HD video of UFO Stalking Chilean Jets Over Santiago Air Base

Originally posted by RSF77
I see, why is it shown on the 480p marked frame then? It's just odd, that's all, I said I didn't really know what it was all about.

It's all about compression. To compress a video you must reduce the amount of unique colors that are in the color definition table of the video. To do that the compression algorithm finds colors that are near each other and very similar to each other and replaces them with a single color. So you have one color instead of two in the table, ultimately making the video file smaller and easier to compress.

On the unmarked 480p video at the frame in question, the UFO was a very similar color to the sky and very small. I would imagine this resulted in the UFO colors being replaced with sky colors during compression.

On the marked 480p video at the frame in question, the sky color around the UFO was lightened, and the UFO itself was darkened. This made the sky and UFO colors more dissimilar, and that caused it to survive the compression and remain visible.

Originally posted by WarriorOfTheLight
The OPs headline title far out weighs the video /expectations

Let's take a look at this systematically.

1) HD Video - the video linked in the OP is HD
2) of UFO - whatever is in the video remains, as yet, unidentified. It could turn out to be a bug, a bird, or an intergalactic starship from the planet Zaarg - the point is it remains unidentified for now. It certainly appears to be flying though and looks to be an object of some sort.
3) Stalking Chilean Jets - I see no reason to doubt that the jets are Chilean. Stalking requires an imaginative eye, however.
4) over Santiago Air Base - I see no reason to doubt that this is footage taken from Santiago air base.

So, with the above in mind, out of the 11 words in the OP's title the only one that I can see anybody having a problem with is "stalking". 10 out of 11 isn't a bad return from where I'm sat.

Interesting thread this by the way. Thanks OP.

reply to post by UFOGlobe


That makes sense, just didn't seem like it would be that much.

I played around with it in GIMP and couldn't get it to appear, you try.

Originally posted by RSF77
It's fairly conclusive that the video we have been watching is a compilation of multiple cameras (the difference in color contrast and distortion around the edges would seem to imply that), or at the very least multiple vantage points. IMHO that discredits the bug theory quite a bit, unless a new species of synchronized flyers has just been discovered.

Your quote about multiple videos from the Chilean government is talking about the other videos that we don't see.

The video that we have is the same camera. They seemed to have messed with the contrast while doing their highlighting and stuff. Also, I think the camera might have had auto aperture settings, and it might have changed the brightness automatically during filming. A lot cameras will adjust the aperture when the scene gets bright and or dark. Sometimes panning to the sky and back to the ground quickly will cause a camera to decrease and or increase the brightness with the aperture.

I do agree that the position (vantage point) of the camera in the video slightly changed mid filming. This has no effect on the bug explanation.

Even if they were multiple cameras, they are so close together that both cameras would see the same bugs. So not even that effects the bug explanation.

Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Your quote about multiple videos from the Chilean government is talking about the other videos that we don't see.

Incorrect I think. I'm pretty convinced it is at least two different cameras based on the article and the video and pictures. All these pictures are in the same video we see right? Judge for yourself:

First Frame

Frame from the first video at the FACH Ceremony in El Bosque, Nov. 4, 2010, showing a clear image of the metallic looking object. (Credit: CEFAA).

The second video taken during the same FACH ceremony showed exactly the same metallic-looking unidentified object flying right below a formation of F5 jets.

As explained by Gen. Bermúdez in his lecture, “the object is very near the F5, and our study, the heat study” showed the similarity of “the F5 with the object, same for the shadow, a very interesting case.”

The CEFAA analysis estimated that the radius of the UFO was between 5-10 meters.

Second Frame

Frame from the second El Bosque video with the F5s showing the heat signature of both the FACH jets and the UFO. (Credit: CEFAA)

The FACH’s El Bosque ceremony then proceeded with a flyby of eight F16s and once again the metallic-looking object appeared in yet another video.

