27 replies to this topic

[archernyc]

As the article says, "is this the case that the skeptics have been waiting for?"

Both Leslie Kean and Alejandro Rojas have posts in the Huffington Post today about this subject.

Quote

Like what has now just come to light in Chile, and was presented for the first time at an official press conference today.

It was a glorious, sunny morning on Nov. 5, 2010, when crowds gathered to celebrate the changing of the Air Force Command at El Bosque Air Base in Santiago. From different locations, spectators aimed video cameras and cell phones at groups of acrobatic and fighter jets performing an air show overhead. Nobody saw anything amiss.

But afterwards, an engineer from the adjacent Pillán aircraft factory noticed something bizarre while viewing his footage in slow motion. He turned it over to the government's well known Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena, or CEFAA, for analysis.

The stunning conclusion: the Chilean jets were being stalked by a UFO.

Quote

Images show it as a dome-shaped, flat-bottomed object with no visible means of propulsion. The rounded top reflects the sun and appears metallic; the bottom is darker and flat, emitting some form of energy which is visible in photo analysis. Infrared studies show the entire object is radiating heat, just like the jets.

Quote

And, the strange object is clearly operating under intelligent control. It zooms towards each set of jets at about their height, circles around and zooms back out again. Pilots who were shown the trajectory of the object in the three flybys were amazed that this maneuver is characteristic of reconnaissance aircraft coming in for a quick look at others in the sky.

Astronomer Luis Barrera from the Metropolitan University of Sciences in Chile, with an asteroid to his name, 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.

"The object performed a risky flight maneuver in front of the Halcones from W-E-W, at low altitude and high speed," Dr. Barrera concluded. "It had intentional movements. It moved East with 25 degrees inclination, which is the same angle of spacecraft when entering the atmosphere."

Alberto Vergara, an expert in digital imaging, reported that "when we examine the whole scene frame by frame, we have been able to realize that it has, apparently, moved at a speed far superior to any flying object of known manufacture."

More from HuffPost

What do YOU think??

Edited by archernyc, 13 March 2012 - 09:13 PM.

[Scepticus]

Sorry but this is not THE ONE.

[bouncer]

Scepticus, on 13 March 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

Sorry but this is not THE ONE.

Id like to see the actual vid before really thinking about it...

[linttrap]

Here's one of the seven videos taken from different perspectives. I don't know if the other six are accessible, only discussed in the article.



http://embed.5min.com/517303225/'/




More from HuffPost

Edited by linttrap, 15 March 2012 - 11:59 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Bugs maybe?

[DONTEATUS]

The guy in the Grey shirt hidden behind the two in the forefront on the Left lower corner is flying a R/C plane in the footage !

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Scepticus, on 13 March 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

Sorry but this is not THE ONE.

Would you perhaps be interested in clarifying your reasons for thinking so rather than just saying one sentence followed by a Smilie?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Well, it does seem to fit with the known principles of UFO flying characteristics, i will say. beyond that, I would not like to speculate at this time.

[Scepticus]

747400, on 16 March 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

Would you perhaps be interested in clarifying your reasons for thinking so rather than just saying one sentence followed by a Smilie?

He asked a question, I answered 747400. But I will of course clarify my reasoning when asked.

1. Where is the so called report(the scientific analysis)?

2. If this is so groundbreaking why would you present this evidence at a UFO congress and not at a scientific congress or publish the findings in a scientific journal?

3. If you look at the video available on youtube frame by frame(not sec by sec), you will see the UFO is not in every frame? Why is that?

4. This is from 2010! If the evidence was that good it would not take that long to come up with a reasonable analysis that its is indeed not from Earth.

Again if this was THE ONE, we would have heard of this sooner and would be presented with the so called scientific report.

Edited by Scepticus, 16 March 2012 - 12:56 PM.

[zoser]

Very convincing; well done for posting this.  The footage seems to be getting better and better; keep it coming.

[BrandOfAmber]

Hi Scepticus,

Just playing devil's advocate here.  I appreciate your rationale, and would like to explore it further...

1) Many reports never see the light of day...

