Chile UFO Files

[ChrLzs]

I don't think there are too many bugs screeching along at 4,000MPH and leaving heat signature trails along the way.

As Hazzard asks - why suggest it? How, scudbuster, did you come to the '4000 mph' conclusion? Do you understand photogrammetry? Angular velocity? Have you ever used a small-sensor video camera in an environment where there were lots of bugs? How fast did they traverse the field of view? How fast were they actually going? Can you meaningfully compare the angular speed of two objects (say an F16 and a fly) that are at different distances from the camera? Suggesting those bugs had a velocity of 4,000 mph is ludicrous.

And what heat signature trails were those?

Chinese whispers, anyone?

[ChrLzs]

Just answer the questions. I'm sure you think nobody notices that you fire up this bluster as soon as you don't know the answers.

Start with:

WHERE DID THE 4000 mph COME FROM?

[DONTEATUS]

Dont worry Sweetpumper ! We only use Wolf Brand Chili to Kill Ants here in Texas ! We all make our own special brew`s ! Too`s !

Mins is Loaded with Habanero`s ! And Fresh Goodies !

[ChrLzs]

So, Gen Bermudez word is good enough for you, and it's now 10,000 kph (aka >6200mph). Why did the numbers suddenly grow?

Anyway, thanks for that. Later, I will post the REAL way you can calculate speeds from a 2d image - it's quite easy, providing you have a couple of very basic pieces of information. The method is verifiable, it is quite simple and it is not up for dispute. Where are the calculations and the names of these 'non-believer astronomers' who came to the 10000kph figure?

And don't you know, Scud, that Newton's laws have nothing to do with it - surely that fact should have rung alarm bells? This is nothing more than basic geometry/trigonometry and maths.

Gen. Bermudez is, frankly, an ignoramus trying to loud-mouth his way through this ridiculous 'sighting' in the hope of justifying his token appointment to a token underfunded organisation that is, I suspect, where they park the idiots when they won't retire gracefully..

That he can convince the gullible is rather sad, given that this stuff should have been taught and understood in grade school..

Edited November 14, 2013 by ChrLzs

[ChrLzs]

So which footage / picture shows the 4000mph/10000kph? As I said, it's a simple calculation - so where is the imagery it is based upon so we can check it?

[psyche101]

So which footage / picture shows the 4000mph/10000kph? As I said, it's a simple calculation - so where is the imagery it is based upon so we can check it?

It seems it would to too painful for you to read the sources once revealed, the FTB's are going light on you mate. They probably expect a thank you.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

How dare you ask a valid question that illustrates the incompetence of General Bermudez! I mean how dare you!

[ChrLzs]

While we are waiting, let's look at how you can measure speeds from a video (and to a lesser extent, a still image)...

Let's lay down a little groundwork first and start with a few assumptions.

1. The camera is assumed to be stationary.

If it moves during the measurement then the results will be flawed, for obvious reasons. Note that this includes all forms of movement, not just left-right or up/down - it also includes (to use an aeronautic analogy) roll, pitch and yaw. As camera movement is usually detectable from the background's movement between frames (or motion blur in a frame) if any, this is a reasonably sound assumption and is often verifiable in that way.

2. The camera is assumed to be a 'point' from which angular measurements can be made of objects within its field of view (FOV).

This is not entirely accurate, as the film/sensor covers a discrete area and the lens/perspective will introduce minor distortions across the FOV. So in essence these simplified calculations may be slightly in error from the non-linearities. However these are only significant to a few percent (more info available on request).

3. The frame rate (and shutter speed) of the camera is known.

This depends on the type of analysis (single or multiple frame) and can be problematic in videos, especially when using second-gen (or worse) copies of videos that have been through reductions and format conversions. Timings of frames can be badly affected by compression techniques, and even individual frame content can be distorted due to a variety of issues including (de)interlacing, rolling shutter effects, etc.. Averaging over several frames may help, but it is important to get back to original footage if at all possible.

4. The distance to the object/s is known.

This is the biggie. Without being able to somehow know, estimate or guesstimate the distance from the camera, it is not possible to give anything but a possible range of speeds. In the case of a small sensor video camera (with very wide depth of field (DOF)), that range will likely be so wide as to be useless. In the case of a known object like an aircraft, the distance can be calculated roughly by knowing its size. In the case of a bug/bird, that size is essentially unknown (could be a flea or dust speck up close or an eagle far away..)