“If you think it’s not enough I have another surprise for you,” said Gen. Bermúdez, “this appeared only one fraction of a second, our non-believer astronomers calculated the speed according to Newton’s law, 18 times the F-16 speed, that is over 10,000 KM per hour.

Third Frame

Frame from the third El Bosque video showing the F16s and UFO. The official analysis indicated the speed of the UFO was eighteen times faster than the F16s. (Credit: CEFAA)

Gen. Bermúdez showed the analysis done by the astronomers from CEFAA’s External Committee of Advisors, which established that the object was not a meteoroid, a comet, reentry of space junk, a bird or an airplane.

Furthermore, the scientists’ report stated the UFO undertook “a risky maneuver in front of the Halcones from west to east” and that it did “a flight maneuver at low altitude and high speed.

...

source & references:

www....(nolink)/ufo-disclosure-chilean-style-896/

www.cefaa.gob.cl...

Whatever it is they are referring to it as a different video, perhaps something got lost in translation or the article is inaccurate. I interpret that as meaning a few of the 7 seven videos they have. In between the two different frame series when the video changes position, the guy doesn't appear to be walking backwards.

-edit-

Wait nevermind... I was wrong...

It turns out there was multiple jet flybys!

reply to post by RSF77


so it is not possible that the first frame shows the camera zoomed in or the cameraman moved?

how does one differentiate between zoomed in and different location and a person just moving or has camera on a tripod?

and even if it were different locations, how does it disprove the "bug theory" ?

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I guess it could be, the only thing I can think of is something close to the camera (a bug) would be a lot different zoomed than something farther away. Not really sure, guess we'll have to ask Leslie Kean if she knows. It could be figured out by a simple facebook message maybe, I was just trying to work with what we have at hand since I detest facebook.

There is the article and the differences in color that make me think it's separate cameras, I may be missing something so maybe someone more knowledgeable than me can point something out.

IMHO that discredits the bug theory quite a bit

I guess it doesn't totally disprove it, but it does kind of lean me away from it. A bug (or two) would have to be consistently in the same place in relation to different cameras/vantage points, and move in the same manner. Also, I don't see any other bugs in the video.

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

I guess it could be, the information in the article seems to debate that. Not really sure, guess we'll have to ask Leslie Kean if she knows or someone.

There is the article and the differences in color that make me think it's separate cameras, I may be missing something so maybe someone more knowledgeable than me can point something out.

yeah. at the end of the day we always have to circle back to believing what was allegedly told to the article author. i admit, im jaded and dont just believe people because they say something....especially when the evidence given does not match what is being told.....and so far, IMO, it does not....

and well, to me it still looks like and behaves like a bug zipping about....

It's amazing how the debunkers just seem to have all the answers, all the time. It's a UFO, and nowadays it's common place and no one reality gets freaked out about it anymore. If one landed at the white house everyone would just go, " there you go..." and go about their busy day.

It turns out there were multiple jet flybys...

One had 8 jets...


The other had 6 jets...


I think the main video does contain multiple videos of multiple jet flybys. I think the vantage point might have changed in between flybys and made the illusion of multiple cameras.

reply to post by UFOGlobe


Wow I didn't even notice. It still could go either way though.

However that isn't the two frame series in question (the first two in the video with the people), the jets are too far away in the first series for me to distinguish exactly what formation they are in. It looks a bit like this though:

o
--o
o--o
--o
o

Which is the same as in the other image you posted, maybe the same flyby as well.

reply to post by Fromabove


It's not a UFO to some people...

Some people can actually see they are just bugs flying around. Only the people who don't know what they are seeing call it a UFO.

For example, if I took a part off of my motorcycle and took a picture of it, a good majority of you would have no idea what it is just by looking at it (unidentified to them). However some people will know exactly what it is when they look at it (identified).

UFOGlobe says

If the object is only 0.5 inches then it's traveling 12.5 mph.

multiply by 1000

A 500 inch long object would be travelling 12,500 mph. And so on.

