It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on May, 24 2008 @ 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Electro38
reply to post by Myrdyn

He said he's not posting the "other video" because of the sour response he's getting here.

Yes, I can investigate anything I want. The point, is why was it squashed here?

I find that very, very strange!

Who made you the authority here? I don't need your permission or "encouragement", youngster.

The only thing I've seen from your "background investigation" is speculation and insinuation. Nothing more.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by Electro38]

With all due respect, all you have done is whine at other attempts to find evidence of the validity of this sighting, one way or the other. If you already have a preconceived opinion of whether it is genuine or not, that is entirely up to you.

If you wish to investigate, that is entirely up to you - I granted no authority and it is not mine to give.

Forell did not wish to answer a particular question that was pivotal to the truth of this matter - and that was how did he know exactly where to point the camera before the lights came into view? That is why he left.

The fact that Forell always backs away when he is asked an 'awkward' question only adds to my suspicions.

Stating that he is not posting the other video because of a 'sour response' does not hold water. He never intended to post it - if it even exists.

.. and at 54 years of age, I appreciate being called a 'youngster'.

[edit on 24/5/08 by Myrdyn]

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by Myrdyn

I apologize for the insulting tone there, I edited it out of my original post.

I have no preconception of what is in the video, I am always a skeptic. My point is why couldn't this have continued here? Why couldn't this thread have continued with the inclusion of more evidence?

Because you believe he's lying? Those reasons that you listed for invalidating the OP are only your opinions.

You haven't shown any proof, or even anything compelling to suggest he is lying, or perpetrating a hoax. Just that some of your questions are unanswered.

(Sorry again for the insulting tone before)

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by Myrdyn

The 3rd video is now in the hands of investigators as I have been in contact with him myself.

You have brought only your opinion but no proof and I don't blame him for not responding to your questions. He has a video it may not be great quality but he has a video. He knows what he saw and he is sticking by it, I've seen 3 but I'm reluctant to post my sightings due to that fact I have no proof only my eyes.

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:17 PM
You said; "Forell did not wish to answer a particular question that was pivotal to the truth of this matter - and that was how did he know exactly where to point the camera before the lights came into view? That is why he left."

I don't believe that is a "pivotal" question. It's only your opinion that that is a "pivotal" question.

He explained that anyway, and it made perfect sense to me. Did you read his explanation?

Lets suppose this;

What if I look out my window and see a ufo hovering behind some trees. The ufo fades in and out of view, however remains in the same general area. Now when I go get my camera and begin filming, where do you think I'll point my camera?

I would point my camera right where I saw the ufo, and it would seem to the viewer of the video (us on this forum) that I knew exactly where to start filming. (Which I did, because I saw the ufo in the same area before I turned on my camera!)

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by cnm1976

Agreed. So why are we letting this someone's opinions derail this thread?

Forell should really reconsider and post his other video here, if just to prove a point. He has enough support here.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by Electro38]

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 10:09 PM
Okay guys.. I get the picture. If I can't give my opinion, what chance do we have.

To answer one of the relevant questions above - Forell has stated that the smaller initial lights were in a completely different location - but that might have been on the other forum. This discussion has been caried out over two forums - some of you may only be aware of half the story.

Personally, I don't believe a word he says, but I would never say so on this forum.

However, if the chance of true debate is dead - and debate requires opposing opinions - then I'll drop out and just observe how it all pans out.

[edit on 24/5/08 by Myrdyn]

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by Myrdyn

We need opposing opinions, that's not the problem.
The problem isn't that you believe he's lying either, that's ok too (in my opinion).

I thought your opinions were interesting, although I didn't agree with some of them.

The problem, as I see it, is squashing it before we got the chance to really get into it, seeing all of what he had.

I believe you have to proceed skeptically, that's good. But to be automatically dismissive ruins things.

There's a big difference between being skeptical and dismissive. They don't mean the same thing.

Anyway, why don't we try to encourage Forell, so we can really discover all of the evidence?

He was going to give it all here, what a shame. It was the most interesting thread I've seen since I joined, 2 years ago.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by Electro38]

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 10:45 PM
You can tell him I've gone - He'll come back - He won't be worried any longer.

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 03:36 AM
We see first flash. We see last flash little bit downwards.

There is open hole between trees and lights go through this hole in 10 seconds.

We know that airstation is not in direct line, maybe 20 degrees difference.

We know distance to airport 10km but I dont know distance to the treeline (maybe 500m?). And we need to know how big this open hole between trees is. My wild guess it is 20m.

I think we can find enough data to estimate what was object speed if we take only this between-trees area. So if we think it was airplane we can estimate speed. Somewhere I saw landing speed is 150kph and you can estimate (?) average speed on ground.