On that last issue, a small bug just, say 100mm (~4") from a typical small sensor videocam will be close to in focus - not close enough to be properly resolved, but nearly... So let's do a quick paper napkin calculation using some deliberately easy numbers..

Let's assume the FOV of the camera was say 90 degrees, and the bug travelled across that FOV in, say 1 second (most bugs could do it faster)..

Remember basic geometry? We don't even need sines or tangents - If one (adjacent) side of a right-triangle with a 45 degree angle is 100mm, then the opposite side must also be 100mm. So that bug travelled a total of 200mm in 1 second, or 200*3600(seconds in an hour)/1000000(mm in a km). That comes to 0.72 kilometres per hour. Or 0.45 mph.

Agreed?

OK, how about something much further away - say 1 kilometre away from the camera, as the aircraft might have been? If the aircraft travelled across the same FOV in the same time, then using the same simple logic as above, they have travelled 2 km in 1 second, or 2*3600 kilometres per hour. Obviously that's 7200 kph or 4500 mph.

Notice something else rather obvious? The bug was 10,000 times closer than the aircraft. It's speed was 10,000 times lower, even though it APPEARED to be moving at the same rate across the field of view.

It's a simple linear relationship. But that relationship to distance is obviously crucial to any real analysis. So if some uneducated loudmouth (Hi Gen. Burmudez!) made a stupid assumption about how far away a bug was, they could easily come up with equally stupid figures like 10000kph..

So, like I said, where's the imagery to support this claim? (anyone?), and I'll be happy to apply all this to some reality. If anyone has problems following what I did above and needs a picture, let me know.

Scudbuster - do you have any thing to add, or do you dispute anything? I'm very happy to be corrected if I blew any of that maths (I'm typing in a hurry as I don't want to miss the shops to buy some plants..) I'm also happy to hear any additions to the assumptions I reeled off above, and also happy to apply these techniques to some real imagery. Note that I already have done some of this elsewhere on this very case (as has someone else - very poorly!), but I will wait to see what else turns up here first, before I drag that someone's name through the mud. (It's one of the 'heroes' of the ufo=alienz brigade...)

Added PS - Psyche, I know where all the 'critical' imagery is and I've been over it in some painful detail. It's crap of the lowest order and shows nothing but bugs and birds, shot/analysed by people who have obviously never used a frigin videocam outdoors, or worse, can't even conceive of what bugs might look like.

Anyway, despite me and others exposing this garbage about a year ago Gen Bermudez's men in black have not yet found me.... If I suddenly disappear, you'll know what to ..

<<transmission lost - connection terminated>>

Edited November 14, 2013 by ChrLzs

[ChrLzs]

BTW, this case also involves triangulation*. I should explain how that works, too, but I might whack it onto a general analysis thread for reference (did I already start one here? - ohoh - Alzheimers!)..

*Or it would have, if anything was actually 'triangulatable' - hey I just invented a new word! Sadly the seven (chortle) (or 2-3) videos do not contain anything that correlates well enough. More about that later...

[psyche101]

Added PS - Psyche, I know where all the 'critical' imagery is and I've been over it in some painful detail. It's crap of the lowest order and shows nothing but bugs and birds, shot/analysed by people who have obviously never used a frigin videocam outdoors, or worse, can't even conceive of what bugs might look like.

Anyway, despite me and others exposing this garbage about a year ago Gen Bermudez's men in black have not yet found me.... If I suddenly disappear, you'll know what to ..

<<transmission lost - connection terminated>>

Ahh, alien bugs then. Are you still there? Mate I...

<<transmission lost - connection terminated>>

[ChrLzs]

Zis is Gen. Bermu Chris here. Chr I am currently azzizting ze Chilean Air Force wiz zere enquireez, He will never be heard fr I may not be back around much - and by ze way, zese peepl are very very nize and incredibly knowledgable - believe everyzing zey say, and do not ask for ze images, any evidenz or calculationz or you will be put in front of a firin as they have shown me da truth and itz all gud.

Signed yours sinzerely.

Chrizlslzs.

[zoser]

And while we wait for any further actual contribution to this thread, may I suggest that if anyone hasn't already examined previous threads on El Bosque here and elsewhere (which would indicate your research skills are sub-standard, to be kind), may I immodestly suggest you read this UM post, and the entire thread it is in. Perhaps a quick look here (not my video) might also help:

[media=]

[/media]

It's an INSECT.

I've emailed (very politely) Leslie Kean to ask her to engage in debate and answer all the questions about the way this case has been misrepresented - but she strangely seems to have not received anything (or maybe chooses not to respond - but surely that can't be the reason?). Leslie Kean writes and sells ufo books - any questions?

