It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFO sighting Finland,12.5.2008 broke to news

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by hande
 


Hande - If it helps, the video was shot from the 5th floor of the 7 storey block - one third from the southern end.

You were right - if it was an aircraft, the angles of view indicate a landing rather than departure. I was initially using the angle provided by Forell himself, which is inaccurate.

The suggested alternative possibility of a truck on the 3022 Naistenmatkie east of Pirkkala is shown here www.transportcafe.co.uk...

[edit on 26/5/08 by Myrdyn]




posted on May, 26 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
In addition, a guy on another Forum produced a filter analysis of one of the video still shots. I superimposed an image of 737 headlights onto it. It's quite interesting:





posted on May, 26 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


I think he knows what he saw so stop playing games.
But check if I saw it right.
The entire plane or UFO looked engulfed in a ball of red light.
At the end on the right hand side. Unless I saw something different.
The object traversed from left to right and visible in static light.

The color changes are well know for these Tesla static drive planes.
Especially all the bright sparks given off.

If you do not have a theory on the saucer craft, then you push for your
theory in a plane.

There is not much more than that and to explain the Tesla theory
would take too much time and probably get as much headway as
telling people it was a plane.

I have posted multiple times on threads trying to convince people of UFO
history and theories and got nowhere because hardly anyone had
heard of the same theory. Only recently do people find the static
electricity might be involved. I just was told this a few months back
and agree with it. Only since I think the hardware of Tesla could
generate the necessary static electricity.


People just want to complain about aliens or say how unknown it
is and not be swayed to anything else.

For my explanation it would take quite awhile to agree with it by
accepting so many things that you understand are true to be
opposite you might be in Seinfeld's 'bizarro' world or Castansa's.
'the opposite'. My voice is all yelled out talking to a mechanical
engineer across a table as loud music was playing. He says there
is no ether and can't see gravity is a push from the ether. And
gave him three examples of energy from the ether.
And he wanted the talk about putting two gyros on a bicycle.
I think he want me to invest in his idea. Good thing I had ether
to talk about. I'm not even going the duplicate Tesla's hardware
because getting involved with some people, you waste money
on their projects or you wined up with something useless that you
don't want. But I have seen some good coils but wound in a
cylinder and not flat. And FCC laws prevents spark discharges
for radio interference. A better video and radio detection system
would have to come along to see UFOs. Put Polaroid lens in front
of the cell phone video camera perhaps to reduce the glare.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Myrdyn
 


Hande

The distance between the main outer landing lights of a 737 is 33.5metres. The distance to the centre of the runway is 11.5 km. This would give an apparent width between the lights of 610mm (2 feet) at the tree line 210 metres away. Indicating that the little gap in the trees would be around four feet wide, which seems about right.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


Watch the video Tes - It moves right to left, not left to right.

Do you understand the basic principles of light refraction? Is every rainbow a Tesla craft? Is red light in the sunset caused by Tesla beams?


[edit on 26/5/08 by Myrdyn]



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

There must be another one but that one sparks away in the same spot
between the valley of two trees.

And moves to the left out of sight.



ED: The Tesla beam gives it direction and have been verified by
observers over Vandenberg with IR binoculars.


[edit on 5/26/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 5/26/2008 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I believe in ET-craft, that could be described as 'ufo's.
I'm sitting on the fence on this sighting, because of the 'good quality' footage.
Hey, it could even be someone sitting in the tree and flashing a torch or something!

Although it can't be 'chinese lanterns', 'cause there's only one light and they aren't moving in formation.


On a serious note though, reading through these 10 pages has proven one thing to me:
(just a quick recap on the facts agein:
It is a ferry!
Correct that: it is a plane.

Could be advertisement.
could be a truck.
I'll accept the last two, because we are here to 'defy ignorance'.)

In this thread, there are believers, sceptics and people who are (IMO) just as bad as hoaxers, who only debunk for getting the kick. They are probably also attention seekers who are p-d off, that someone else has possibly had a sighting.
So in case I have the 'honour' of seeing a UFO and even getting footage of it, then I will post it on ATS (for the believers), but I'll probably leave the thread before page 7(don't nail me on the 7, it was an approx. guess!), after speaking to the sceptics and ignoring the debunkers.

