*new video* of Fleet of ufos appearing over santiago Chile 2007

quote: Originally posted by WickedStar
Consider the city lights, have you even seen a dirt bike with a light intensity brighter than that of a street lamp? Several of these lights do become brighter than the city lights below.

Wicked

The reason why the lights get brighter than the city lights should be obvious. City lights are omni-directional, headlights and searchlights are directional. Therefore, when the directional lights face the camera they get bright. I'm concerned that i'm explaining this.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by jhamende]

[edit on 20-5-2007 by jhamende]

Originally posted by jhamende
your referring to the second video here, how are the two even related. Well there both lights I guess but other than that that doesn't prove the first video true. The light never go beyond the mountain in the first video. And the second night video is less convincing as there may be different types of lights from different sources.

It doesnt matter. Look at the second video at the 2:50 ish mark and you'll notice that those light have the exact same characteristics as the lights in the 26 second clip. They fade in and out and even follow the same route as the lights in the origional clip, however, they also go above the mountain range ruling out any land based vehicle.

This tells me that although the first clip may not be an air based vehicle (ie your bikes), the chances of the lights being a land based vehicle in relation to a video that shows the same characteristics which is definately not a land based vehicle, I would have to assume that they are both air vehicles. Probably Helicopters.

All you have to do is compare the two to see what i'm talking about.

Yeah, before you say "your bikes" read my posts. Second you cannot investigate the nature of one video by adding another then investigating the second and saying "well, lets look at this one cause its longer and has similar characteristics."

Actually...yeah you can.

Doctors do it all the time when they look for symptoms. Its how Diagnoses are made.

Its also how you debunk something. You find something else that looks very similar and you say...LOOK! That UFO behaves and acts just like this video of a balloon. THEREFORE, it is possible that your UFO is really a balloon!

Thats what I did. I'm not saying they definately are air based vehicles. But to say that someone should disregard something that looks almost exactly the same is just ignorant and doesnt lead to any type of educated guess as to what the lights are.
How about you show me a video of motorcycles on that mountain. I'll just sit back and say "Sorry, even though that video of motorcycles looks very similar to that clip that you posted, i'm not buying it because... bla bla"

Thats what your doing.

Dude, read my posts already. I'm not the advocating the motorcycle theory. I had once suggested it in a list of possible explanations. Furthermore, no we don't post a video here that is short and not overly exciting, then have someone else post another video and shift discussion towards that video. Furthermore, what you describe is not the same as what is going on here. Using a balloon video to debunk a ufo video is one thing. Using a alleged ufo video to support another alleged ufo video does not help substantiate a claim. They are both unknowns. Its called the scientific method. I'm pretty sure doctors don't use something unknown to help them diagnose another unknown. Now if the second video was proven ufo footage you would have a point however it isn't so I reitterate my point. This video could be motorcycles, UAV's, Helicopters, remote controlled helicopters(gas powered), or any number of things. Not a flying saucer of alien origin.

I took a dirtbike because they are fast, have a short turning rate, can drive perfectly in mountains and have light. But lets call them a object then for arguments sake. Why would a object need a headlight in the 'air'?




[edit on 20/5/2007 by Cygnific]

"The reason why the lights get brighter than the city lights should be obvious. City lights are omni-directional, headlights and searchlights are directional. Therefore, when the directional lights face the camera they get bright. I'm concerned that i'm explaining this. "

Granted, you're right about this, my bad. Even still, have you ever seen search lights shine as brightly as these lights do while taking into account how distant they are? Oh and...you didn't have to get hoity.

Thanks

[edit on 20/5/07 by WickedStar]

What about the idea of it being a fair ground rollercoaster of some sort?

or even a cable cart setup!

cheers

Originally posted by WickedStar
"The reason why the lights get brighter than the city lights should be obvious. City lights are omni-directional, headlights and searchlights are directional. Therefore, when the directional lights face the camera they get bright. I'm concerned that i'm explaining this. "

Granted, you're right about this, my bad. Even still, have you ever seen search lights shine as brightly as these lights do while taking into account how distant they are? Oh and...you didn't have to get hoity.

Thanks

[edit on 20/5/07 by WickedStar]

Sorry for being hoity, but i think most of us can agree with many of the basic principals of this video. There are headlights on some object. And those that think it is strange to have headlights on ufo's have been called "amateurs" and "so called debunkers". It doesn't take an expert to see thats these are headlights or searchlights. Also, IMO there is nothing to debunk here.