Proof of fakery by the skeptics.

Take a look at the 'bug'.

Is it a bug? Lets look at the next frame.

Oh it's still there! Maybe it's not a bug; could it be a stone perhaps. Maybe I've missed something so let's look at the next frame:

OK. This is what Hoaxkiller is claiming is a bug moving across the screen. Now the next frame:

Nope it's still there again.

All he is doing is pointing to different stones and creating the illusion that it's a bug flying.

Charles and seeder both fell for it. Check it out for yourselves between 14 and 15 seconds. The video is a fraud.

It does reveal however how people are prepared to be thorough on some occasions and then on others show complete lack of it.

Debunk complete.

Edited November 14, 2013 by zoser

[ChrLzs]

* Chrlzs, I'll leave the exotic math calculations up to people like yourself and Dr. Bruce Macabee. You're far better versed in it than I am.

Exotic? Hardly. Primary/grade school stuff. But it does also involve application of common sense. And while I'd rather not be lumped into a category with Maccabee (note correct spelling), I think you are showing some wisdom there, especially given what you have posted (and not posted) so far...

* If the source of this El Bosque event eventually turns out to be bugs, that's fine by me - this case then just gets shuttled into the 95% or so misinterpreted/hoax/natural events non UFO category.

If you still significantly doubt they are insects/birds, then I hold no hope.

* One final comment: deriding others because of their ethnicity/accent is far from commendable behavior. It's childish, juvenile, and adds nothing to the overall discussion.

Instead of whining on thread, how about you just report the post if you found it offensive - but if so, I suggest you read back to yourself the last quote I make below... As for me, I'm from Orstralia. I have no problems with people making jokes about me strine ecksent, or things like the ridiculous men-in-black / military hit squads that I will often joke about from *other* countries as well.

Gawd, man, lighten up, as some would say... Oh, yeah.. that was you..

Those gentleman from Peru speak far better English than I would ever hope to speak their native tongue, and that's probably true for many of us.

Really? You mean that unlike me, they don't have an accent? Have you heard Gen. Bermudez speak? And emulating an accent is offensive to you? Wow. Bet you're fun at parties..

As for deriding people, we certainly wouldn't want that would we:

...Well duh, no s***...

...Well duh once more...

...Gawd....I am all ears oh great learned one...

...Oh my, my, my, trying to impress me with your aeronautical engineering acumen?...

...maybe, just maybe, it might help your perspective...

...Tsk, tsk- painful to you isn't it?...

Hmm.. Checked mirror lately? And finally, here's you again:

Ever hear of being sarcastic about something? Gawd man......lighten up!

[ChrLzs]

Scud, that was a gutsy reply. You surprised me, and I may have misjudged you - we all say the wrong thing now and then.. I apologise for my (as usual ) 'terseness'.

I do know this case very well - it's one I looked into in great detail some time back. And the people pushing it are, frankly, bullmanure artists. I was especially disappointed in the bald faced lies that came from Bermudez and that were eagerly swallowed up and then regurgitated by Leslie Kean. Kean, despite being shown to be misrepresenting the truth, has not recanted a single word afaik - she just wants to have more fodder for her books.

And then there is Richard Haines, who professes to be an image expert (despite having no formal photographic/imaging analysis credentials or prior experience - his degree is in psychology) and was roped in to write a report on the case. We never even got to him, but let's just say I've never seen a more laughable attempt at image analysis in my life. That report of his is in front of me now and - along with one of Maccabee's - is on my list of things to do, namely post comprehensive rebuttals. I'm about halfway through them and it's slow going, but I'll get there eventually..

Interestingly, Haines report completely contradicts much (indeed most) of what Bermudez claimed as the facts of the case, despite Haines being brought in by Bermudez's organisation. Go figure.

[ChrLzs]

And here's a link to an article written in April 2012, more than a year and a half ago.

http://badufos.blogs...0&by-date=false

Note that it goes into some detail about Kean's claims, and she says that we must wait for the CEFAA (Gen Bermudez's razor-sharp investigative organisation) to release all the other footage. We're still waiting, dearie. There's lots of people out here who know how to do REAL photogrammetry who would love to see all SEVEN claimed videos...

