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.


World exclusive! most significant and undeniable ufo videos of all time that also cover aliens

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Xodiac

A good screen cap to prove Badge01's theory.
A decent attempt at a hoax, but a hoax.

that doesnt "prove" anything.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by from downunder]

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:16 AM
reply to post by VitalOverdose

Yes, but isn't this video a compilation of footage?? Didn't they specify that there was about 2 and a half hours of footage? If it exists and is in High Definition, that is the footage that we need to see -- Not this onlne compressed thingamajiggy!!

But I'm still definitely on the fence with this one; I need a higher quality and longer video reel to conduct a more thorough analysis.

As my last post stated, I just hate when people are so quick to jump on the hoax bandwagon, as if they have seen a real UFO and know what to compare this to, especially since we haven't even seen all the footage at it's maximum quality.

[edit on 10/15/2008 by pjslug]

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:33 AM
reply to post by pjslug

There is very little, if any, doubt that two of the scenes in the video are of the ISS. That the producer of the video included them as well as images of what are plainly mirages of lights on the water in this "World Exclusive", is enough to make everything else in the video highly suspect.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link right off the bat...i dont see why no one has noticed....ive just watched the first few minutes of the film..BUT...look at the month and time of day stamp..why is it pitch black outside on that side of the world at this month at this time of day?!

the simplest of things and details (forensics) is what catches most criminals...i simply dont see how this is real id have to stamp it with hoax!

If the answer to my question comes back "oh the reason is the thing we are viewing is in orbit"..well then, that would scream hoax as the casual astronomer cannot hold a view on somethng in orbit like this and not lose it in the viewfinder...this 'thing' is very small and close to camera is a hoax using illusion of light without scale. If this were something orbiting the planet t it would be moving at a great rate across the horizon and would not be visible this long

any thoughts?

[edit on 15-10-2008 by centralscrutinizer]

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 06:45 PM
This video looks too good to be true a bit like those ships from battlestar gallacticar, im a beleiver but im not sure here i mean turkey borders iraq couldnt it be a secret aircraft from our airforces?

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:33 PM

Originally posted by centralscrutinizer right off the bat...i dont see why no one has noticed....ive just watched the first few minutes of the film..BUT...look at the month and time of day stamp..why is it pitch black outside on that side of the world at this month at this time of day?!

the simplest of things and details (forensics) is what catches most criminals...i simply dont see how this is real id have to stamp it with hoax!

well done sherlock, the date stamp in the cam corder has not been set correctly = hoax.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 08:59 PM

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 10:33 PM

Originally posted by centralscrutinizer right off the bat...i dont see why no one has noticed....ive just watched the first few minutes of the film..BUT...look at the month and time of day stamp..why is it pitch black outside on that side of the world at this month at this time of day?!

any thoughts?

[edit on 15-10-2008 by centralscrutinizer]

It's simple, no one has noticed because you are wrong. Besides you have not been
specific enough. I'll do it, first video 8:55 PM, second video 2:50 AM, third video 4:53
AM, fourth video 2:31 AM. I could go on but it‘s not necessary, what did you expect
a bright sunset at these hours? Wait I think I know, you watched the wrong video.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:04 PM
Im a skeptical person as you have probably noticed although open minded and I must say im surprised by some of the comments on this so im going to debunk the debunkers.

1) It doesnt change angle.

First of all it does, theres a frontal and side shots of it on distinct days. Why would it change angle during a three minute filming? A craft on route to a destination, a plane for example flies linear, it doesnt weave around and dance about like the more rediculous "UFO" videos ive seen.

Its almost like people expect UFOs to behave erratically which I find crazy. Logic suggests theres no reason for a pilot, alien or human to be bobbing and weaving around like a madman unless they have a cause to do so, showing off, making a display, evading something, chasing something, linear flight en route A to B is normal.

2)No background reference

The camera is pointing to the sky at night, what landmarks is he going to see? He has a single valid point of reference which any decent cameraman would use, the moon, and he does indeed use it more than once during the footage which to me indicates a person who is genuine not fake suing the most logical and normal in frame refrence he has.

3) No movement

Take your digicam outside and film the night sky. How much movement do you see. Nothing right because its black? Movement is judged against surroundings movement in pure black from a camera lens is impossible to judge since the cameraman is tracking the object it will obviously appear stationary. Again exactly what you would expect from a genuine footage.

Im confused, people who HOAX these films often make sure they include all of the things you ask for in order to "appear genuine" and yet they are hoaxes.

In some cases you need to just imagine situation. A person filming a night sky object is not going to get much background with that quality of camera you wouldnt even get the stars as the light isnt sufficient. You wouldnt get the "reference" material because at that angle in many cases there would be no ground object to provide it. He used the moon.

Id agree that later shots are probably normal phenomenon, an oilrig I believe is a great suggestion.

