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.

 

Istanbul UFO is Back **May 2009** Video

page: 7
109
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sotp
reply to post by cmazzagatti
 


I'm sorry if I seem cocky about it (I'm seldom 100% sure on these things) but I did say it was just my opinion. I just think there's way too much wrong with this guy's video. The Turkish UFO centre? Who? What makes these guys qualified to claim that this is 100% real and not a fake? The fact they've looked at a lot of UFO footage? So have most of us here but how many of us would claim to be such an authority that our word should be taken as absolute fact? I believe (given it's the Turkish UFO Centre) that maybe these guys are a little biased in declaring it's real. Also, if you watch their interview video with the supposed cameraman they ask a lot of leading questions and interrupt the guy when he starts going off on a tangent about aircraft. I do not find them to be credible at all, and would not be surprised to find that they are in on the hoax for some reason.

But again, that's just my opinion.

edit: Sorry, I got the centre's name wrong, but if I remember correctly their report stated that it was not CGI (and it clearly isn't) and there was no chance it was a model. I'd love to know how they can state that as absolute, there's nothing in the video that proves it can't be. To me (and many others) it clearly is a model.

[edit on 6/6/09 by sotp]


reply to post by sotp
 



Maybe you're right, who knows. I do know that TUBITAK is a state run scientific institution and is supposedly the M.I.T. of Turkey. Also, the guy who published the analysis report -- Prof. Zeki Eker, pHD -- is the director of the place. The reason they concluded it wasn't a model was because there were two faint lights on each side of the craft, and when they analyzed the footage frame by frame, they found that the lights were actually moving independantly away from it in each frame. Haktan Akdogan explained this in the interview with the cameraman.

By the way, did you see the original footage from 2007-2008 below? Fast forward to 00:26 and watch closely. After about 20 seconds of filming the object over the sea, it disappears. Then, he zooms out and messes up the shot as he moves around. When he does this you can clearly see the buildings and trees surrounding him. When he regains his composure and begins to zoom back in at 1:04, you can see the object again very faintly moving west and out of the shot. Try reducing the light in your room if you can't see it.

It doesn't prove for certain that he wasn't using a model but it sure did catch his attention. He even says "It's moving slowly" in the beginning as if he had already identified the object and knew that it was the one he had been filming in the past.






posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Nightchild
 


Well that's the thing, isn't it? How credible is this organization and research? I could slap a sign above my door saying "THE SOTP TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE" and study the film for ten days too but it wouldn't make my opinion any more credible than the next guy's. As I said, how can they 100% dismiss it being a model? I seem to remember them trying to do so but the explanation seemed weak to me at the time.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
the istanbul ufo is back! yay. i love that freaking thing. so glad its back. also hope it is the real mccoy. yeah.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
In the night time footage with the supposed alians looks like a building half covered lit up from the outside thats what i see anyway.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
If I was a Millionaire, I would send this guy better camera equipment with the best known zoom technology, so he could get crisp closeups!!!! It seems they are always in this area. UFO hunters should take a trip to Istanbul.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by cmazzagatti
 


Whoops sorry cmazzagatti you slipped that post in when I was typing! Yeah that's right, that's the reason they gave, but I fail to see how that can 100% disprove it being a model.


Originally posted by cmazzagatti

By the way, did you see the original footage from 2007-2008 below? Fast forward to 00:26 and watch closely. After about 20 seconds of filming the object over the sea, it disappears. Then, he zooms out and messes up the shot as he moves around. When he does this you can clearly see the buildings and trees surrounding him.



It's specifically the close ups of the craft itself that I'm saying are a model. The other parts in this and the original video are clearly not models but are clearly not UFO's either. I gave an explanation of what I thought the different things in the original were and how he may have pulled off the close-ups in this thread (about halfway down the page).



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
pause at 2:16

it looks exactly like my kitchen faucet, you know where the water comes out.

Little light from above to make the chrome shine, leave the rest of the kitchen lights out, move the camera around, instant UFO.

Amazing how resourceful some people can be.

There's nho points of reference for any of the "money" shots. Red Flags go up , and yell model, or similiar hoax, like a shower handle or kitchen faucet. We know how far garbage can lids can take some people, and pictures of vareity shows.

Some people just wanna believe too much. I used to be like that. I hated any and all skeptics.

Anyhow the daytime footage is a different ship. The one in the beginning is different from the "faucet" ship.

How many different ships has this guy caught in one evening 3? , possibly 4? Are we really supposed to believe that? I dunno bout everyone else, your of course entitled to your opinion, but I don't.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I live only 1 hour away from Kemerburgaz, where this all stuff are witnessed. I will definitly go there this month and make a camp, but I only have a cheap cell phone camera, but still, I am very curious about all these. Wish me luck



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
It's obviously the work of no good rowdy teens.
Cancel the prom.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iremonger
It's obviously the work of no good rowdy teens.
Cancel the prom.


