HD video of UFO Stalking Chilean Jets Over Santiago Air Base

Wow, MSNBC is weighing in on this case at the below website.

cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com...

They even mention the Above Top Secret crowd there

"For some of the denizens of the Above Top Secret online forum, the nature of the spot, or spots, was obvious: It's a bug, or bugs."

Bugs, birds, artifacts, swamp gas, as long as it's not a UFO everything's fine.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Bugs wouldn't move that fast even if close to the camera I think it's safe to say, and birds definitely not that fast considering how much further they'd have to be from the camera to look the same size as a bug.

And with the tops looking metal and shiny, probably another reason why it isn't a bug. A bug would just be a blackish dot.

The Huff is a decent enough source, if it says the action is confirmed by seven other different videos, then it is worth looking into further. The shape closer up is fairly well defined, rather than overwhelmed with motion blur, although you might expect to have some. It doesn't look much like little buggers either.

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
... Do you realize you are making an "argument from authority"? You are "appealing to authority".... Not only is that a logical fallacy, but it pretty much destroys all of your credibility.

I think you need to elaborate on this point, because I'm not sure it's well-understood. So could you please explain to the forum when it's permissible to cite expertise and respected authority, vs. when doing so is a "logical fallacy"? Because it'd be good to not have to keep hearing the phrase "argument from authority" misused over and over again... in my humble opinion, of course.

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.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


The member said, "Official scientists involved with the Chilean government have vouched that the videos do not show bugs or birds.". Their argument is that these are not bugs or birds because "official scientists" said so. That is a logical fallacy because of a few reasons:

www.nizkor.org...

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

We have no idea what type of "scientists" these are. What if they are just computer scientists? What if they are just microbiologists? What if they are just geologists? We have no idea what field of expertise any of these "scientists" are. We don't know if they have any experience what-so-ever with video forensics and analysis, or have any experience at all in the field of UFOlogy. We have no idea if they know anything about what bugs look like in videos, or what kind of bugs are native to the area. We also have no idea who they are or if they even exist. So the argument is fallacious.

If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will be fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts.

There have been quite a few experts who don't agree that they are UFOs:
cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com...

So we have experts that think they are not bugs, and experts that think they are bugs. That makes it fallacious to appeal to these "authorities".

reply to post by Idonthaveabeard


There already is experts saying it's nothing out of the ordinary. You don't see me going around saying, "OMG IT'S NOT A UFO BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE SAYS SO!". That is just idiotic and mindless.

reply to post by UFOGlobe


You're not paying attention.

First, this whole case was presented by a Chilean General. He has reports from the military scientists that went over the video footage in order to identify the objects. Now are you saying that the Chilean military would be so dumb as to ask a professional in an unrelated field for analysis of a video like this? According to the General's reports, the analysis proved the object could not be an insect or bird, even purely by the speed captured alone.

Additionally, this has been posted more than a few times:

Astronomer Luis Barrera from the Metropolitan University of Sciences in Chile, who has an asteroid named after him, was one of eight highly skeptical scientists who analyzed the footage. He was able to rule out a meteoroid, pieces of meteors or comets, space junk, a bird or an airplane.

Astrologers who have been able to discover asteroids are probably a pretty good source for objective UFO analysis, wouldn't you agree? Why do you assume these people are idiots?

If there actually is 7 different videos from 7 different perspectives that all caught the same thing than this is the best evidence and best video yet.

Even though it does resemble a bug flying (which would be my first thought too) this is not some point of light on it's own that appears to be far away. This is supposedly a video with multiple points of reference with verifiable distance from the camara, speed they are traveling and known size.

With those jets in the air as points of reference you could judge size, distance and speed of the object with videos of the same thing from a few locations. This has the potential to turn into something groundbreaking. Just because it appears to be a bug at first glance does not make that a fact.

A cloud that appears to be a rabbit is a cloud, no one knows what a true UFO piloted by some alien civilization would look like because we have no proven videos of one. It may turn out that most UFOs would look like bugs when caught on camara.

I'll reserve judgement for now but have to lean toward the bug idea until the other supposed videos are supplied.

It's often good to consider the entire set of circumstances when a video like this comes to light, rather than just the video itself. As some other members have pointed out, while this may be some kind of a hoax, this is not your typical bug-flying-by-the-camera-YouTube-video scenario for a few reasons.

We have at least two people of some significance involved who have put their reputations out there to be shredded should this turn out to be nothing interesting. I listened to a number of interviews with Leslie Kean around the time her book was released, and it's clear that she treads extremely carefully when dealing with this subject. Her writing is thoughtful and intelligent, and she draws a clear line between what we know and what we don't know. She does not strike me as one to jump to hasty conclusions. She is a serious journalist who has written a really credible top-notch book on UFOs fairly recently and is probably not going to just throw that success in the toilet by associating herself with something flaky. She has had a fairly long association, since at least 2007, with General Ricardo Bermudez - the other person in this story who has something to lose.