Why? 'cause I can't be asked for that [snip]!
I'm surprised the OP stayed so long. Leaving the thread only proves he was fed up and not that he was a hoaxer!

Sammy


p.s. @ Myrbyn

Forell
posted on 23-5-2008 @ 10:17 AM
Im out for the weekend now[...]


Myrdyn
posted on 23-5-2008 @ 10:22 AM
Didn't think you'd hang around.

with this post, you have managed to post the rudest oneliner in the whole thread!
Congratulations!

(s. Page 4 for more details)



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Hello, first post and everything. Been lurking here for a while though.

I live only a few blocks from the place of this sighting and I'm curious enough that I went there this other day while getting a pizza - sometimes investigating ufos can be tasty


Anyway, the place of the sighting is very good in the way that there are good landmarks to establish the line of sight. Anyway, here's my two cents.

I don't think this is a hoax. We finns don't generally like drawing attention to ourselves and Forell has definetly done that. I would say this is one of the most widely spread sightings in Finland for a long time. That said, Forell hasn't done himself any favours here with his behaviour, I admit that much. And if he'd done a hoax I would say filming aeroplanes from your kitchen window and calling the newspaper wouldn't be a very good one.

However, I do think that it is very likely that this was indeed the Boeing 737 from Stanstedt. The time matches perfectly as well as the direction. The lights could not have been very close. They must have been atleast above the lake, most likely on the other side. That would put them awfully close to the airport while a plane is landing there. So if it wasn't the plane I would imagine that the people on the plane would have seen it as well.

I don't think it could have been a truck. There is just too much stuff on the ground between the roads and the place of view. Also at 22.40 there would be still enough traffic ont he roads that trucks couldn't use all their lights continuously.

I also doubt it would have been the ferry. Both because I'm not completely sure if you could see the ferry from the apartment at all and because I can't see any reason for them to have on lights that would be as bright as the one appears in the video.

Now, if it wasn't the Ryanair plane there's still one thing nobody has mentioned - the military. Not only does Pirkkala have a military airport on the west side of the lake there is a military depot and on theeast side there is the airforce depart of avionics technology (lentotekniikkalaitos). They don't have much aerial activity, but they do mean that there are some army helicopters and such flying around.

However, based on what I've seen, the plane explanation seems very likely.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by Toveri]



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Well, I misunderstood location first. Right place is in koulukatu near open icehockey park. Ok, this doesn t make any diffrence because direction is almost same, right from airport.

I think Forell is not playing, he saw something he cant understand.

Funny thing: when BB called Tampere airport there was a lady who knew this case but could not figure out what this was. "If you were airport that night and saw these lights, what do you think they were?" Lady officer " I dont know".

Well, he is working very busy airport, she don't see lights like this ufo very often, maybe never?

:-)



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Thx for checking that out!
Did you happen to see an aeroplane landing?
Farrel said, that the aircraft lights are too far away and he wouldn't have been able to film them with a mobile.

I don't think it was a hoax (deliberate), but the video is sadly not good enough to say what it was.


Sammy



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38
reply to post by Myrdyn
 


Yikes...

Well, I agree with what you say about the general perception of skepticism in the forum. Too many people don't understand that skepticism is essential when trying to discover the truth.


Skepticism is absolutely necessary to uncovering the truth. But the tone of some of these skeptics is not to simply offer other possibilities, and evidence supporting their position. (and only one of the skeptics did present anything to support their claim, a google earth shot showing that it COULD have been a plane, not that it for certain was)

It is necessary to hear other possibilities, what is NOT necessary is to just say, "I know it isnt a UFO, case closed." Thats not skepticism, thats arrogance and dismissive of something someone clearly believes to be a UFO not a plane. Could the OP be mistaken? Sure. Conversely, could the "skeptics" be mistaken? Sure. One of them was first saying for certain it was a ferry, and being dismissive, before moving on to the plane after finding out it couldnt have been a ferry. How quickly he jumped to that first conclusion should tell you something about his reasoning.

