• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

UFO Caught On Tape Over Santiago Air Base

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Can't say I agree with the guys in the comments section automatically dismissing it as a bug. Not only does it simply not look like a bug but if it were it seems to me it would streak (Leave a blur behind it) across the picture like we get in the "rods" videos (And if it isn't moving quickly enough to streak then one should be able to easily identify it as a bug, also not the case here, and it should be visible in all frames). But this is different than that. Instead it seems to appear in only a few frames and when it does leaves no afterimage in its wake. And that's odd. Seems to me that something zipping around in the distance and covering as much ground as quickly as it does either shouldn't show up on film at all or should be leaving a tail of blur behind it just as a flying insect close to the camera should. It's the lack of any blurring or tailing that has me wondering if it could be a hoax. But I'm no camera expert. Don't know if the way the video looks could be some quirk of the equipment. But the way the video looks is strange, almost like the object isn't flying but winking in and winking out from one spot to the next. If it's a real video I have no good guess of what it is. But I don't know, like I said I'm no video or bug expert (And I've been wrong before and likely will be again). If it does turn out to be an insect it's a little different than the rods clips I've seen. Curious to see the other videos of it.
 
Leaving Dr. Haines out of the loop, holding back the information for a partial release at a UFO convention? This is being handled pretty shoddily. From what Leslie Kean says on her Facebook page, we've seen the best stuff already and the other footage is of lower quality and includes cellphone footage.

All this crowing from the UFO community about "Disclosure" and when they have something of genuine interest, they botch the job!
 
Sentry said:
Leaving Dr. Haines out of the loop, holding back the information for a partial release at a UFO convention? This is being handled pretty shoddily. From what Leslie Kean says on her Facebook page, we've seen the best stuff already and the other footage is of lower quality and includes cellphone footage.

All this crowing from the UFO community about "Disclosure" and when they have something of genuine interest, they botch the job!
Click to expand...


Sentry - I am routinely infuriated with parts of the UFO community. They harp on about the governments of the world 'disclosing' what they know, yet they often withold evidence of their own, possibly to make money, have prestige showing it at a conference etc.
Certain sections of the UFO community need to get their own house in order before expecting information from anyone else.
Hoarding of evidence is hardly likely to lead to understanding this phenomena.
 
uforadio said:
Media Coverage continues (Daily Mail):
Chilean UFO sighting 'captured from seven angles' divides sceptics and believers | Mail Online
Click to expand...

I just read the above article and almost choked when I read the following:

However 'debunker' Robert Sheaffer told the website: "They are "unexplained cases" only if you ignore the explanation.​
'That's what's going to happen in this case.'​


Does anyone else see what's wrong with that statement? Talk about ignoring the scientific method. This 'debunker' is confidently predicting the outcome before having all the facts. Of course as Stanton Friedman so eloquently points out about debunkers - 'Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up'.
​


​
 
If different camera views show the object is in the same point in space then it cannot be an insect up close. Have not seen any other shots though.
 
stonehart said:
Thanks for the link Mike
Click to expand...


Having Leslie Kean as a facebook friend is a good, lazy way to have some interesting UFO stuff fall into your lap! As always, Leslie does not profess to know what these objects or lights are. She does exactly what a good journalist does - she checks the facts that can be checked and then reports the story for our benefit.

We could do with a Leslie Kean working for every damn newspaper/tv station in the world! We might actually get somewhere if that were the case. Of course, diamonds are valuable because they are so rare. Leslie Kean is a diamond.
 
LK- is careful to separate her beliefs from her reporting, and that's good. She pursues a path of moderation that allows those on the sidelines to consider that something extraordinary might be happening without piling on the peripheral weirdness. Those personal feelings, however, do seem to effect what she chooses to consider as evidence.

I do hope that the forthcoming photographic evidence is as strong as the initial claims. Sadly, even if it is not, the first press coverage will be remembered and talked about in years to come, probably pointed out as another case of suppressed UFO/ET evidence.
 
A 3D timeline view of this would be awesome...

Using the different cameras to triangulate the estimated positions in space and scrolling a time bar to watch the relative displacement of the various aircraft would blow anyones mind and be ultimate hard to disprove evidence. Really surprised that this hasn't been confiscated by the CIA yet.
 
mike said:
An excellent set of further investigations by Dr Dil, including emails from the Luis Barrera clarifying some matter

UFO Blog: Leslie Kean: Chile UFO Videos Update (Heat & Infrared)
Click to expand...

Hello stranger!!
el0el-2.gif


So, this is where you’ve been hiding out Mike?!

Thanks for the link & kind words mate and it’s great to see you still kicking about.

A present for you:

​

Cheers.
wink-2.gif
 
Gday Mate, yeah ive been here since 2008.

Ive seen hoaxkillers video, and while i appreciate his efforts he did say

From the looks of it, the only speeds that make sense (if you are not thinking about sci-fi spaceships) are the ones that are in close proximity to the camera. It makes sense when you think about the average speed of most flying insects...
Click to expand...

To which this reply is imo valid

Thus, to Hoaxkiller only slow speeds "make sense" because he is considering only insects as a viable explanation. Not a fast moving flying machine which he dismisses merely by waving hands. The fact that the object passes in front of the hills does not exclude extraordinary speeds. Hoaxkiller seems to ignore the fact that the object was picked up on multiple cameras. He has merely assumed his conclusion: bugs.
Click to expand...

He's not analysing the video to see whats in it, he doing so to support his bug theory.

I think there are still more questions than answers in this one.

I once read about an alleged description of a propulsion system that "stitched" time causing the craft to appear to hop from point to point.

