I was looking at the Santiago video last night, and one thing that struck me was that the UFO does not show any motion blur, which I would expect at the speed it was supposedly flying and the shutter speed the camera was likely using (i.e. not especially fast when shooting blue sky).

It's hard to dismiss all of them. Please feel free to remain skeptical; but, try to keep an open mind until CEFAA and others have made their analyses.

Without even knowing the specifics -- frame rate, exposure time, actual distance to the object or its speed -- the motion blur should have been a very noticeable percentage of the distance traveled from one frame to the next, which is simply to say that the exposure time should have been a noticeable percentage of the frame capture cycle. That would be true even if it was a small object very close to the camera, not flying particularly fast (e.g. the "rod" phenomenon that some people find so baffling is caused by bugs flying close to the camera). Even if the camera was capable of the high shutter speed necessary to essentially "freeze" an object flying at 4000 to 6000 MPH (which is doubtful, anyway), standard CCD and CMOS sensors are not nearly sensitive enough to shoot that fast in ordinary daylight and get a useable image.

Apparently, there was no sonic boom, either.

Without saying what it is, we can safely say this was not an object flying 4000 to 6000 MPH. If the CEFAA hasn't even noticed the problem with the lack of motion blur, I'm not holding my breath waiting for their analysis.

for Chile's CEFAA to analyze them?

Why aren't they sharing them with investigators outside of Chile?

Oh, and how can it be known that no one tampered with the videos?

Thanks for your interesting post. I like reading about supposed UFO sightings, even though I doubt Earth is being visited by ETs.

from the first link:



further enhanced:



I'm skeptical.

Especially before bedtime.

In an interesting essay included in the book titled “Militant Agnosticism and the UFO Taboo,” two political scientists, Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall, advance a theory as to why the U.S. government has supposedly been less than forthcoming on the UFO question. As they point out, skeptics cite a number of seemingly intractable obstacles to interstellar travel to argue against the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Nevertheless, Wendt and Duvall argue that the origins of the UFO taboo are political, not scientific

Kean endorses Wendt’s and Duvall’s call for a “militant agnosticism” in pursuit of UFO investigations. By agnostic, they mean not rushing to ascribe UFOs to extraterrestrial sources. If, however, the eyewitness accounts presented in Kean’s book are to be believed, then one would be hard pressed to conclude otherwise. Other explanations proffered in the past would be at least, or even more, mind-boggling, such as time travelers, Nazi flying saucers from underground bases in Antarctica, or visitors from other dimensions. What is most compelling about Kean’s study is the number of seemingly credible and authoritative first person sources who go on the record for her with their positions on UFOs. None of them claimed to have experienced any repercussions from the government or men-in-black visitations.

...but that loaded sentence shows Kean is pandering to the sort of paranoia one finds among the most diehard of believers.

And the phrase "as agreed by authorities around the world" makes her laughable.