And for those bashing on the OP for the quality of the footage, it was a good video under the circumstances. I found out today how hard it is to get a fast shot of a moving object in the sky. There were two planes flying almost on top of each other, and I thought they might crash into each other so I went in to get my digital camera and take a pic. I completely missed my first try, (fortunately they circled over my house three times, must have been for some airshow) and the second try I managed to capture it on film, but it was really hard to see them in the viewfinder with the sun right in my eyes and their moving. I got several shots of just sky trying to get one decent pic. If they had been a fast moving UFO, even with camera in hand I would have failed to get a good shot, maybe not even a shot at all. It isnt as easy as you think. Especially when they arent moving in a straight line and you cant anticipate where they will be when the shutter clicks.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
"Farrel said, that the aircraft lights are too far away and he wouldn't have been able to film them with a mobile. "

True . I have chatted with him, he is also called airport etc. He has took pictures, no lights there. We must know that sun goes down 45min later now than 12.5.2008. Test pictures must take 23:30 maybe..

We must wait and see, maybe we get more information very soon.

Forums there is lots of people living in same area who say they have not seen same kind of lights. What does this mean?


[edit on 27-5-2008 by hande]

[edit on 27-5-2008 by hande]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


Prof., There is a superDARN radar in Hankasalmi, Finland.

I don't really know anything about them, but here is a definition:

"The Super Dual Auroral Radar Network (SuperDARN) is an international radar network for studying the upper atmosphere and ionosphere , comprised of eleven radars in the northern hemisphere and seven in the southern hemisphere that operate in the High Frequency (HF) bands between 8 and 22 MHz ."

Here is an interesting paper on superDARN and HAARP.
(I have to finish reading it, but seems very interesting.)

www.aip.org.au...


[edit on 27-5-2008 by Electro38]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I agree. That's what I was trying to say too.

And also that being skeptical is not the same as being dismissive. Which is what you were saying too?

You need to proceed with skepticism, but should never be automatically dismissive.

A lot of people equate the two words, which is wrong. But, I think that's happening because the definition of "skepticism" is being misinterpreted. If you have a background in science, you most likely understand the true definition of "skepticism". (But I realize, maybe a lot of people don't have a background in science, that's ok.)



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Electro38
 


I agree that it is a misunderstanding of the word "skeptic," and it may well be that the people misusing it do not have a background in science or analysis.

The word "argument" is similarly misused by people that do not have a background in logic and argumentative writing.

I am not so sure that a simple misunderstanding of terms is the problem, though. I suspect that some posters have a strong desire not to validate or debunk claims legitimately, but rather they just want to appear important and gain some sense of being an "authority" whether that claim to authority is merited or not. There are lots of frustrated egos on the internet boards, more interested in popularity and acclaim than in "denying ignorance." (Both pro and con certain issues)

The thing that I find frustrating is that when these sorts jump all over a topic and begin holding forth on their presumed expertise in such a way that it is arrogant and dismissive of people brave enough to come forward with evidence or reports of sightings of UFO's, (which they may already feel some trepidation about knowing that they will face criticism) and drive them off the board with their rudeness, they make it less likely that the next witness to any event will come forward. (Or as was the case here, less likely that the witness will continue the dialog and allow productive analysis of the issue to continue.)

Even if it were a plane, the OP doesnt think so, and it does not have the flavor of a deliberate hoax in my inexpert opinion. Even if he were mistaken, he still deserves to be treated with respect, and his evidence and claim given due consideration. If it were proven to be a common object, (plane or something else) he should still be treated with respect and not mocked for the mistake. Looking at the video, I do not see that it "clearly" is a plane, (and I have lived on or near Airforce bases a fair number of years, and have personally seen many planes of all kinds land in all sorts of weather) so it would be an honest misinterpretation. Not something someone deserves to be mocked for. None of those photos of planes landing offered as counter evidence look anything like what he shot in my opinion, they lack the spectacular coloration, and while the colors could be artifacts of the image, we ran the OP off before any image analysts got a chance to give their opinion of that possibility. People with real expertise in image analysis, like Jritzman do not mock the OP, even it they find evidence that an anomaly is due to distortion or artifacts. They just analyze it, and post their findings, they dont make it personal.