However for me the earlier footage of the craft is very thought provoking and realistic and I see no reason to discredit it what so ever. I would say the craft looks man made, maybe some evolution of the stealth fighter or something along those lines but theres something dictinclty "human" in its design. Ive no jumping reason to question filming commentry though as everything there adds up and I see no flags or bell which indicate to me this is stage, everything seems very natural and fluent which for me HOAX footage rarely achieves.

Yes it lack component UFO buff seem to look for but then again not everyone things like a pro cameraman, the importance for me is trying to look at the behavior of the cameraman and his shots and consider how natural they are to the situation. In this case i see no case for immediate hoax claims on the basis of any of the reasons given.

My first concern is the shaky hand. His hand has abmormal shaking which in itself isnt unusal, on my wifes side of the family her dad, brother, and sister all have very shaky hands which seems to be genetic to them so I know its not a freak event. None of them can hold anything out without shaking (when I first noticed it I asked my wife why the hell they shake so much and she told me she doesnt know they take after her dad, probably cirulation).

So im not going to damn the guy for it but thats my real prime concern, aside from that its very nice footage. Id have like to see a verified report of authenticity from one or two sources who study film for tampering, again the fact that people dont provide these things counts as a suspicion for me.

In a field where proving is everything im very wary of people who dont make the effort to prove the point. Thats my biggest issue with it.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:12 PM
Ill add something else which those jumping immediately into hoax claims clearly missed.

In genuine filiming theres often an oversight on detail. Watch for example how the shaking of the hand increases as the camera zooms in, this is a genuine effect. Any minimal shake is amplified on zoomed images and in this footage during the zoom you can clearly see this amplification.

This suggests that the zoom from zero to whatever factor was uniterrupted and fluid, as you would expect a natural zoom shot to be

Again, he does shake more than most people but as I said its not uncommon, the zoom change is a very telling indicator for me, very few hoaxers have gone to the length of understanding the simple details which give things away.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:13 PM
reply to post by silver6ix

excellent post silver . . . i agree; when i saw the video, it reminded of something that we would make. The architecture of the object simply seemed terrestrial to me.

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 05:40 AM

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 09:25 PM
reply to post by centralscrutinizer

The man who filmed it is a porly educated night watchman. He does not speak English or read English . He had no idea what AM or PM means.Thats not surprising seeing as he is Turkish , old , poorly educated and with no grasp of English. Also he is human and like me when he see's a ufo he just switches his camera on and films, thats what most of use would do. Now put yourself in his shoes. You see a UFO you rush get your camera switch on and the instructions are in Mongolian or Turkish or Tibetan. Now most of us would just switch the camera on and record because we have no understanding of those languages.

This does not mean the old man is a hoaxer.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:02 AM
Sorry to my eyes none of this video seemed "astonishing" or "amazing".
There are just not enough reference points, and where there are reference points, such as the shots over the water, what's filmed looks suspiciously like an oil platform. I'd also suggest that whoever is doing the filming invest in a tripod. Nothing "earthshattering" here.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:28 AM
Didn't anyone else think it odd that the "other" person there was commenting on the video and not on the event? What I mean is that if you have 2 people at a sighting - 1 doing the filming and the other doing the observation. Wouldn't the observer make comments in reference to the sighting and NOT what was being shot on camera?

It's almost like they shot something and then watched the playback in order to add the commentary (albeit translated).

Seems fishy to me...

Watch it again to see what I mean

[edit on 17-10-2008 by TXRabbit]

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by TheMajestic

Thats what I thought!
It looks like the original series Cylon Raider, not a chopped up Enterprise.
A Raider would be a lot easier to fake too, none of all that photoshopping stuff. Heck, I still have my Cylon Raider model I bought back during the original series, so someone could easily get their hands on one.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 06:00 AM
I Agree. UFO still means unindentified object.
hoax or not.

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 10:34 AM

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 05:33 PM
I see nothing significant about this UFO video. Nothing to see here folks. What a disappointment.

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:18 PM
The other thread was closed, thanks to some exceptionally immature people.

Anyway back on the serious matter where the kids cant whine.

This UFO video will appear this month on OCT 25th at a national UK Magazine meeting. It has bee independantly validated by the Turkish National Observatory who confirmed neither hoax nor mockup, and also classified it as genuine UFO.

The turkish version of the original report is here for anyone who reads Turkish.

The objects sighted in the aforementioned footage that have a structure that is made of specific material are definitely not made up by any kind of computer animation nor are they any form of special effects used for simulation in a studio or for a video effect therefore in conclusion it was decided that the sightings were neither a mockup or hoax.
Furthermore in the last part of the report, it was concluded that these objects in the sightings that have physical and material structures do not belong in any category ( such as planes, helicopters, meteors, Venus, Mars, satellites, fire ball, Chinese lantern etc..) and but rather fall into the category of UFO’s (Unidentified Flying Objects.)

I believe the footage will now be validated in the UK by UFO Data Magazine, to give it a third genuine validation.

It should be known that the second validation was done in the National Observatory labs by respected mainstream scientists who sought to disprove the reality of the film and in the end conceded it was correctly evaluated and was real.

new topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in