Chilean Government Agency Releases UFO Images

a reply to: canucks555

That's not the totality of the push-back. You have glommed on to that, but that's just one facet in a larger picture (no pun intended).

This is classic ufology-think. That is, attach yourself to one data point or observation
, while at the same time ignoring other legitimate observations because they don't point to a UFO or ET.

originally posted by: Rob48
Oh and you can have this debunking free of charge:

originally posted by: canucks555
I did a quick search found what could be the same ...whatever it is, Chile 2009:

EXIF data from original image:

File type: JPEG; File size: 259.3 KB; Date created: 12/06/2008 11:15; Last modified: 12/30/2008 00:41: Make: FUJIFILM (www.fujifilm.es...); Camera: FinePix Z10fd; Software: Picasa 3.0: Focal length: 6.3 mm Actual; Aperture: F8; Exposure time: 1/300" Flash: Flash fired, compulsory flash mode, red-eye reduction mode.

Here is a picture of the FinePix Z10fd camera:

Does the shape of the flash look familiar, Mulder?

You Forgot the the Face in the Upper right Corner and the outline of the Lens LOL
Obviously a reflection from a Window ...

Appealing that they witnessed this craft and they only got 4 pics = hoax is weak induction.

Out of all of the crafts that my wife and I have seen, we did not get one pic. From personal anecdotal evidence/experience they at least got 4 compared to our 0. We know what we saw/experienced, so personally it is a very weak premise in and of itself.

And showing that you can somewhat hoax something does not mean that something is necessarily a hoax. It only means that one CAN hoax it and nothing else, and it begs the question, "Was this hoaxed". The only positive claim that can be made by this premise is that "one CAN hoax it". It is not proof/evidence of anything other than that. And one can hoax just about anything, so what is it really saying?

So, for me, the "hoax" explanation (positive claim) lacks sufficient evidence...

So far, this "case" is unknown.

And to add, because there is insufficient evidence to work with, the scientific approach (science) can't do anything with it. THIS is one of the biggest reasons why many cases are largely ignored by the scientific community. They can't do anything with it.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Rob48


Why not take more photos? Why not take a video?

When will someone who has a QUALITY CAMERA and KNOWS how to use get a picture of a ufo or is the answer to that self explanatory

I think we all know the answer to that.

Why do, say, the guys who take these kind of photos (and there are loads of them around the world) never see them?

images.extremespotting.com...

a reply to: Rob48
I fail to understand what you are linking has to do with anything. What are you specifically trying to call attention to?

That because some people who snap shots in the sky don't capture "UFOs" then all of those who snap shots of UFOs are a hoaxes/false interpretation?

a reply to: Flux8

My point is that there are so many high quality cameras in circulation nowadays, and so many people with cameras on their person at all times, that we SHOULD be seeing lots of top-quality photos if there really is anything out there. The photo I linked to shows the plane registration number clearly legible at an altitude of over 10 kilometres.
Even with my fairly cheap, six year old digital camera I can get a decently crisp zoom photo of an airliner at that height, showing a clear aircraft outline.
Photos of things in the sky don't have to be blurry.

But we're not. We're still seeing the same blurry dots and lights that I was looking at in UFO books 30 years ago.

It doesn't make sense, unless of course the reason that the only photos of UFOs we have are blurry dots and lights is that if you get a decent photo, they're identifiable and therefore not UFOs!

I don't own a "decent" camera of higher quality. At best, if I saw another ship on the side of the road and I had the time to take a shot (and not be jaw dropped and engaged with the experience) I would have a tracfone camera quality photo. Assuming that someone who were in the position to get a good shot of a "UFO" would have a good quality camera is just that, an assumption.

Now about this "case" what was the quality of their camera? What was the quality of the photographer? Were they professional photographers who take high quality pictures of jet planes at 10 kilometers or such for $? How well did they know and use the "tech" that was in their hands?

a reply to: Flux8

My point was a general one and not specifically about this case.

The camera in this case was a Samsung S860, which is an 8mp model with a 3x optical zoom. Certainly better than your typical phone camera.

And they clearly didn't use the camera very well, as they took three minutes to take four photos, and then apparently didn't take any more despite watching a UFO for 1-2 hours.

originally posted by: Flux8
I don't own a "decent" camera of higher quality. At best, if I saw another ship on the side of the road and I had the time to take a shot (and not be jaw dropped and engaged with the experience) I would have a tracfone camera quality photo. Assuming that someone who were in the position to get a good shot of a "UFO" would have a good quality camera is just that, an assumption.

