Sunday, 18 March 2012

Leslie Kean: Chile UFO Videos Update (Heat & Infrared)

Leslie Kean: Chile UFO Videos Update (Heat & Infrared)

(Update 20th March) Leslie Kean’s website's research page has the three full length videos (as witnessed in the earlier video) available for download as well as a slideshow and other pertinent information: http://ufosontherecord.com/research/

This is an update for an earlier Blog post located here.

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the Chilean UFO video posted by Leslie Kean four days ago on the 13th March 2012. For all it wasn't seen at the time (November 4th or 5th tbc, 2010) the UFO(s) were recorded during an air parade at the Air Force Academy in El Bosque, Santiago. The parade was part of a ceremony that takes place every four years to celebrate the changing of the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Air Force.

The footage was recently brought to light at the recent (21st) 2012 International UFO Congress by retired Chilean Air Force General Ricardo Bermúdez.

Gen. Bermúdez is the director of CEFAA (Committee of Studies of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena), which is part of DGAC, Chile's Civil Aviation Agency equivalent to the FAA. Gen. Bermúdez spoke at the Congress on Saturday, 25th of February (2012) and his presentation contained the analysis done by the astronomers from CEFAA's External Committee of Advisors, analysis which established that the object was not a meteoroid, a comet, reentry of space junk, a bird or an airplane.

OpenMinds.tv wrote about this on March 5th 2012 (stating that the original sighting was on November 4th 2010) and included a few screen-captures with what appeared to filtered images of the UFOs inset in the original image.

Screen captures from the videos:
Source: OpenMinds.tv

As can be seen above the text accompanying the image states that they are from three different videos as well as stating that the second image depicts a:
"Frame from the second El Bosque video with the F5s showing the heat signature of both the FACH jets and the UFO. (Credit: CEFAA)"

Then on the 12th March 2012 Huffington Post blogger, Alejandro Rojas included the screen-captures with no descriptive text (again stating that the original sighting was on November 4th 2010). Then the next day on the 13th March 2012, Leslie Kean co-authored a Blog post with Ralph Blumenthal, again for the Huffington Post in which they stated:


"One such case has just come to light in Chile, and was presented by government officials for the first time at a press conference on March 13.

[…]

It was a glorious, sunny morning on Nov. 5, 2010, when crowds gathered to celebrate the changing of the Air Force Command at El Bosque Air Base in Santiago."



As is evidenced above the assertion now is that it the information has just been presented for the first time on the same day the article was wrote, i.e. 13th March 2012, as well as the date of the original event has now changed from the 4th to the 5th November 2010. I assume it's referring to the fact that the video has just been released to Kean as it was neither exclusive nor its first outing as highlighted in the OpenMinds.tv article at the head of this page (dated 25th February 2012).

Kean & Blumenthal continue:

"The rounded top reflects the sun and appears metallic; the bottom is darker and flat, emitting some form of energy which is visible in photo analysis. Infrared studies show the entire object is radiating heat, just like the jets."


This and earlier allusions to such analysis fuelled much speculation specifically regarding the claims that photo-analysis could be used to determine either energy or a comparable heat signature (radiating or otherwise). Not least because the images that were apparently being referred to show that the hue around the aircraft was evenly distributed and was no different in colouration or size around the exhausts of the aircraft, this once again raised questions as to the methodology & scope of the techniques being referenced.

Kean & Blumenthal write:

Astronomer Luis Barrera from the Metropolitan University of Sciences in Chile, who has an asteroid named after him, was one of eight highly skeptical scientists who analyzed the footage. He was able to rule out a meteoroid, pieces of meteors or comets, space junk, a bird or an airplane.


"The object performed a risky flight maneuver in front of the Halcones from W-E-W, at low altitude and high speed," Barrera concluded. "It had intentional movements. It moved east with 25 degrees inclination, which is the same angle of spacecraft when entering the atmosphere."


Then there is a slide show at the foot of the page containing 19 images, the 18th image is again of what appears to be the heavily filtered object accompanied with the following text:



The object circled around the F5s as they passed above it. Note the similarity between this image of the object and the one in slide #4. The UFO then circled back to the hills. Astronomer Luis Barrera highlighted heat on top and in the band below during his analysis. The black area is some kind of energy, and the neutral blue represents solid mass, according to Barrera.
This has been the main bone of contention for those trying to follow the case as essentially it is alleged that by manipulating the images during photo-analysis that a heat signature, energy source and consistency of mass can be determined. This sounded highly implausible but as Kean & Blumenthal credited this to Luis Barrera I emailed him to see if he could confirm the accuracy of the claim, and if so then to expand on the technique employed.

However and admittedly as somewhat suspected it transpired that the statement was wildly inaccurate as Luis Barrera promptly replied with the following:

I have never concluded that "The black area is some kind of energy, and the neutral blue represents solid mass."