It is also possible that plane landed from Tampere side and it rolled back to the airport.

Maybe today I will calculate something. I hope someone else too, we can then compare results..

[edit on 25-5-2008 by hande]

[edit on 25-5-2008 by hande]

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 05:09 AM
reply to post by hande

Only making a quick suggestion before I finally scoot off:

If a 737 was taking off, it would probably turn at some point. If it was turning left it would have to bank and drop the port (left) wing which has a flashing red strobe light on it. Check out the picture of 737 lights directly above my Tampere Airport Google Earth map posted earlier. In fact, here's the link again to save you looking for it:

Also, if it were a departing aircraft, it would be much nearer (3.5miles) and in line with the camera angle. Up to six 737's depart from Tampere Airport between 9.00pm and 11.00pm most weekdays.

..and this:

It's a still shot from that YouTube video clip you posted earlier, Hande - Does it look familiar?

Here's the video clip again:


[edit on 25/5/08 by Myrdyn]

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 05:52 AM
Dont leave place yet. I have made same calculations and I saw location maps and pictures. I will make after F1 Monaco GP video or text explanation.

Here is some details so far: distance to treeline is about 900m. If airoplane is rolling on the ground it should be seen in treeline 40m. Well, distance between flashes is much bigger so plane was landing.

Airplane was landing (?) , because first flash is far away from airport.

Also, distance between Icehockey place (in video right corner) and that tower kind of structure is quite narrow. If we make lines from airport to observers home line goes quite perfectly!

After GP I calculate plane speed. It is possible I think.

[edit on 25-5-2008 by hande]

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 07:59 AM
Ok, I think observer lives near ice-hockey place. You can see in video on right this place and left there is "tower".


If you check from google-earth using tool rooler (airport-observer) line does not fit very well, first and last flash seems to be to the right in video so I think he saw plane landing from s-w.

Google-earth has bad map quality so I checked better map from eniro.

Ok, its quite difficult estimate speed if it was aeroplane. Here is anyway something:

Treeline was about 900 m distance from house. Observer sees 100m (estimate) treeline between tower and ice hockey place. If you look (g-e rooler) start and end of airport runaway it is about 40m in treeline.

First and last flash is 40-50m in treeline. Lights go through small hole between trees in about 10 sec. about 10m in treeline.

So when runaway is 3km, "ufo" travels 3km/4=0.75km. And in 10 sec. This means speed is 3600x(0.75/10)= 270km/h.

Too much estimation but it is possible count something. I think speed is not so important in this case..

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 08:31 AM
reply to post by hande


Just before I finally go - this might help. Forell lives in the 7 storey block of apartments on the other side of the main road and east of the ice hockey ground:

If you wish to U2U me we can exchange email addresses. Their may be additional information I can help you with.

[edit on 25/5/08 by Myrdyn]

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 08:58 AM
lol I haven't seen anything debunked here. Hell, all I've seen here is three guys who could be Larry, Curly, and Moe for all I know going round and round about airplanes, and one-upping each other. I haven't seen a ufo either because all I saw were lights in a very, very bad video of what could be anything (although I doubt it's a plane.) It boggles the mind the amount of nit-picking a few internet forum members can do over a badly-filmed you-tube video.

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by Malynn

How many sites and forums have you followed this on?

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 10:20 AM
That's what Forell used to do.

LOL - Still, if you don't look, you won't see, will you?

[edit on 25/5/08 by Myrdyn]

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by sensfan
I'm thinking the colorful lights might just be a product of the very low resolution of the video, and I mean VERY low. Hard to tell what it is due to that, but my first impression is that it's one of those internally lit advertising blimps.

surely because he saw the object with his own eyes and has obviously been proven trustworthy rules out a blimp? im sure he or she knows what a blimp looks like? i was going to say more but im getting past responding to comments like this, what you saw is just a blurry camera phone vid, they also used their eyes, which nobody can put down.

Sometimes i wish there was a way to resign from ATS, drives me crazy at times, and even though i tell myself to take a break i cant, i need to fight debunkers who do no research, or just want to put someone down for the hell of it, maybe i should start wearing my undies on my head, cant log onto ATS in the nuthouse.

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 02:23 PM

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 09:10 PM
surely because he saw the object with his own eyes and has obviously been proven trustworthy...

Totally baffled by that remark. On every forum or site this event has been posted, Forell has given differing accounts of his story. You will no doubt be familiar with this. The story even changes within this thread. Look at his opening post and the see how simple questions are then later answered.

[edit on 26/5/08 by Myrdyn]

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 01:14 AM
Today we will know what direction plane landed 22:40. It helps a lot?

Well I could contact Ryanair via email and try to found something more accurate data of this flight.


Plane landed from s-w direction so distance was 13km+++ during video.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by hande]

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in