Originally posted by jhamende
Dude, read my posts already. I'm not the advocating the motorcycle theory. I had once suggested it in a list of possible explanations. Furthermore, no we don't post a video here that is short and not overly exciting, then have someone else post another video and shift discussion towards that video. Furthermore, what you describe is not the same as what is going on here. Using a balloon video to debunk a ufo video is one thing. Using a alleged ufo video to support another alleged ufo video does not help substantiate a claim. They are both unknowns. Its called the scientific method. I'm pretty sure doctors don't use something unknown to help them diagnose another unknown. Now if the second video was proven ufo footage you would have a point however it isn't so I reitterate my point. This video could be motorcycles, UAV's, Helicopters, remote controlled helicopters(gas powered), or any number of things. Not a flying saucer of alien origin.

Listen, Dude, I did read your posts, but in case you forgot what you actually posted let me refresh your memory.

The reason why the lights get brighter than the city lights should be obvious. City lights are omni-directional, headlights and searchlights are directional. Therefore, when the directional lights face the camera they get bright. I'm concerned that i'm explaining this.

It was at this point that made reference to the second video to provide evidence, like others have done, against land based vehicles. Directional lights, sure, but not land based. I never said they were "Alien craft." I said I believe that they are helicopters.

Also, I have been and will continue to say that the two video share a relationship. If your too lazy to actually watch the second video or if you are too blind to see the relationship between both sets of lights than that is your problem.

You talk about scientific method but you cant even acknowledge the correlation that I have been trying to make between the two videos.

Video 1: Light fading in and out following a path
Video 2: Same types of lights fading in and out following roughly the same path and continuing on above the mountain range.

It makes perfect sense to compare two videos of similar characteristics to find a correlation of what they may or may not be. Thats your scientific method.

I never said doctors use two unknows to make a diagnosis. I said they compare symptoms to make a diagnosis. We're not comparing two videos of unknowns. There are many knowns in both videos that you have to take into consideration if your going to come to a conclusion of what the lights are. If video 1 shows signs of X and video 2 shows signs of X and Y then it's not a giant leap of faith to say what the most probably cause of the lights are.



[edit on 20-5-2007 by xEphon]

Well if the author is right about where the light sources should be over the mountain, when he provided on this thread coordinates to use with Google Earth, those mountains are really far away. In fact, he's talking about speeds over 500 miles/h. That's why I asked him daylight photos of the same area. But if it's the case... we have some sort of super-motorcycles here. I don't know, it sounds impossible to me, at this moment, after using all the data available, no matter about the "directional" pattern you discern after watching this footage.

For a while I was actually afraid people were going to be jumping on the 'motorbike' bandwagon...despite all the obvious flaws. The best I could come up with is either military aircrafts or flares, but neither would seem to match too well based on the apparant behavior of these anomalies. The best that could happen is to have this footage processed by an expert and what would be even better than that would be to go up to the mountain itself and try to capture these anomalies again at closer range.

Seems to me it could be reflections in glass of some sort of car headlights which were closer, but that doesn't explain to me how the light on the far right went behind the mountain. The explanation of motorbikes over in that vicinity doesn't cut it for me. There's no way those are motorbikes.

I'm not saying they're UFOs. There's no way to prove they are. They're just lights in the sky.

[edit on 5/20/2007 by DLHenry]

Originally posted by DLHenry

I'm not saying they're UFOs. There's no way to prove they are. They're just lights in the sky.

[edit on 5/20/2007 by DLHenry]

Well actually they're UFO's, since those light fits on this category: Unidentified Flying Objects.

I've uploaded 2 more videos on this event to you tube

The complete sequence of the first video at
www.youtube.com...

A third video filmed that same day at
www.youtube.com...

Also I'm posting here a panoramic picture of the sight of the mountains from my department and a picture of planes flying around the city with the mountains (a little blurry) on the background and a clear look of the antenna and the Christmas tree shown on the video so yo can dimension the distance of the lights on the footage

Originally posted by nhobaica
A third video filmed that same day at
www.youtube.com...

Nhobaica can you please give your impressions of this video?

[edit on 21/5/07 by CthulhuRising]

Very strange...this new video. Did it really end there? I can't help but think the same. Although this time when the camera zoomed in it looks more like flares. Although the path that these lights traveled didn't seem so flare-like....A question to you nhobaica: How often do you see these lights appearing?

Love the complete version of the first video. I hope the second has a longer version. I was dissapointed that the vid ended before we could see the lights travel across the backlit sky. It could have cleared some things up.

Originally posted by nhobaica
I've uploaded 2 more videos on this event to you tube

Thanks alot nhobaica, is it possible for you to take a picture from the second movie viewpoint, with the tree infront of the camera?

Edit: www.youtube.com...


[edit on 21/5/2007 by Cygnific]

Originally posted by nhobaica


A third video filmed that same day at
www.youtube.com...

Interesting video, but....Why those videos always stop in the moxt exciting moment? Why, why, why..?
Because it will be clear, that it is an aircraft?