Chilean Government Agency Releases UFO Images

Great Thread and information…….

This is the real deal and why i come to ATS…..

Cheers

PDUK

Is the bright area in the image a bit of debris on the camera optics? Probably not, since it appears at different places in the frames of each of the two pictures.
Is the bright area a reflection of an indoor light photographed through a window? Again, there are grounds for doubting this. The bright elliptical area in the first picture appears higher above the horizon than the one in the second image. It also has a longer, thinner shape.
If the reflection of a ceiling light fixture were involved, a viewpoint seeming to place it higher in the sky would be from more nearly beneath it, and so reveal a thicker, more nearly round ellipse.
This is the reverse of what we see. The second image, with the bright ellipse nearer the horizon appears to be the thicker, and shorter of the two. This all seems to accord with the claimed sighting of a real, distant object by four witnesses.

a reply to: Rob48

After reading this ATS thread www.abov8wetopsecret.com... that popped in the last days and considering the flags and plea for attention around this one (w/ something totally ordinary) I'm becoming to believe there is Propaganda and manipulation around here...

a reply to: Perhaps

First of all, I am a photographer. Mainly landscapes and nature, but occasionally I do photos for people, too.

The three areas that are below the object in question are not lens anomalies, but dust (or something) on the sensor of the camera. My camera does that on occasion and I have to clean the sensor or just photo shop the spots out if there aren't too many of them. This camera is probably a point and shoot and more than likely does not have a sensor cleaning option on it.

Idk what the white object is but I do know that it isn't a lens problem. Plus, the sun isn't anywhere in the photos. The surrounding area and equipment, etc. has very few shadows. The sun must be behind or behind and to the right of the photographer. This doesn't appear to be a case of lens flare from the sun. Just my 2 cents.

I've just checked the EXIF data of the four images. (Actually the video claims there are 5, but two of them are the same image, with one — or both? — cropped). For some reason whoever made the video sees fit to scroll through it so fast as to make it almost unreadable, which is a bit suspicious in itself, but I managed to get it.

Image 1 (file name ends 22508) . Time of original: 2010:08:15, 02:52:13. Time digitised: 2010:08:15, 03:19:56.

Image 2 (file name ends 36246). Time of original: 2010:08:15, 02:54:28. Time digitised: same.

Image 3 (file name ends 10072). Time of original: 2010:08:15, 02:55:13. Time digitised: same.

Image 4 (file name ends 32409). Time of original: 2010:08:15, 02:53:16. Time digitised: 2010:08:15, 03:11:31.

Image 5 (file name ends 23004). Time of original: 2010:08:15, 02:52:13. Time digitised: 2010:08:15, 07:10:54.


Several odd things here.

One: All images are dated 15 August 2010. OK, probably the camera clock hadn't been set properly.

Two: Although the witnesses supposedly watched the "UFO" for "more than an hour", all four photos were taken over a period of precisely three minutes. The order of images was 1 (and 5 - see below), then 4, then 2, then 3.

Three: Images 1 and 5 are the same photograph, later cropped. Both of them are cropped versions. Image 1 was modified about 28 minutes after the original photo was taken. Image 5 was cropped more than four hours after that same original image was taken. That isn't necessarily odd in itself, but:

Four: Where were these images modified? The modification dates tally with the (presumably false) 2010 date on the camera, which implies that they were altered on the camera itself rather than, say, on a PC. Why?

Five: After taking the first photo of this UFO, they wait more than 1 minute before taking another. Why? And why did they only take four in total? I would have been snapping away like mad.


My guess — and this is just a guess: they snapped the first photo, noticed the reflection and said "Hey, that looks like a UFO!", then experimented with different angles of a desk lamp or something similar. A bit of fun that later went too far, hence why the "witnesses" want nothing to do with it.

This object somehow reminded me the photograph of the Chicago O'Hare Case. We might be in a real deal here. Yet my inclinations are also going towards attention seeking.

Those Chilean UFOs for me are only a testament how "far" UFOLogy has come today, and I mean this in a NEGATIVE sense.

