Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
seeder

Chile releases official study on UFO photos

40 posts in this topic

Chile releases official study on UFO photos

The government office investigating UFOs in Chile has released an analysis of two high quality photos showing what appear be genuine unidentified flying objects above a remote copper mine. The office, known as the CEFAA (Committee for the Studies of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena), is located within the Ministerial Department of Civil Aeronautics (DGAC), the equivalent of our FAA, under the jurisdiction of the Chilean Air Force. It is responsible for the analysis of selected reports of unexplained aerial phenomena in Chilean airspace, most of them from pilots and aviation personnel.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-kean/government-agency-in-chil_b_5558713.html

2014-07-04-pastedGraphic2-thumb.jpg

2014-07-04-pastedGraphicfinal-thumb.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A UFO Sighting In Chile is Officially Recognized By The Aeronautics Directorate

The object was captured on video by Minera Collahuasi workers in the Tarapacá Region, for more than two hours at 600 meters high.

Impact has generated recognition from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation of Chile (DGAC) of an image showing a UFO (flying object unidentified) soaring national sky. A detailed image shows the bright object was recorded by workers from Mining Collahuasi to almost 4300 meters high.

Those who have seen it said sighted for more than two hours shining and moving more than 600 feet above the ground. So far no one knows what it is. . . .

http://www.chilevisi...-30/214905.html

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they'd had it studied by meteorologists, they would have said "lenticular cloud" and pointed to all the other examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the linked article explains, meteorologists were consulted. They ruled out the presence of lenticular clouds at this time and place.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the linked article explains, meteorologists were consulted. They ruled out the presence of lenticular clouds at this time and place.

.

qiuzas Kenemet no hablo espanol...?

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The linked article, from the Huffington Post, is in English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks uncannily like the planet Saturn.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The linked article, from the Huffington Post, is in English.

.

that link isn't showing up on my phone, just the original Chilean site.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks uncannily like the planet Saturn.

The bottom one sure does.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom one sure does.

It's one of the planets often seen in daylight and reported as a UFO, and doesn't take much magnification to show the rings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a photo I took of Saturn around ten years ago with 600mm lens:

post-108987-0-89040700-1404692587_thumb.

The center "body" and the "ring" match in proportion.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it could be light reflection from the flash through glass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Se it you will I say ? No UFO I say ! Uhm !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff!

Now I'll sit back and wait for some yahoo to come storming in here screaming - "THAT WAS DEBUNKED IN 1647!!! IT'S SWAMP GAS"

Y'all know the drill :no:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the planet Saturn is interested in our copper mines. Saturn's a big planet! It's finna get real up in here!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a photo I took of Saturn around ten years ago with 600mm lens:

post-108987-0-89040700-1404692587_thumb.

The center "body" and the "ring" match in proportion.

That is one bad ass picture!!!!!

I work in a Copper mine. And, probably the same company that owns that mine.....

I know nothing......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'll sit back and wait for some yahoo to come storming in here screaming - "THAT WAS DEBUNKED IN 1647!!! IT'S SWAMP GAS"

That is dumb. Cameras and film were not around in 1647. So, that picture could not have been. Thus, it could not have been debunked then.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is dumb. Cameras and film were not around in 1647. So, that picture could not have been. Thus, it could not have been debunked then.

I see you lack the concept of sarcasm on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I see you lack the concept of sarcasm on the internet.

Nope, just been here a while, and know many of the members.

And, it appears you lacked the concept that mine was very much sarcastic. I mean, cameras and fil in the 1600's?...Come on man.

Edited by Sakari
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you lack the concept of sarcasm on the internet.

Actually, I would have to say it seems to be you that lacks that concept...... it was a stupid comment to begin with anyway. Not sure what you expect for a paranoid comment like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that the 4 witnesses do not want to come forward. They do not seem to have enough confidence to be attached to this UFO officially, despite official interest. I wonder if the witnesses already know very well what this object actually is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be back later with details, but what a load of utter garbage is coming from the CEFAA and its alleged 'experts'... I would remind people that this organisation is the one that was created for General Ricardo Bermúdez (a retirement gift perhaps..?) and was responsible for numerous false claims about the Chilean 'El Bosque' UFO's (also known as 'insects') and the seven (well, maybe two) videos that had 'corroborating' (also known as completely different) ufo's on them.. Anyway, I don't want to poison the well too much, but here are some of the issues I'll come back to a bit later when I get time:

- initially, the 'thing' was "hovering at about 2000 feet" - how did they determine that on something for which there were no scalar/distance clues???

- why (and how) did the un-named meteorologist determine that "there was no possibility of lenticular clouds" and perhaps more importantly, why did he think it had to be lenticular??

- and then, I'd just LOVE to see their justification for this absolute HOWLER "All other meteorological phenomena have been ruled out by Chilean officials as a possible explanation." That is just completely and utterly ludicrous.

- they then ruled out drones, saying that fishing drones make noise..??? Umm, how much and at what distance, and what if the wind is blowing? And how did they rule out an RC toy, weather sonde, helium party balloon? It just gets stupider...

- next they simply accept the figures given by the witnesses, namely 5-10 metres and at a height of 600 metres - again, how did they come to those figures? Were they backed up by proper photogrammetry of the images taken on that 8Mp 3x zoom camera (more about this later)?

- they describe it moving into different positions and moving around for about an hour.. is that the time they spent staring at it (and not doing their jobs..) or did they think it had shifted each time they looked back at it? At least we didn't get any estimates of many thousands of mph... and why did any of that suggest "intelligent control"?

and then the image analysis starts and it just gets worse

- we are shown an enlarged (using interpolation - that is a NO-NO for proper analysis) and 'filtered' version. Filtered? WHAT filters were applied and why?

- then we are shown an absolute blatant lie - "It adds that the object could be emitting it's own energy as well, due to the high temperature shown in the image (the black area)." To illustrate this LIE, they show a posterised version as if that camera recorded InfraRed information. That is completely and utterly impossible, and that 'high temperature' claim is just inexcusable Bull$H!t. Do these pretenders think everyone is as stupid as they are...?

There is MUCH more, but I better stop before i get really angry at this garbage. I cordially invite any of those involved in this dreadful 'analysis' to front up here and defend the indefensible... I might just email them and point this thread out so they can see their rubbish being exposed for what it is...

BTW, is pericynthion around? - I'd love to get his learned opinions on this and see if he agrees with my criticisms so far (more to come after I download the 'report' - which appears to be a Powerpoint presentation?? save me.....)

PS I haven't been able to find full-res images - the 'report' only has very low-res versions - has anyone found them online..? They should be 3,072 x 2,304 pixels...

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff!

Now I'll sit back and wait for some yahoo to come storming in here screaming - "THAT WAS DEBUNKED IN 1647!!! IT'S SWAMP GAS"

Y'all know the drill :no:

No. it's a weather balloon filled with swamp gas that was struck by ball lightening igniting the swamp gas making it glow. :w00t:

I could have been a contender for Major Hector Quintanilla's job. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just leave this here...

zo6nux.png

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those pictures aren't in American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.