During the analysis of those videos, the main idea was the study of asymmetries in order to detect mass loss around the "object" (which is typically observed  in small bodies  falling to the earth).


On the other hand, such asymmetries can be used to compare it with the expected pattern of insect or birds flying in the field of view.




During a short email exchange Luis also said that:

On the other hand, such asymmetries (can be) were used to compare it with the expected pattern of insect or birds flying in the field of view. We have spent about one year in this case using different frames, where the shape of the "object" remain quite similar in the different videos, so that the hypothesis of birds,  bugs or insects were analyzed in detail.


Fortunately in some videos it is possible to observe birds, which showed the expected pattern of changing asymmetries due to the flap of the wings. But this is not the case of the target!!


As you can see by the above comment the analysis was a great deal more thorough than what was being suggested/assumed on various discussion forums, as well of course as apparently dismissing the bird theory in its entirety. This being accomplished by using previously identified examples of birds in flight (contained within the same videos) as a comparative tool.

I realised at this point that any further questions would perhaps be misconstrued as overstaying my welcome but as I was still unsure as to how the analysis actually functioned I hazarded one final question:

I always favoured the insect theory. Admittedly this is mainly as I've seen quite a bit of footage that bore more than a passing resemblance to screen-captures of the released video. Namely that the -out of focus- rapid motion of the translucent wings coupled with severe motion-blur often resembles a 'classic domed saucer' shape (with the wings creating the domed illusion).


Would the equipment you were using be sensitive enough to detect the fluctuations in the asymmetry of an insect wing analysed frame-by-frame at 30fps and also not being the (optimal) focal point which lay far beyond the target (if target was considerably closer than previously calculated)?


Or would the relative speed & close proximity of the insect in relation to the camera cause it to appear in alternate frames as more of a solid object?

However, and as expected I have received no reply, this is completely understandable and should in no way be regarded as being uncooperative because this was around 3:30am (this) Sunday morning UK time which translates to just after midnight on the Chilean clock!! So as such I am greatly appreciative of the time already afforded to me by Luis Barrera, and especially at such an unsociable hour as he is undoubtedly a very busy man.

Edit to add: Luis Barrera has literally just confirmed that *some* of the small fluctuations in asymmetry such as those of an insect wing would indeed register when employing this method of analysis.

Hopefully the above explanation will allay the fears of those following the case (myself included) who were concerned that the data being supplied was irreconcilable with our current understanding of what constitutes digital imagery analysis. It was also reassuring to read that Maccabee & Haines had been involved with the analytical process.

OpenMinds.tv quoted Gen. Bermúdez stating that:

First we gave it to the astronomers, who used their own software; second, we gave the film to the air force specialists (FACH's Aerial Photogrammetric Service). Third, we did our own internal study; we also asked the opinion of Dr. [Richard] Haines and Bruce Maccabee. Maccabee agreed with our astronomers and Richard [Haines] said that there is an unknown aerial phenomenon."
Gulf Breeze aside, I've generally found any analysis by Maccabee (an optical physicist & long-standing Ufologist/analyst) is fairly neutral & even-handed, plus it is also presented in an accessible format where possible so a lay-person can follow the logic and mathematical formulas involved.

And Haines' previous work for NARCAP is exemplary as is the impressive catalogue of research that NARCAP has made freely available at its website.

Finally and staying with NARCAP, Martin Shough is a well-respected UK UFO Researcher & an active research associate for NARCAP (specialising in Radar-cases). After learning of this multiple footage case Martin contacted Dr Richard Haines directly enquiring as to NARCAP's position and awareness of the footage in question.

The following was the reply which is reproduced here with the kind permission of Martin Shough.



Dear Martin

I received directly from CEFAA on 5 May 2010 five videos taken at the El Bosque AFB, Chile on 5 November 2010 with the confidential request for me to study them. I did so although I did not have the correct software for several.

I managed to open and quantify three of the video files and submitted a confidential summary to CEFAA. This took place soon thereafter. However, it was made clear to me at that time that they (CEFAA) did not want this event to be publicized and so, under the terms of our agreement I just sat on it all. Not even Ted Roe knew of my work.

Time passed.

I recently learned from Leslie Kean that she had contacted CEFAA when she learned that Gen. Bermudez was coming to the USA to give a lecture and that this particular case would be featured. I was quite surprised. For some reason CEFAA had changed its mind.

Leslie K. wrote to me on 24 February 2012 informing me that she was going to break the story on the Huffington Post. Bottom line? My work has not seen the light of day nor been published by me.

Now to your chief point.

The film belongs to their Air Force as far as I know and whether or not CEFAA has full usage rights remains to be seen. I am contacting them about this at this time so stay tuned. Whether or not they will release everything remains to be seen. Another question I have asked them is whether their Air Force is planning any further analyses?