Now about this "case" what was the quality of their camera? What was the quality of the photographer? Were they professional photographers who take high quality pictures of jet planes at 10 kilometers or such for $? How well did they know and use the "tech" that was in their hands?

It was mentioned in the OP what camera it was first thing I looked at, as for the other comments have a look at this.

The other night an object passed near my house (I know what it was) and thought this was a good opportunity so I got my 16mp DSLR and without changing shutter or aperture for a shoot earlier that day I just increased the iso and took a video here is a still.



Now if I posted a thread about that and made a claim that it was a ufo I would have stars & flags a plenty but NO all I did was reduce the shutter speed and followed the object until it turned this is the result.



It was a local Police Helicopter the first image was the light pointing directly at my location.

Like I said in a previous post they never used the zoom it looks like they took the picture saw that reflection/flare and it became a ufo.

I am not a pro just a keen hobby photographer who has a good idea of what they are doing.

That's why I also made my other comment with the amount of GOOD QUALITY cameras out there why NO ufo pics from them is it because like my example above they explain themselves!!!

a reply to: Rob48

yeah this one looks like a light reflection on a window, but in my case, i was not behind a window but outdoors and saw with nekkid eyes that it was flying north-bound on a straight route and vanished into thin air midway. afterwards, i also checked with my coordinates to make sure it was not an iis reflection, flare or any other satellite, aircraft etc. = ))

a reply to: wmd_2008 well, this used to bug me like hell because it has become nearly a tradition to shoot piccis of ufos with a toast machine or pressure cooker instead of a decent cam worth of 2014 but then i stepped back and thought that alien craft might operate totally different or have access to physical properties unbeknowst to us yet. it's be hard to capture the movements and maneuvers, besides they're incredibly fast, it was vanished the moment i grabbed my phone for example. and skeptics wouldn't believe an hd shot that easily anyway, given that the best fx on youtube are those achieved using adobe after effects etc.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Flux8

My point was a general one and not specifically about this case.

However you are using it in a specific case... This one. That's dissonant.

The camera in this case was a Samsung S860, which is an 8mp model with a 3x optical zoom. Certainly better than your typical phone camera.

Certainly, but does that necessarily mean that they know how to use it to it's maximum effect? To them, it could just be a point and click camera. No adjustment to white balancing, no focal length consideration, adjustments, etc... In other words, they are amateurs, not professionals or even skilled amateurs, but just amateurs, with higher end cameras. That's what we have to work with... Until proven otherwise, the lowest common denominator.

And they clearly didn't use the camera very well , as they took three minutes to take four photos, and then apparently didn't take any more despite watching a UFO for 1-2 hours.

Thanks, again, for pointing that out. "They clearly didn't use the camera very well." You mean, like amateurs? Like most of us? You have higher expectations of them, that they should know how to use their equipment to their maximum effect, just because they own those higher end pieces of optical tech, intrinsically?

And yeah, they took 4 photos. Why not, 8? Why not 52? Why not 1803?? What number of photos would a person need to take in a 1-2 hour period to infer that they were indeed seeing/experiencing something real and unknown/un-contemporary? What is that benchmark number?

Look, I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your reasoning. In my opinion it's disingenuous and fallacious. Re-think and strategize? In my opinion, there's not much you can do with it. There's not enough evidence. We don't need to create false evidence to support that, though.

a reply to: Flux8

Yeah, there's not enough evidence. The photos are what they are: not very good. You or I would have tried to take more and better photos, but these people didn't.

So, we have four photos which look indistinguishable from loads of other "window reflection UFOs" that we've seen before. Sum increase of human knowledge: zero.

What bugs me most about this thread, though, is the idea that the "Chilean government agency" angle lends these particular Blur-O-Pix some kind of legitimacy.

It doesn't, because as we have seen time and time again, the "analysts" used by CEFAA don't know their backside from their elbow.

a reply to: Rob48

Absolutely. This group's credentials, methods, and track record are certainly questionable. But we shouldn't lump them together with the photos and the original claimants.

Imagine if you'd gotten a bunch of photos of something in the sky and this research group got a hold of them and started propping/backing it up all over the net and such, only to have your photos prematurely discredited/dismissed because it's now associated with this group's tainted record. That would be pretty unfair, I think.