2) Scientific Journals have incredibly high standards.  I recently authored a paper that suggested a method of reducing carbon in Earth's atmosphere, and the paper was denied by Nature, and Science.  After hearing their reasons, it made sense, and the answer could also be used to deny a paper entry on the UFO topic.  Journals such as this require repeatable experiments.  You simply cannot repeat what happened in the video (testing all of the options that is...) without a UFO to test for that hypothesis.  You can test some of the more terrestrial ones, but journals like Science and Nature like answers.  They specifically like solid answers that were derived from studies that can be repeated by anyone...

3) You are correct, the UFO is not in every frame.  This would be expected though, if you do a comparison of the apparent speed of the 'object' against the speed of the fighter jets...  The camera is limited by it's shutter speed.  It is possible (although not with current human tech in the public domain) to move faster than the camera can capture.  This could also be possible with a close to the camera bug... However it would not be possible if indeed there was an RC plane flying around in an attempt to fake a ufo sighting...  

4) This is now 2012 (2010 in the article, yes), and in reality 2 years isn't much when dealing with the entire conscious mindset of the human race.  The Battle of Los Angeles happened more than 60 years ago, and to date the United States Navy is on record stating that event contained an 'Unidentified Flying Object', one that took all the punishment our US Anti-Aircraft Batteries could throw at it... and then flew off without damage...  

Thoughts?

- Brand

[quillius]

BrandOfAmber, on 20 March 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Hi Scepticus,

Just playing devil's advocate here.  I appreciate your rationale, and would like to explore it further...

1) Many reports never see the light of day...

2) Scientific Journals have incredibly high standards.  I recently authored a paper that suggested a method of reducing carbon in Earth's atmosphere, and the paper was denied by Nature, and Science.  After hearing their reasons, it made sense, and the answer could also be used to deny a paper entry on the UFO topic.  Journals such as this require repeatable experiments.  You simply cannot repeat what happened in the video (testing all of the options that is...) without a UFO to test for that hypothesis.  You can test some of the more terrestrial ones, but journals like Science and Nature like answers.  They specifically like solid answers that were derived from studies that can be repeated by anyone...

3) You are correct, the UFO is not in every frame.  This would be expected though, if you do a comparison of the apparent speed of the 'object' against the speed of the fighter jets...  The camera is limited by it's shutter speed.  It is possible (although not with current human tech in the public domain) to move faster than the camera can capture.  This could also be possible with a close to the camera bug... However it would not be possible if indeed there was an RC plane flying around in an attempt to fake a ufo sighting...  

4) This is now 2012 (2010 in the article, yes), and in reality 2 years isn't much when dealing with the entire conscious mindset of the human race.  The Battle of Los Angeles happened more than 60 years ago, and to date the United States Navy is on record stating that event contained an 'Unidentified Flying Object', one that took all the punishment our US Anti-Aircraft Batteries could throw at it... and then flew off without damage...  

Thoughts?

- Brand

Hello devils advocate

some good points made there. May I ask for any further details you have on the bolded part.....I have spent much time arguing that there was an object there so any furtehr info is always handy  

[Chrlzs]

I just can't wait to see ALL SIX other videos.  Oh wait, no-one has?  Not even UFO-book-author Leslie Kean?  In 2 years?  Gee, now there's a surprise...

I guess maybe da aliens used dere powers to erase dem other ones.  Or did the Chilean Air Force learn a lesson watching the egg-splattering that the Mexican AF got over the infamous Cantarell oil-flare UFO (oops, IG-BO) case?  And did the aliens stop any of the folk who took these videos from showing up at any forum, or posting them independently..?  Let's be clear - there isn't ONE report of anyone actually seeing these things.

Anyway, maybe the same day that all the other videos show up, the supposed analysis will also show up.  
I REALLY can't wait for that!!!

What gets me is the ridiculous over-enlargement being touted as a 'dome' (when it is more likely to be a simple sharpening halo effect) and the claim of HD quality - the quality is nothing like HD.  And the equally ridiculous and unsupported claims about speeds - you CANNOT determine speeds from a video without knowing the distance/size of the object, or having other simultaneous videos showing the same object - yes, those would the videos that don't exist.  

And then there's the fact that NO-ONE has claimed they saw these things, and it was only seen after they checked this video?  And I'm curious, how did 'they' get the other videos, given everyione had gone home from the air show afterwards?  After all, it's been stated that despite the six other videos supposedly existing - none of the videographers actually saw anything (nor anyone in the crowd)..