I hope that this background will be of some value. It need not be kept confidential now as far as I am concerned.

Sincerely,
Dick Haines

From this brief correspondence we see that Haines also states it occurred on the 5th November 2010 (rather than the 4th as was originally claimed) and I assume that when he says he received it on May 5th 2010 that he actually means 2011. Haines also independently verifies the existence of at least five separate videos as well as being surprised that after he had honoured the confidentiality request from CEFAA there was an abrupt turnaround:

"CEFAA had changed its mind.
Leslie K. wrote to me on 24 February 2012 informing me that she was going to break the story on the Huffington Post. Bottom line? My work has not seen the light of day nor been published by me."
The date that Kean contacted Haines was the 24th February and so is actually one day before the appearance of Gen. Bermúdez at the conference, which was 10 days before it was posted on OpenMinds.tv and a week afterwards fellow Huffington Post Blogger Alejandro Rojas pre-empted Kean post by less than 24 hours with Kean eventually posting her co-authored account on the 13th March 2012.

I find it puzzling that even though there is a close working relationship between the CEFAA & NARCAP there are no references to the earlier (complete) analysis of Haines other than to mention he confirmed that there was indeed an unidentified aerial phenomenon present in the footage he analyzed leading Haines to muse that his sanctioned work has never 'seen the light of day'.

If we follow Haines' advice and check out the NARCAP home page for further details we find the following release detailing the events of December 2010:



CEFAA-NARCAP - Joint Research and Publications
We are pleased to announce that NARCAP has signed an official research agreement with the UAP research team of Chile, CEFAA - The Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena. Both organizations have recognized that we share common observations and concerns and that a formal research pact could be mutually beneficial. In mid-December 2010 the documents were signed by the Chilean Director General of the DGAC - Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil, General Jose Huepe and Director of CEFAA, General  Ricardo Bermudez, and by NARCAP Chief Scientist Dr. Richard Haines and NARCAP Executive Director Ted Roe.
CEFAA and NARCAP both seek to maintain high standards of research with the intent of  presenting the most reliable data possible on unidentifed aerial phenomena (UAP). The specific concern for aviation safety by NARCAP is recognized by CEFAA and was also in consideration as we prepared stipulations for the agreement. It is recognized that both organizations are concerned with presenting transparency and will publish all research when both organizations are in agreement.
Source: NARCAP



Bearing this in mind then I can't imagine NARCAP is overly excited about this recent media furore as the organisation is renowned for refusing to participate in the media-circus and back in 2008 George Filer published an article by Mufon's David Twichell titled, "NARCAP Boss Snubs MUFON."

The article included correspondence from NARCAP's Ted Roe detailing why he wouldn't –and doesn't- participate in media interview requests:
"I tend to decline media interview requests as a rule. It is my opinion that the media and the study of UAP have gone separate directions. Whereas we take UAP seriously as a hazard to aviation, which is a position that is consistent with several international studies, the media consider the matter to be entertainment and filler that can be manipulated for their benefit with no respect for our image or mission. And they cant it all towards the alien/ETV (extra terrestrial visitation) discussion without respect for us or our work."
Source: National UFO Center


We are pleased to announce that NARCAP has signed an official research agreement with the UAP research team of Chile, CEFAA - The Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena. Both organizations have recognized that we share common observations and concerns and that a formal research pact could be mutually beneficial. In mid-December 2010 the documents were signed by the Chilean Director General of the DGAC - Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil, General Jose Huepe and Director of CEFAA, General  Ricardo Bermudez, and by NARCAP Chief Scientist Dr. Richard Haines and NARCAP Executive Director Ted Roe. 

NARCAP - CEFAA

CEFAA and NARCAP both seek to maintain high standards of research with the intent of presenting the most reliable data possible on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). The specific concern for aviation safety by NARCAP is recognized by CEFAA and was also in consideration as we prepared stipulations for the agreement. It is recognized that both organizations are concerned with presenting transparency and will publish all research when both organizations are in agreement.

(CEFAA - NARCAP Official Agreement of Cooperation)

1 comment:

Andrew Palfreyman said...

If it's true that 7 cameras viewed this sequence, has anyone attempted a triangulation of all this data?

This would provide the 3D trajectory as well as the 3-velocity and the 3-acceleration and also higher time derivatives which may show characteristics of interest. Two ingredients prevent such measurements being of truly useful precision - the fact that none of the cameras are pan-tilt-zoom types (and thus the PTZ data is nowhere directly logged for direct triangulation calculation), and the fact that the frame rate is on the low side given the observed angular speeds across the view plane.

FYI, I and my colleagues are developing a multi-PTZ camera system to improve the situation.