While the one,featured sighting is halfway interesting, I browsed the Chilean site and also took a look at some of the videos.
What I see here is some of the worst, tiny blurry "streaks" labeled as "UFO" I have seen in a long time.

We have witnesses who "refuse to come forward"...and then I saw some videos which are about the worst either CGI or fakes I have seen as well.

Even the featured sighting (the "best" case of all those cases) merely shows a blob without any details/features, NO effing witnesses who could confirm their sighting etc..etc. So... THIS IS IT? This is how far UFOLogy has come since the 40s when "flying saucers" initially made it into the mainstream? Weak. Look over those UFO images and for god's sake if you don't agree those images are poor, poor and even more poor then I can't help you.

I remember seeing a documentary/reading a book not too long about Chilean sightings and as far as I remember those were solid and puzzling cases incl. where the Chilean military chased objects...(I would have to look where I found this) which leads me to conclude (/x-files music on) that THOSE UFOs on the site may be a deliberate attempt of disinfo.

Saying "not impressed" here would be an understatement seeing those hideous blurry, tiny streaks in those tiny images on that site.

I'm going to try something different with this post...

Bah, any UFO evidence is false or mistaken identification because UFO's in the sense of high tech flying devices don't exist, silly bean.

All of the millions of sightings are of explainable things, though admittedly some of them might be of things that only the most educated, highly intelligent people have a chance of recognizing.

There simply is no evidence (that I believe, anyway) of other intelligences anywhere... and even if there were, they couldn't possibly reach us from their own planet or dimension (hah, I'll use that incorrect word because attempting to explain to the unwashed about dimensions of known space vs. different universes entirely vs. gosh-knows-what-they-mean bores me... and don't get me started on how impossible other realms of existence even are... "other frequencies" ... tuning radios? Consciousness being all? Energy? Drivel! Ridiculousness).

These vast distances... so vast that only the most intelligent and educated could conceive of the number of kilometers involved, simply preclude any conceivable manner of vehicular propulsion... and don't get me started on how impossible any movement between fuzzily proposed "other realms" would be! Bah!

At the current state of understanding our universe and the laws that exist in it (understood by some of us, anyway), we can make the prudent judgements about what can and what cannot exist and we can also make prudent judgements about existence itself.

Vehicles from somewhere other than the known societies on our planet? Utter hog sweat. People relating their perceptions about seeing evidence for unknown tech or beings? Wrong or lying or both. Anything deviating from my personal construct of reality (that is supported by PHDs and encyclopedias, btw) is incorrect.

Feeling that I have a modicum of control and am part of the washed members of society in good standing is... yummy.

Copper Gold and water........all good conductors lol
wink wink

magnet falling through a copper pipe lol

Wow, this one is really interesting. Looks like something out of this world but remember there is always the possibility that UFO's are man made.

originally posted by: Eagleyedobserver
Wow, this one is really interesting. Looks like something out of this world but remember there is always the possibility that UFO's are man made.

Do you really think it looks like a solid physical object?

This is a serious question, not an attempt to attack or insult, because perhaps I am in the minority but I really can't see it.

It doesn't seem to have any physical body to it. It appears to be, for want of a better description, "made of light". You can see the blue sky through it.

It just looks like one of these to me, photographed from a bit further away.

a reply to: Rob48

I'm with you on this one.

I looked at it and thought I've seen hundreds of these type of photos back when I was a kid in old books. What's really that special about it in this day and age? Perhaps it's the dearth of decent UFO stories around and the fact that it seems to have been released by a bona-fide government 'agency'?

However it seems to have grabbed a lot of people's attention and one of the great things about ATS is that someone will probably get to the bottom of it.

a reply to: RamsOnTop

Non sequitur.

Because someone like me is skeptical of a blob of light in a picture, brought fourth by a third party (at best), does not mean I'm stupid, "wouldn't know a credable UFO sighting if it bit me on my ass", that I spend my days working to debunk much of anything, or that I don't think intelligent life exists elsewhere. The fact is, I do think intelligent life exists elsewhere.