So the Chilean astronomers' estimates were right after all.

reply to post by greeneyedleo

I'd have to side with greeneyedleo's post on this one!

Without these other six videos being available this entire thing screams hoax or misinterpretation to me. It very much resembles a bug within close range to the lens moving not in a straight line but diagonally giving the impression of it changing altitude and distance.

If anything inside of our atmosphere was travelling that fast you would not only hear it tearing through the air but it would also leave some kind of contrail, no matter what technology, if e.t, it is using. Just think of a bullet leaving the chamber. If that bullet whizzes past your ear, you bloody know about it!!

Anyway, I’m no expert on this but that’s just my two cents.

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by UFOGlobe

 

Wow I didn't even notice. It still could go either way though.

However that isn't the two frame series in question (the first two in the video with the people), the jets are too far away in the first series for me to distinguish exactly what formation they are in. It looks a bit like this though:

o
o
o o
o
o

edit on 16-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

Even if there ARE multiple camera angles, I'm not sure how that would rule out bugs conclusively? Could it not be possible there was a swarm near by?

Further analysis is definitely required. But I do find the one altered image posted above very interesting. There seems to be a very sharply distinct , dark circular shape underneath what seems to be the flat underside of a bowl/saucer shaped object. I'm unsure about how this image was generated or the validity of the source, but it certainly does not appear to be a bug in that particular picture.

What I think we can state, is this is the text book definition of a UFO. It's an as yet unidentified flying object. Does that necessarily indicate it's our space brother zordax taking a sunday drive in his intergalactic Cadillac? Of course not. But it warrants serious investigation and not just open acceptance it's an alien craft (or blind skepticism that it's a bug without any real analysis).

If the thread had been titled "Bug filmed at Chilean Air Show"
the same people would be debunking that as well. I think it is
a craft of some sort.

reply to post by RSF77


After looking at the frames you are talking about, it turns out the formation in the very beginning of the video has 6 jets, and when the people seem to change the formation has 8 jets. So there was at least 3 flybys.

Also, the first formation seems to be emitting smoke from some of the jets.

Here we are, nine pages in, and still the context in which this video has come to light is still being ignored in favor of endless discussion about whether or not this is a bug. Isn't anyone at all interested in talking about anything else? For example, let's assume for a while that this video IS just of a bug. How and why do you think this hoax has gotten this far? Who is the perpetrator? The author of the article? The air force general who presented her with the footage and the information? The government agency who employs the general? The people who analyzed the video and came to these conclusions? Do we suspect that they are all in on this together, or is one party playing the rest for fools? What possible motivation could there be for such a hoax considering the blow to the reputations of those involved that would surely come to pass? Should we chalk this all up to lies, or are all of these people just totally incompetent and lacking in judgement?

I would think after nine pages of droning polemic we could at least TOUCH on some of these significant questions for a page or two. On the other hand, this is ATS, hardly a place for intelligent discussion. Do what you will.

Originally posted by Orkojoker
Here we are, nine pages in, and still the context in which this video has come to light is still being ignored in favor of endless discussion about whether or not this is a bug. Isn't anyone at all interesting in talking about anything else? For example, let's assume for a while that this video IS just of a bug. How and why do you think this hoax has gotten this far? Who is the perpetrator? The author of the article? The air force general who presented her with the footage and the information? The government agency who employs the general? The people who analyzed the video and came to these conclusions? Do we suspect that they are all in on this together, or is one party playing the rest for fools? What possible motivation could there be for such a hoax considering the blow to the reputations of those involved that would surely come to pass? Should we chalk this all up to lies, or are all of these people just totally incompetent and lacking in judgement?

I would think after nine pages of droning polemic we could at least TOUCH on some of these significant questions for a page or two. On the other hand, this is ATS, hardly a place for intelligent discussion. Do what you will.

Everyone here knows conspiracies don't exist. Except when there's a conspiracy to fool large amounts of tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. Then they exist. But only then.