This whole things just beggars belief - WHERE IS THE ANALYSIS and the OTHER VIDEOS?  Like I said, I'm really looking forward to the alleged analysis - I suspect that it doesn't exist, or if it does, it will be an even bigger laugh than the Cantarell case.

Thus far we have one video showing what looks *exactly* like bugs, and then a whole pile of claims from just one source, a retired Chilean general who now heads up a pseudo-science organisation that only investigates 'anomalous aerial phenomena'.  Playing D-A for a moment, is the CEFAA the sort of thing the Chilean gov't does for retired generals, instead of superannuation and a golden handshake?  Give them a little 'authority' to be in charge of, pop them over into a little office somewhere, investigating ufo's.., writing reports, gathering well-meaning non-experts to make comments that are then quoted as 'many scientists have said..'    No, that would never happen, surely.

Gee, there certainly aren't many red flags in amongst this one..  

BTW, I'll be delighted to apologise if I'm wrong, but that will be when I see the other videos and the published report and it is acknowledged by *real* experts to be properly done...

[archernyc]

Leslie Kean has posted an update to this case:

Quote

Perhaps Blumenthal and I asked too many provocative rhetorical questions and did not stress enough that this investigation is continuing, as Bermúdez and Vergara stated. And now the search for the "scientific conclusion" has been given new life. After the story broke, photo analysts and investigators from several countries approached the CEFAA and asked if they could study the videos. A few, because of their qualifications, have already begun detailed, independent work on the case. They will remain anonymous for now. Further questions, some of which have been raised in response to our story, will be addressed by them during this process.

In accordance with the wishes of the scientific team in Chile and these new analysts, General Bermúdez will not be releasing any more videos now, so that the public can be fully informed and maximum understanding achieved when the full package is released. Those involved agree that the new studies should be completed first.

Quote

When the CEFAA examiners first viewed the tape we've seen, presented to them by an engineer who noticed the odd object when he slowed down his film, they too thought it likely that the jumpy little thing was a bug. However, they decided to try and locate additional films. It was only after discovering that the object appeared on these other videos from different locations -- taken by cameras too far apart to capture the same insect -- that the Chilean analysts realized this object could not be possibly be a bug, according to CEFAA staff.

Quote

Brett C. Ratcliffe, professor and curator at the University of Nebraska State Museum and Department of Entomology, received "outstanding paper of the year" awards by the Coleopterists Society in 1992 and 2005 and has had 19 species of insects, mostly scarab beetles, named after him. (A beetle seems the most likely choice here, given the rounded, dome shape and flat bottom of the clearest close-ups from the videos.) "Pretty amazing," he replied to my email with its strange attachments. "No idea what it is but it does not seem to be an insect . . . altho very fast flying insects captured on slow shutter speeds do look like amorphous blurs or blobs. I am forwarding these to several colleagues and asking around."

Amorphous blobs? Yes, that's more often what flying insects close to a camera look like.

More here

It will be interesting to see what else develops.

[Chrlzs]

archernyc, on 16 April 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

Leslie Kean has posted an update to this case..

And I'm afraid my opinion of Leslie Kean is dropping by the second.

First up, why is she not pursuing the simple fact that they keep claiming there are other videos and that these videos show the same objects, YET NONE OF THE 'EXTRA' VIDEOS HAVE BEEN SHOWN - NOT EVEN A SINGLE STILL?

What possible reason could there be for the delays?  Triangulation isn't exactly rocket science - lining up the timings and angles might take a day or so..  How long has it been, now?  

Secondly, why the heck is she asking bug experts?  That may sound like a stupid question, but the 'objects' are WAY OUT OF FOCUS.  That means that their expertise is pretty much wasted - they have barely any useful information to identify the object, except perhaps the nature of its movement... and UNLESS they are experts at photogrammetry their idle guesses about how fast they were going and how far away from the lens are absolutely useless.

And of course she must have only taken this ONE video to them, as she has no access to these other alleged videos.

This is turning into a debacle.


Here's an open invitation to Leslie Kean, why not come on over and discuss the situation here?