I like that you guys demonstrated how someone could fake photos much like these, though, and not just make a claim that it can be done. Kudos to you for puttin in the work to show what you mean.

originally posted by: canucks555
The only facts regarding the photos that we have are that four photos were taken, roughly one per minute, over a period of three minutes. That seems a bit strange

Again with the one pic per minute. Seriously, I appreciate your scrutiny but as far as debunking the event I find this "only four photos??" notion a weak platform for you to stand on.

You say that as if it was the only thing Rob48 has brought up about the legitimacy of the event.

a reply to: conundrummer

He's said the same few things multiple times.

Lens flare

No one can be trusted

Lens flare

Chile can't be trusted

Lens flare.

Maybe he's right..
Maybe he isn't. He hasn't proven anything and neither have I.
As I said the story whether true or false is trending. I'd say there's a good chance the witnesses will come out of the wood work. As Gandalf once said:
We shall see what we shall see

originally posted by: Rob48

Why not take more photos? Why not take a video?

Why didn't the investigators ask any of these questions? Why didn't they visit the site to find out exactly where the pics were taken?

I can tell you for free that I would do a much better job of investigating than any of these three "researchers". In fact it seems I already have, and I have had a lot less than six months!

They may have taken a lot more footage and visited the site. They may have asked and had those questions answered. This is the internet and we get limited trickles, so ridiculing one side or the other isn't very constructive if you concede these facts.

originally posted by: canucks555
a reply to: conundrummer

He's said the same few things multiple times.

Lens flare

No one can be trusted

Lens flare

Chile can't be trusted

Lens flare.

Maybe he's right..
Maybe he isn't. He hasn't proven anything and neither have I.
As I said the story whether true or false is trending. I'd say there's a good chance the witnesses will come out of the wood work. As Gandalf once said:
We shall see what we shall see

Seriously this why UFOlogy is a joke.

Rob hasn't proved anything?

Are you upset because you posted such a stupid photo back at the start of the thread that Rob showed was a reflection

originally posted by: RoyBatty

They may have taken a lot more footage and visited the site. They may have asked and had those questions answered. This is the internet and we get limited trickles, so ridiculing one side or the other isn't very constructive if you concede these facts.

Well, not according to the CEFAA report which states (and I quote) "the full study is attached on this site".



Behold the "full analysis" of Image 1!



"Various filters were applied". No indication whatsoever of which filters, or why they were applied. Randomly shuffling sliders on Photoshop until you get something you like the look of does not equate to image analysis in my book.

"The filters highlight the consistency and solidity of the object". Oh really?

Let's see if we can apply some similar filters to my home-made UFO pic.

Emboss? That's always a good one for making lights look like solid objects, as seen at the lower right of the CEFAA "analysis".



Find edges? Check.



Solarise? Another pretty but utterly useless filter.



Here's one they missed. It's called "Photocopy", but I prefer to think that it shows the energy beams shooting off the UFO. Some kind of antigravity system: PROVEN BY COMPUTER ANALYSIS!!



And my favourite: A difference blend followed by a slight levels tweak really brings out the true metallic nature of this craft:




There you go: there's an equal amount of analysis as they managed in, what, four months. It took me about half an hour. Give me another hour and I could draw some arrows and meaningless captions on, write it up on a really badly formatted Powerpoint document (PowerPoint? Why?) and it would be indistinguishable from an official CEFAA analysis.

Oh and one more for luck: the "report" goes on to say that the blown highlights "indicate a very high temperature":



Er, what? No, this demonstrates that they have NO IDEA how digital cameras work. It just indicates that the light was too bright and it saturated the pixels in that area!

Notice also that they make no effort to use photogrammetry to see if the estimates of 5-10m diameter and 600m height are even remotely plausible. (Seeing as the object isn't stationary, finding absolute distance/size would be more or less impossible, but you could see if the ratios added up, at least, to get an idea of the reliability of the witness testimony.)

About the only thing they wrote that made any sense is the bit about the bright light not appearing to be a reflection from the sun (I made the same point earlier in the thread), and even then they are going by brightness level rather than the glaring fact that the angle of the lighting doesn't match up. Rather than reaching the obvious conclusion that the object is therefore not a real object being illuminated by the sun, they claim with no evidence that it is so hot that it is glowing by itself!

Absolutely 100% inept and clueless.

Are you upset because you posted such a stupid photo back at the start of the thread that Rob showed was a reflection

Not at all.
I believe that your bordering-religiously adamant support for Rob is acceptable, but I don't see any reason to accuse people who don't agree with him of being "upset" That's ridiculous.

Rob has made some interesting points, but has proved nothing.

-does that upset you?

Maybe read a passage or two and calm down