Our biggest handicap in answering the UFO enigma is we have a tendancy to to think inside a pre defined box, to take that which "we know" and force the evidence to conform to it.

Since im open to the idea of these "exotic" explanations, i dont need to settle for "simple" answers like bugs.

There have been errors in the reporting of this case, thats the nature of chinese wispers or the telephone game as its sometimes called, but I'm still hung on the 7 videos analysed by

scientists from many disciplines, aeronautical experts, and air force and army photogrametric technicians to subject the videos to intense scrutiny. They all came to the same conclusions.
Click to expand...

Aspect of this case, add to that Barreras opinion and Haines and Maccabee's analysis, all of them leaning towards UFO not bug.
And while its true Bruce got royally screwed by Theilmann, which did hurt his credibility, this matter is directly within his field of expertise and experience, where checking someone service credentials are clearly not.

I will be disapointed to have it proved its a bug, because if it is a real metallic looking disc shaped craft,then it could finally open up the field to serious research
 
mike said:
Gday Mate, yeah ive been here since 2008.

<snip>

Our biggest handicap in answering the UFO enigma is we have a tendancy to to think inside a pre defined box, to take that which "we know" and force the evidence to conform to it.

Since im open to the idea of these "exotic" explanations, i dont need to settle for "simple" answers like bugs.

There have been errors in the reporting of this case, thats the nature of chinese wispers or the telephone game as its sometimes called, but I'm still hung on the 7 videos analysed by

"Scientists from many disciplines, aeronautical experts, and air force and army photogrametric technicians to subject the videos to intense scrutiny. They all came to the same conclusions."

Aspect of this case, add to that Barreras opinion and Haines and Maccabee's analysis, all of them leaning towards UFO not bug.
And while its true Bruce got royally screwed by Theilmann, which did hurt his credibility, this matter is directly within his field of expertise and experience, where checking someone service credentials are clearly not.

I will be disapointed to have it proved its a bug, because if it is a real metallic looking disc shaped craft,then it could finally open up the field to serious research
Click to expand...

Hi again Mike,

I thought it was a nice video analysis because it’s the first time we’ve had the physical location identified so as to be able to compare measurements with other data in the future (i.e. when or if the CEFAA produces it). Plus while it doesn’t necessarily show malicious intent I can’t help but feel that the fact the target appears in front of the mountain as well as a couple of feet off the ground and these two instances were ignored by the whoever put the video together at the CEFAA smacks of confirmation bias.

It’s emerged from several sources that this research has been going on for over a year in private with every frame of every video being studied and if this is the case then there’s no way that these two instances (highlighted in the HK video) were not seen. Personally I’d much rather CEFAA just present the evidence that they have and if there are one or two inconsistencies then so what? The evidence will stand or fall on its own merits as I don’t believe there’s any reason to massage the evidence or just omit contradictory aspects. It kind of feels like the audience is being very subtly coached.

I’m not just open to the idea of exotic explanations as the main reason I even bother researching this is in the hope of finding proof of one but just as you won’t settle for the ‘simple’ ones I won’t settle for the ‘exotic’ ones unless the evidence supports it.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, but as for Haines and due to the way the CEFAA treated the work he done for them on these reports (i.e. effectively burying it) we may well see it yet. Plus if you read the attribution to Haines and according to Haines himself ALL he ever concluded was that it was a physical/real-world object in the video/s, a fact which to be fair has never been in contention.

Does it not strike you as just a little strange that NARCAP are in partnership with the CEFAA yet NARCAP’s leading analyst (Dr. Richard F. Haines, NARCAP Chief Scientist) has effectively had his analysis suppressed? Maccabee as I implied on my Blog has his failings, I didn’t cite SA as an example because at least he realised and later admitted that there was a possibility he had been hoaxed, actually all I wrote regarding this was at the start of the paragraph where I praised his work and I simply wrote, “Gulf Breeze aside.”

And finally regarding Barrera I don’t doubt his integrity but I have great difficulty in believing that an asymmetric analysis (which as he said, is generally reserved for detecting mass loss in NEO’s) would be in any way effective for detecting the small fluctuations that would be present if the targets in the footage were considerably smaller than is being assumed. And even if not (smaller) then I’m sceptical of the effectiveness of the entire process being used to analyse video footage such as has been presented in this fashion, and even more so when the supplied video appears to be an off-the-shelf camera (30fps) and focused far beyond the targets that are actually being analysed.

When I first saw the video I thought it was a Blurfo and to date I haven’t seen, heard or read any evidence that directly refutes this. Of course I’m the first to admit that this doesn’t mean it IS a Blurfo but it does beg the question that if the analysis is complete -which it appears to be then- why not just put it in the public domain? Seven videos analysed by in excess of eight specialist academics (most of whom it’s alleged are sceptics) must have created literally piles of paperwork between them.

If the CEFAA had just said, “Here’s the footage, this was our research team and this is our findings” then we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, I think the real question here is why isn’t any sanctioned representative available to answer questions about (as you correctly imply) an event which could be the ‘end-game’ as far as the broader UFO phenomenon is concerned?

Why release any of it at all if the analysis isn’t finished? Even though I don’t believe anyone from CEFAA has analysed and/or researched the footage for a few months, but if this is correct then what possible reason could all the secrecy and failure to acknowledge even the most basic request for further data possibly hope to achieve.

I won’t be disappointed per se but this is mainly as I’m massively jaded by past experiences in high-profile cases and especially when they are being handled as strangely and as cagey as this one has/is.

I sincerely hope my gut instinct is wrong.

Only time will tell I guess…..


Cheers!!




(Also, do you realise the footage released to date appears to contains three of the seven videos?)
 
Back
Top