However, my wish to discover that life doesn't preclude common sense. Nor, do I allow my personal desires to develop into a "us versus them" mentality. When someone disagrees with you, it's not a personal attack. When you devolve into nothing more than deriding those who disagree with you, convinced they have some hidden motive that you must fight against, that's a sign of your bias, not theirs.

The illogical willingness of some, not you, to admit anything - and I do mean anything - into "evidence" that must be taken seriously is why "UFOLOGY" is a laughing stock. The truth of the mater is, so much of what others demand (demand!) you take seriously is absurd, laughable and clearly nonsense. For example, the Billy Mier pictures of ray guns held by "aliens". Total, laughable garbage. Supporters would say, 'you can't throw the entire body of "evidence" out because of a few examples of obvious fraud'. Actually, in the real world, you do. Not all UFO evidence but, anything produced by a known hoxer should be summarily eliminated. Supporters would say, 'you're close minded!'. I would counter if you're willing to allow a known perpetrator of fraud to produce some material you support and some you don't the entire body of material is suspect.

This thought process is why people like me are accused of being 'paid disinformation agents', having "an axe to grind", working tirelessly to debunk "evidence", etc, etc. it's also why the worst thing happening to the study of UFOs are self appointed "ufologists" willing to promote literally anything as the smoking gun of evidence. If ufology is ever going to be taken seriously, ufologists are gonna have to incorporate skeptical opinions into the thought process, eliminate the "us versus them" mentality and be willing to shun known frauds.

a reply to: Rob48

To me, that looks like a reflection of a reading light. Zoom in on the actual object. You can see the bulb and the fixture. Could it be ET? Absolutely it could. However, without any other defining, discernible features it's simply interesting, not evidence.

Just my two cents.

a reply to: SlightlyAbovePar

Close

I took it myself this afternoon, inside my car. I used an LED bike light to shine on the window, and to me it looks pretty darn similar to these Chilean "UFO" pictures.

It was a quick five minute experiment. Given a bit more time I'm sure I could do a more convincing job.

I'm adamant that this is an exceptional find.
Why?
Because it's been reviewed and scrutinized by experts for over a year.

-Not brushed aside within minutes by arm-chair wannabes.

Sorry, it's true. You guys are probably pretty smart and have spent a few days looking at this, they, with their equipment and technology have spent more than a year.

-Look, many of you have good points as to why you don't think there's anything of interest here, but at the end of the day (God bless ye) You're really not credible enough to be taken seriously.

Have fun tho, that's what ats is all about
I have no reason to believe that this is anything but exceptional.

a reply to: Rob48

Excellent Thanks for sharing!

originally posted by: canucks555
I'm adamant that this is an exceptional find.
Why?
Because it's been reviewed and scrutinized by experts for over a year.

Have you got any evidence for that? Because all I see is a PowerPoint page with a few rubbishy Photoshop filters applied, and credits thanking some amateur ufologists for the image analysis!

They didn't even bother to show us the EXIF data.

I examined it a few posts above and to say it doesn't add up is an understatement.

Supposedly this object was watched for over an hour, so why only take four photos, all over a period of 180 seconds?

Why was one of the photos altered twice?

Why haven't the "researchers" pinned down where the photos were taken from, or even whether they were inside or outdoors?

If that is a year's research then I am a Chilean mine inspector.

a reply to: Rob48

Oh right I forgot how eloquent your reasoning is.

so why only take four photos, all over a period of 180 seconds?
-why not exactly? And why are you so sure only that many were taken?

Why haven't the "researchers" pinned down where the photos were taken from, or even whether they were inside or outdoors?
They were taken at a mine. Did you not read the articles? (??)

If that is a year's research then I am a Chilean mine inspector?

You are neither a miner nor a decent debunker.
Honestly, if anyone is reaching for straws here it is you/

At this point in the investigation your points really have no bearing on the sighting.
Like I said, leave it to the experts, everything else is opinion.


cheers

a reply to: canucks555

Because it's been reviewed and scrutinized by experts for over a year.

The article says thay received the pictures in February which by my reckoning is 6 months , as for the experts who examined the picture who are they ?