Funny that neither Richard Haines who wrote the report for the CEFAA, nor Bruce Maccabee (whose name has also been bandied about) seemed to be able to get hold of more than a couple of bits of very poor video footage and a few stills (all showing.. bugs). Maccabee states:

"As for the CEFAA video, I have been studying it or them, but things are not straightened out yet as to how many independent videos there are, what they show and when they show it. No conclusion yet."

Also funny how he says "it or them" - I guess he has seen .. er.. one or two..? Anyway, in his preliminary look, he states (correctly) that:

Unfortunately, there was no coincidence of the same object appearing in the two videos at

the same time so a triangulation was not possible. Without further information that

would show the objects were distant and hence large, it must be considered most likely

that the objects were small and nearby such as insects.

Note that I don't take Dr Maccabee's word as gospel (as regulars will know!), but the overriding point here is that Kean and Bermudez told us there were seven videos of corroborative data proving the objects were distant and near the aircraft. Yet the only two videos released (and remember this event happened over 3 (THREE) years ago) show no triangulatable data - ie they are bugs.

I don't just mean they haven't publicly released these other pretend videos, they didn't even give them to the researchers supposed to investigate the event.

And don't ask about the alleged 'many' witnesses - there weren't any. None whatsoever. This case is so full of bulldung, it stinks... A special Hi goes out to Leslie Kean and General Ricardo Bermudez for both creating the dung and rolling in it.

[zoser]

Exotic? Hardly. Primary/grade school stuff. But it does also involve application of common sense. And while I'd rather not be lumped into a category with Maccabee (note correct spelling), I think you are showing some wisdom there, especially given what you have posted (and not posted) so far...

If you still significantly doubt they are insects/birds, then I hold no hope.

Instead of whining on thread, how about you just report the post if you found it offensive - but if so, I suggest you read back to yourself the last quote I make below... As for me, I'm from Orstralia. I have no problems with people making jokes about me strine ecksent, or things like the ridiculous men-in-black / military hit squads that I will often joke about from *other* countries as well.

Gawd, man, lighten up, as some would say... Oh, yeah.. that was you..

Really? You mean that unlike me, they don't have an accent? Have you heard Gen. Bermudez speak? And emulating an accent is offensive to you? Wow. Bet you're fun at parties..

As for deriding people, we certainly wouldn't want that would we:

Hmm.. Checked mirror lately? And finally, here's you again:

You fell for it Charles. The silence is deafening.

Be more thorough next time. That's the lesson to be learned.

Edited November 15, 2013 by zoser

[bmk1245]

You fell for it Charles. The silence is deafening.

Be more thorough next time. That's the lesson to be learned.

Oh boy, thats rich...

[spacelizard667]

Guessing again, are we?

Are you implying that we need to get passports and ask for Chile government approval to go and find out these

facts ? Wouldn't that be why it is being shown on the World Wide Web, or else that's just more poop to fuel your skepticism ?

Edited November 15, 2013 by spacelizard667

[zoser]

Chrlzs & Zoser - I should have some time this weekend to look more into this with all the links you have provided.

One question I do have though, and perhaps you all have run across the answer already. The Q is, if this event was filmed by something on the order of 5 video cameras, they obviously all had to be seprated by some degree of distance. That being the case, the chances of them being able to film the same "bug" would be highly unlikely. Plus, you could triangulate their positioning for further analysis of the evidence.....and I would think that has been done....?

If it has then it will be on the video on page 1. There was if I recall some footage from a second camera.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=257575entry4975798

[spacelizard667]

Maybe it was a really small alien space ship!?,... You dont know!!

With real small alien grasshoppers with ray guns, ....yeah !

[ChrLzs]

Chrlzs & Zoser - I should have some time this weekend to look more into this with all the links you have provided.

One question I do have though, and perhaps you all have run across the answer already. The Q is, if this event was filmed by something on the order of 5 video cameras, they obviously all had to be seprated by some degree of distance. That being the case, the chances of them being able to film the same "bug" would be highly unlikely.

Perfectly correct. Bugs that appear in one camera's field of view, unless they were very, very, large and quite distant, will not appear in a camera that is more than a few feet away. And If they did, they would be triangulatable and identifiable as bugs (or perhaps birds, as in one of the examples here).

Plus, you could triangulate their positioning for further analysis of the evidence.....and I would think that has been done....?

