed of the UFO was eighteen times faster than the F16s. (Credit: CEFAA)

It's fairly conclusive that the video we have been watching is a compilation of multiple cameras (the difference in color contrast and distortion around the edges would seem to imply that), or at the very least multiple vantage points. IMHO that discredits the bug theory quite a bit, unless a new species of synchronized flyers has just been discovered.

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
I see you changed your quote:

Originally posted by RSF77
That at least seems to disprove the bug parade, given this is correct.

I just changed it because I didn't want anyone to get their panties in a bunch.

I think it might be at least two different cameras and at least 3-4 different vantage points.

These are the frame series:
1) 0-25 seconds
2) 26-43 seconds
3) 44-50 seconds
4) 55-end

1) and 2) are different cameras I'm pretty sure (color contrast, distortion around the edge of the frame), 3) might be a different vantage point judging by the apparent distance of the trees barely visible in the background (they look slightly closer to me). 4) doesn't really have much close by to compare to.

But like I said I'm not video expert, so maybe someone can prove me wrong or something.
edit on 16-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:42 AM

Originally posted by UFOGlobe

Sorry guys, the issue you are all pointing at doesn't exist on the 720p version of the video. You all are working with 480p copies.

Yes, you are right. It's all right with the HD video. All UFO/bugs/birds are there. Thanks!

new topics

top topics

56