For those who think the OP behaved badly by refusing to continue under those circumstances, I disagree. If I had seen something, and I was certain it was a UFO (something unexplained, not necessarily ET) and a couple of yahoos were treating me that way, I would not sit around and pretend that their dismissive attitude merited a considerate response on my part. Nor would I continue to post and subject myself to that kind of rudeness if I really felt I had seen something extraordinary. Why should he? He went where he could present his evidence without mockery and rudeness, and where his claim could be examined by people who at the very least knew the basics of polite analysis. He made a good first post, where he provided video, stills and a shot of his location, he in good faith responded to initial questions, and he made every attempt to make this forum work the way it is supposed to. I dont blame him for getting pissed off and leaving.

What pisses me off is that this kind of rude behavior is likely to give ATS a reputation not as the premier site on the internet to discuss evidence of alternative topics, but the premier site on the internet to come to if you want a bunch of self important people with bad manners to attack you.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aldolas
Thx for checking that out!
Did you happen to see an aeroplane landing?


Nope, couldn't see any airplanes. It was daytime and the airport is pretty far away.

Also, it's summer so nights are getting very short this high in the north. Somebody quoted saying that sun sets 45 minutes later than today than it did on the 12th. That sounds about right, there's light enough outside at 22.40 now to read a newspaper, or take pictures. So checking out the landing lights is pretty hard for the next few months.

For me the brightness of the light is the most curious thing about this whole thing. The colors int he video look to me like the errors you get when the you're shooting something too bright with a cheap digital camera.

It would help to know what kind of phone Forell used. There's so much video noise and artifacts that I can't say if the colors are just noise amplified by gain (and digital zoom?) so that anything white would have looke like acid disco, or if the light was bright enough to cause the errors in the sensor itself. How bright it would have been to overload a cheap cellphone sensor? I have no idea, propably not very bright. In my old crappy digital camera I got those errors shooting a sharp reflection on a bright sunny day.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Words of wisdom.

Yes, I thought it was such a shame to drive the OP away. I appreciated the opposing arguments that were being posted. Those opposing arguments added dimension to the thread.

But then, I thought how strange it was, that it was so aggressively being dismissed as a hoax so imprudently.

Nothing was presented as evidence of a hoax, only that it may have been an honest mistake.

I still wasn't sure what was seen in his video, also thought maybe the OP was mistaken it for a plane, or something. Regardless, the thing that made this thread interesting was that it seemed like we were going to find out what it was, discover the truth.

Also, I believe there's a cultural component here too. In that, I don't think Finnish people are used to beating each other up so casually, verbally or whatever.

Anyway, we should keep an eye on this event somehow. I really believe something is going to pan out.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toveri


It would help to know what kind of phone Forell used. There's so much video noise and artifacts that I can't say if the colors are just noise amplified by gain (and digital zoom?) so that anything white would have looke like acid disco, or if the light was bright enough to cause the errors in the sensor itself.


It would be nice if we could have asked those questions, although the OP did state in his testimony about the sighting that the colors were apparent to the naked eye as well. The colors are pretty amazing, if the video reflects fairly accurately what was visible to his eye.



I saw it man..it was no blimb. And the colours were more amazing to the naked eye.

Forell



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
If somebody has time you can use windows movie maker. You can see each frame and you can save it as a picture.

Ok, when camera moves, UFO moves too, picture is not good. These images you should delete or you edit them better.

Camera is moving a lot; I think it is good idea edit pictures with Gimp (example) , you can move trees+ufo etc. to same place in all frame pictures.

This way we can make video much better. I think only trees and ufo are important, we must forgot (?) all other things in video.


[edit on 28-5-2008 by hande]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Maybe not on topic but, here´s a CBS 60 minutes thing on Finland and
the people living in Finland...
Maybe helps you to understand how we "work" here in Scandinavia... I
Think the people from Finland are lot alike the Swedish!
I hope not to be rude or something, but sometimes it is better to know
what kind of people you are dealing with, somebody metioned something
early in this trhead that the Finish people are shy and don´t like to draw attention to them selves...

Maybe helpful maybe not but here you go:

www.xpl.se...



new topics




 
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join