Well, it has been attempted to the extent possible. Both Richard Haines and Bruce Maccabee using the only two videos that have surfaced tried to triangulate anything they could find, and .. failed. They failed because the things shown acted EXACTLY as bugs do. If they HAD been anywhere near the aircraft, they MUST have shown up on the other videos, but in every case they did not. Maccabee initially expressed doubts about them being bugs because of their shape (see below), however he changed his mind at the end of his prelim report and said (I repeat):

it must be considered most likely that the objects were small and nearby such as insects

Maccabee's initial thought that they didn't look like bugs was based on out-of-focus renderings of only a few pixels width, and that were clearly suffering from interpolative enlargement, compression and sharpening/contrast enhancements - but it is well known that such small areas of pixels cannot be used as accurate representations of shapes. And of course who knows what sort of bugs they might have been - there are several flies and beetles that might be contenders.

As for the Haines report, well, I'm going to leave that for a bit later - I am preparing a response to that ridiculous waste of paper as we speak - but as I said, he also falied to get a triangulation - yet despite that, at one stage he stupidly asserts the 'things' were behind the aircraft.. - words fail me - I suspect senility or insanity..

Edited November 16, 2013 by ChrLzs

[seeder]

Perfectly correct. Bugs that appear in one camera's field of view, unless they were very, very, large and quite distant, will not appear in a camera that is more than a few feet away. And If they did, they would be triangulatable and identifiable as bugs (or perhaps birds, as in one of the examples here).

Well, it has been attempted to the extent possible. Both Richard Haines and Bruce Maccabee using the only two videos that have surfaced tried to triangulate anything they could find, and .. failed. They failed because the things shown acted EXACTLY as bugs do. If they HAD been anywhere near the aircraft, they MUST have shown up on the other videos, but in every case they did not. Maccabee initially expressed doubts about them being bugs because of their shape (see below), however he changed his mind at the end of his prelim report and said (I repeat):

Maccabee's initial thought that they didn't look like bugs was based on out-of-focus renderings of only a few pixels width, and that were clearly suffering from interpolative enlargement, compression and sharpening/contrast enhancements - but it is well known that such small areas of pixels cannot be used as accurate representations of shapes. And of course who knows what sort of bugs they might have been - there are several flies and beetles that might be contenders.

As for the Haines report, well, I'm going to leave that for a bit later - I am preparing a response to that ridiculous waste of paper as we speak - but as I said, he also falied to get a triangulation - yet despite that, at one stage he stupidly asserts the 'things' were behind the aircraft.. - words fail me - I suspect senility or insanity..

Im getting to the stage Chrlzs where I cant be bothered to join in the discussions much any-more - specially where certain posters manically post anyway.

[spacelizard667]

Im getting to the stage Chrlzs where I cant be bothered to join in the discussions much any-more - specially where certain posters manically post anyway.

This is the hottest part of this topic, see not only do we know that there were a multitude of bugs of various species in that field, but are they bugs from outer space and bearing ray guns ? Maybe they will share bits of their alien technology with us or give us spiritual messages for the prosperity of humankind. So many different species of alien bugs maybe they will declare themselves to be envoys of United Planets......soon, my friend. Let's all have our own idea of fun and then move on....shall we ?

Edited November 16, 2013 by spacelizard667

[ChrLzs]

<<'hilarious' part snipped>>

Let's all have our own idea of fun and then move on....shall we ?

No, let's NOT. Instead, let's apply logic and science and methodology and stepwise analysis and just plain common sense to solve the 'mysteries' that aren't and thereby get to the real mysteries without wasting time and brain cells on ignorantly promoted manure.

[zoser]

This is the hottest part of this topic, see not only do we know that there were a multitude of bugs of various species in that field, but are they bugs from outer space and bearing ray guns ? Maybe they will share bits of their alien technology with us or give us spiritual messages for the prosperity of humankind. So many different species of alien bugs maybe they will declare themselves to be envoys of United Planets......soon, my friend. Let's all have our own idea of fun and then move on....shall we ?

The bugs video was a hoax anyway.

As soon as I here these silly excuses now it makes me cringe. At the end of the day if people are so desperate to maintain denial then there is nothing that can be done because they have free will.

The evidence is there but people need to open their eyes.

[ChrLzs]

Proof of fakery by the skeptics.

Take a look at the 'bug'.

Is it a bug? Lets look at the next frame.

Oh it's still there!...

Smarmy ignorance and deliberately pointing to something that was clearly NOT the centre of the circle, shows just what sort of research Zoser does.. Not only does he say that I hoaxed this video - it is NOT mine and I made that perfectly clear when it was posted, he can't even see what WAS being circled. Here's an animation that shows the bug. It is the small smudge slightly left and above the 'rock'.

Get another hobby, Zoser.