Here's a brief blurb about Bermudez:

Chilean Air Force General (Ret.) Ricardo Bermúdez is the Director of the Committee of Studies of Anomalous Aerial Phenomenon (CEFAA), the Chilean government’s official organization for the study of unknown aerial phenomena. General Bermúdez has also been the Director of the Technical School of Aeronautics, the School of Engineers, and the sub-Director of Chile’s Air Force Academy. At CEFAA, he leads a group of scientists at the doctorate level, who form the committee along with aviation experts from the General Directorate of Civil Aeronautics. General Bermúdez is a former fighter pilot, served as an air attaché in London, and commanded the Third Air Brigade in southern Chile.

Not exactly a lightweight. And probably not the kind of guy who wants to cap off a career such as this by attempting to hoax the world with a video of some bugs.

Originally posted by UFOGlobe

There already is experts saying it's nothing out of the ordinary. You don't see me going around saying, "OMG IT'S NOT A UFO BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE SAYS SO!". That is just idiotic and mindless.

I'm confused... because, unlike the scientists and CEFAA officials that other people have cited, those 'experts' that YOU cite as dissenters couldn't possibly have seen all of the videos from the various angles, right? So why are you giving their opinion any weight?

(Or is it that you're now trying to *demonstrate* for us what an improper appeal to authority should look like? I just wanted you to explain it! ;-)

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
I'm confused...

...I noticed.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
because, unlike the scientists and CEFAA officials that other people have cited, those 'experts' that YOU cite as dissenters couldn't possibly have seen all of the videos from the various angles, right? So why are you giving their opinion any weight?

I didn't give anyone's opinion any weight. I simply made a point that multiple experts are disagreeing.

It doesn't matter what the other videos show. The video that was made public shows what are obviously flying insects. That just means the other videos will probably also show flying insects.

Originally posted by tagasbob
Now are you saying that the Chilean military would be so dumb as to ask a professional in an unrelated field for analysis of a video like this?

YES

Originally posted by tagasbob

Astronomer Luis Barrera from the Metropolitan University of Sciences in Chile, who has an asteroid named after him, was one of eight highly skeptical scientists who analyzed the footage. He was able to rule out a meteoroid, pieces of meteors or comets, space junk, a bird or an airplane.

Astrologers who have been able to discover asteroids are probably a pretty good source for objective UFO analysis, wouldn't you agree?

Since when are astrologers a "good source" for video forensics and analysis???? No I would not agree with you.

You just proved right now that the Chilean gov. is dumb enough to ask professionals in an unrelated field for analysis of video....

(b.t.w. that astrologer didn't rule out insects did he... )

Originally posted by tagasbob
Why do you assume these people are idiots?

I don't assume... you just proved it.

Originally posted by tagasbob
You're not paying attention.

I think it is you that is not paying attention.

Please tell me why you think an astrologist is qualified in video forensics and analysis.

reply to post by seeker1977


Whoa, stop the presses. msnbc is linking directly to ATS.

I missed that one

Oh yea.. Houston we have contact, finally

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
It doesn't matter what the other videos show.

Exactly. Your mind is already made up, regardless of the rest of the evidence. You win I guess....

The video that was made public shows what are obviously flying insects.

Obviously....

That just means the other videos will probably also show flying insects.

Your logic is air-tight. Some might even say impenetrable.

It's as if you've read almost nothing anyone else has said. Wow. I understand the psychology of those who need so badly to believe. Usually they've seen something they wish they hadn't, fear ridicule, and seek that confirmation or validation. Or there are the types for whom it has become a religion, or form of pseudo-salvation.

But the psychology of those, like you, who work SO HARD to deny any evidence whatsoever... even before it is all in(!!)... well that is much more of a mystery to me. Perhaps someday, many years from now, sociologists will be digging through archives of old forums like this trying to understand why and how people like you went to such lengths to deny something that, even in 2012, just shouldn't be all that controversial. Go out into the countryside on a clear night and look up. OF COURSE they're out there(!!)... and there's no compelling reason why they or their probes wouldn't occasionally be here, too. Yes, the distances are vast, we know, but guess what -- the time-scales involved are correspondingly immense!

Now, I'll continue enjoying your little show. ;-)

@ :30

If you look around :30 you'll see it do a curve, then head towards the bottom left. What might be interesting is that the speed on the curve is rather slow, while the straight line portion, the speed increases and could be about 5 times faster, indicating high mass and inertia. Inertia, which a bug wouldn't have much to overcome. Obviously we don't know where the object is on the Z axis but the acceleration is interesting. I'm not a bug expert but one would think they'd travel roughly the same speed even when turning, since the mass is low. A bug slowing by a factor of probably at least 2 (let alone 5) from a turn seems unusual.

Seriously, how can some of you debunkers say that this is a bug?



It's just beyond belief. If we're doing our best to try and deny ignorance here, it's time some of you joined us in trying to work out what this actually is. And yeah, when I watch the footage I can see how it can appear to be a bug because it just moves so fast, but not from that picture at all.

Wow your right, the bugs mass would have alot to do with its turns... Can anyone disprove that part?

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


I'm just going to ignore you since you have no idea what you are talking about.

I analyzed the evidence that we received. So far, the video shows insects. Until then, I'm going to sit back and watch you die-hards get all excited over insects and deceptively written articles.