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: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Caught you.. hope is explains ether energy.
See some of my posts on other threads for an ether theory link.
See my profile for sort of classical physics that produces a
Billion Billion tons of force electrically, and the associated
acceleration.


Will do. Thanks.




posted on May, 23 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
How about that red ball at th end.

If he see any more planes like that I hope he posts them.

I would not tell the authorities orpost anything for months
until I had hundreds of photos.

Then I could drive fear in all the kooks and drive the Blue Book
wanna be nutty.

AST member CYRAX was so peeved at chemtrails and made so
many photos, he got dark blobs along with trails in the sky.
When a triangle got stuck in the sky with flares of luminous
air, he wrote out a report. He must have been in a UFO hot spot
and when the 'ghost rocket' was in the sky afternoon until
evening he had something to report.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


That would be either the red beacon light on top of the plane or the port wing red strobe light. Possibly a combination of the two - as the plane moves to the left, only those red lights would be visible.

I'll post it instead: www.aerospaceweb.org...

[edit on 23/5/08 by Myrdyn]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Look at the photo of the plane linked above and half close your eyes - What do you see?

No response, Tes?

[edit on 23/5/08 by Myrdyn]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Myrdyn
 


Did you even watch the video?

It was NOT a plane.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari
reply to post by Myrdyn
 


Did you even watch the video?

It was NOT a plane.


I watched the video many times - very carefully - I watched it frame by frame on one occasion.

What do you think it is?



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
This will be my last post to this thread (I hope). If it wasn't the ryair then it was a huge clowing object right on top of the airport. And this airport in question houses the Finnish Defense Forces southern air force. The area is heavily guarded and there are ready fighters on standby. So if there were something there alot of people would've seen it and would've been right on top of it immediately.
Forell you're grasping at straws here.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   
"Hande registered just to debunk me.. ? I just died from laughter..."

No, I came here to talk about this case, it is/was interesting ufo case. We most know it is not 100% clear but when we see all the facts it is quite easy to say it was airplane, plane landing that time.

"Hande was not there. Hande hopes he was there. But he wasnt. I know what i saw and so does the majority in here. "

Yes, I hope that. I also hope that you can find evidence that it was not airplane. Pirkkala is quite busy airport (?). When it is dark you can shoot airplane landing ligts and post here link. We also need more witness reports maybe. When we have more reports we can estimate location of this object etc..



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Now you say you want someone to take photo's in the same area, why don't you do it as you stated that you know the area well because you grew up there. It doesn't have to be the best equipment just take the photo's ( or do you need the best equipment so you can get a close up photo in this place? ) post them here then we can all start the work out what this is.

As for it being a military base just look at Area 51 in the states there are many sightings of UFO's.

Again I understand this is a forum and we are all intitled to our opinions but the light thing on aircraft is pretty far fetched, I work at an airport and these are not the normal lights of aircraft.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 06:03 AM
link   
sorry i dont read all the previous posts right now. Have a terrible hangover.

About the plane theories.

I have tried to videotape the same place on exact same time and same day allready. You almost cant even see the planes from my position. I even went to the shore of that lake, MUCH closer to the airport and tried to video.
I could BARELY see the twinkling spots of landing planes even from there with a full zoom in the same cellcam. I will not buy that theory since i knew even before testing this "plane thing" that it isnt so.
just because there are planes landing there allmost all times dosent mean this was one of them.
I dont know what this thing was, but i do know what it was not.

I have decided not the share my 3rd video with any forum. The 3rd video is actually the first one i shot that evening. Im going to share with private investigators from now on, and not Finnish ones. There are other ones VERY interested of my sighting. That video is quite significant too.

I have seen now that these forums can take a true ufo sighting, and turn it to joke. Some are even obsedded to debunk, no matter what the facts are, just because that is what they love to do and get theyr "kicks" from it.

Im having private conversations and mailing with people i have reached with this sighting. And some investigators too. Some are quite well known.
and i feel thats the better way to go on with this case.
But that dosent mean i wont hang around here.

Forell

[edit on 24-5-2008 by Forell]

[edit on 24-5-2008 by Forell]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Forell, monday we know what direction 22:40 plane landed, bb calls airport.

I hope it landed from "wrong" direction and we have real case.

Does anybody wonder that it was not dark night yet; I saw clouds etc. I think video lights were very bright! And if it was airplane landing lights , airplane must come directly towards you. (?). Airport road is not same line to observers home, I think there is 10-20 degrees difference..

Ok, we need more evidence, I hope we can get it.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by hande


I hope it landed from "wrong" direction and we have real case.



Either way we have a real case.
I have tried filming the planes for many times now after my sighting.
I can bearly get them to be seen as tiny spots with a full zoom. Even from the lake, the size dont come anywhere close my sighting. And look nothing like it.

Forell



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Your case is dead and buried mate. It will be forgotten in one week as there's absolutely no substance to your claims. When you're confronted with evidence you take the siege mentality, I'm taking my ball in and you're not playing with it, so there
You're only willing to deal with people who agree with you

That tells it's own story. If your story stood up you'd be able to counter the accusations with fact.


There's one ATS member who named "IGNORETHEFACTS", I Think this name applies to you and some of the other members who have posted on the thread.




[edit on 24uSaturday08/27/20 by paul76]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by paul76
 


The case is dead for you mate. Its out in the open already. This is just ATS. Not the world.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Forrell

I think you totally misunderstand my intention. All I am simply trying to do is veryify the sighting one way or the other. I would have thought you would have been keen to do that too.

The only way you will do that is to use your camera phone from the same window - point it at the same spot when a 737 is landing at around the same time as before.

There is still a question you are refusing to answer on any forum that really puzzles me...

Why did you zoom in and point your camera directly towards that tiny gap in the trees, before you saw the lights come into view?

It is a very small section of the tree-line as seen from your window - How did you know to pick that little area?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I've been lurking this site for a few months and this made me wan't to finally register, because I happen to live in Finland too. However I don't have time now, so I'll just post anonymously.

Ok, first. Forell, you need to stop being so immature about skeptics, because if this really is a real deal, your acting is going to ruin it and make it seem like a hoax.

The only problem I have is that you have a great camera, yet you used your cellphone. The reason I don't believe it's a plane is that the airport is ridiculously far away from where you live. And I don't know how you even can see planes from where you live that clearly as that thing in the pics.
Take pics and videos from the same spot of a plane and post them here. If they really look nothing like that, prove it.

Notice: I'm NOT trying to debunk this. I just wan't the damn pics, so I can make up my mind.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
We can only work with the information as it becomes available.

Our FUFORA friend has reported that a Ryanair 737 from London landed at the same time as Forell shot the video.

The view angle shown on my Airport/Tampere map is a rough estimate extrapolated from the angled aerial photo (with the yellow direction of view arrow) provided by Forell. All I am really certain of is that is in the general direction of the Airport.

Somebody asked how do we account for the red light at the end of Forell's video.

If you look at the link directly above my posted Airport Map, you will see a 737 with it's external lights on.

It has a very bright red beacon light on top and roughly central to the aircraft. It also has the red port wing strobe as normal.

As an aircraft travels at around 12 degrees left and towards the camera, the nose of the plane will eventually be obscured by trees and only the red beacon and red port wing strobe will remain visible.

The only factor that troubles us with this theory, is the distance of 5.8 miles from view point to end of runway.

However, whilst studying maps of the area across the lake, something else of significance occurred to me. I would recommend others to look at the Google Earth image too.

There are two roads across the lake, between Tampere and the Airport that are at an angle to the camera view. Along with the aircraft theory, I'll look into the possibilty of excessively lit Heavy Goods Vehicles using these roads.

As with Occam's Razor - If and when all other possiblities are disproved or discounted, I will be happy and able to rejoice in a real sighting. Until then, I remain skeptical and will continue to assist Forell in establishing the validity of the event.

Nobody with any intelligence will accept the sighting as genuine until all other possibilities are considered.


[edit on 24/5/08 by Myrdyn]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Why is this subject "dead" or considered a hoax? We haven't seen anything substantial yet to suggest that!

Forell,

I hope you can change your mind and post your other video. I'm not convinced it was an airplane, at least not from this thread.

Why are we so sure it's "dead", or a hoax? I haven't seen anything to convince me it is definitely a plane.

I believe this guy really believes he saw something unusual, and the video does seem to show something unusual.

Why can't we proceed investigating this with more video and more info as it develops?

I am surprised by the reaction of people who've posted in this thread. I have seen the most ridiculous things perpetuated with excitement and interest with very little real evidence, in many other threads. And now we have someone willing to share video and his experience and we're all rushing to put it to bed? Why do that, when he has more to show?

Very strange.


[edit on 24-5-2008 by Electro38]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hande
 


If there was a plane landing at the same time does that then automatically mean what he saw was that particular plane?

He seems to be saying that the planes which do land at that airport are further away from his view than the object he saw.

I don't think that just because there might have been a plane landing at the airport at the same time then we should conclude he saw that plane.

I'm still wondering why people are trying to dismiss this so quickly.

I appreciate the good dose of skepticism, but we shouldn't be dismissive.

(Am I missing something that proves this was a hoax or 100% a plane?)



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Nobody is preventing you from further investigation. The only way to prove it is to discount all other possibilities. Sadly, even on a forum where we should take sightings seriously, some of us seem to find that objectionable.

I personally am now covinced that it was a 737 taking off. Why should I share my reasons for that conclusion - most people really are not interested in finding out it was a hoax.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join