TEENS..?? Well, atleast there is a possibility that the filmer and the others involved, could take that as a compliment, I guess.






posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I would like to point out something about digital image resizing, regardless what is shown in the video, (which i would to consider inconclusive until will be debunked in some conclusive way or proven to be something more than a bunch of pixels):
there are many ways to resize an image, but only ONE of them is correct: pixel resize.
Pixel resizing is the ONLY method that we have in order to enlarge a digital photograph, and the reason is very simple: a pixel is the smallest item of information in an image, and there is NO WAY to get from a pixel more informations than an unique color, no matter which one: it's impossible to see. This detail is VERY important, because whatever you get after resizing any image using some technique different from pixel resize, IS CGI.
Here's an example:

Screen capture (unaltered, just cropped):


Pixel resize (by a factor of 300%)


Resize with bilinear algorythm (by a factor of 300%)


Resize with bicubic algorythm (by a factor of 300%)


So far, we can say that the enlargements made with "smart" resizing methond almost match the pixel resized ones: indeed, to apply some smart resizing method to some image in order to enlarge it by a factor of 300%, is often acceptable.

Now let's do the same series of enlargement, but changing just the factor.

Original:


Pixel resize by a factor of 900%


Resize with bilinear algorythm (by a factor of 900%)


Resize with bicubic algorythm (by a factor of 900%)


As you can see, there are no difference (in THIS case) between pixel resie and bilinear one, but between pixel resize and bicubic one the difference is HUGE: that's the difference between reality and fantasy, see this animation:


So, in order to analyze an image, the so called smart resize methods should NEVER be used, no matter if they are an extension of linear interpolation, or an extension of cubic interpolation and so on: there would be more examples, i've just limited this one to the most used sowftware's available interpolations methods.
Basically, to claim to spot any eyes, mouths, ears in this "guy"

is closer to some hallucination than to some analysis, because
THIS

is what has actually been caught on camera, nothing more nothing less.

These are the turkish speaking members whom applied to the UFO-Alien Applied Linguistics Registry,
Turkish:
commodore64 Send U2U
trusername Send U2U
SeelenJaeger Send U2U
Hopefully, they will keep us updated with the latest news.
just my humble two €. cents.

Thanks for sharing



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Hi all,
In my humble opinion, this is bull!
The moon doesnt look like any side of the moon I've ever seen and theres a slit in the bottom of it, if you pause when he zooms in. Its a good job of a movie scene set up.
The 'space craft' looks very much like a picture and nothing like the day time lights pattern, which is clearly a human made structure.
They overbub the sounds, did you notice the mouse clicks randomly throughout? Lazy editing!
They're just bored and get a kick out of hoaxing people.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmazzagatti
reply to post by internos
 


Your phototechnical analysis is appreciated, but you're sadly mistaken in saying I'm "hallucnating (typical left-brain, skeptic explanation)" by seeing a face. The only thing I did to the raw image was focus it and then mess with the brightness & contrast settings, which helped make the "being" more recognizable. And you can clearly see it, it's no coincidence. Infact, I have come to a sound conclusion that if you still fail to see the details of the face (narrow jaw, bulging eyes with slits, large forehead), you're either 1) a government disinformation shill, 2) mentally retarded, or 3) blind.



I've said that

Basically, to claim to spot any eyes, mouths, ears in this "guy"

is closer to some hallucination than to some analysis


to be called mentally retarded by you is very funny, believe me (
) but don't expect any reply of the same type from me, i won't fall into your trap, i don't like to insult, even if i'm insulteld: if you see mouths, eyes and so on there, well, "good" for you
Thank you for your very nice and balanced post, coming from some guy who sees eyes, mouths, ears etc in a figure 4x3 pixels is much appreciated.
Insults are in breach of T&C, but GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, i think and hope that no action will be taken.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213
pause at 2:16

it looks exactly like my kitchen faucet, you know where the water comes out.

Little light from above to make the chrome shine, leave the rest of the kitchen lights out, move the camera around, instant UFO.

Amazing how resourceful some people can be.

There's nho points of reference for any of the "money" shots. Red Flags go up , and yell model, or similiar hoax, like a shower handle or kitchen faucet. We know how far garbage can lids can take some people, and pictures of vareity shows.

Some people just wanna believe too much. I used to be like that. I hated any and all skeptics.

Anyhow the daytime footage is a different ship. The one in the beginning is different from the "faucet" ship.

How many different ships has this guy caught in one evening 3? , possibly 4? Are we really supposed to believe that? I dunno bout everyone else, your of course entitled to your opinion, but I don't.


Swamp gas, oil rigs, kitchen faucets oh my!

Can you do me a favor and take a picture of your faucet and post it here please. Perception is everything and I would like to see where you are coming from.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


lol, but it's the truth. I don't mean to insult anyone, but honestly -- you mean to tell me that you can't see the face in that picture!!?? How do you read body language? If you cut someone off in the highway and you see him grin at you, would you not think he was angry? If a dog is growling at you in the park, are you going to walk up to it and pet it? I mean seriously, maybe you just have to stare at it a little longer to see if it registers. Here's an outline; now look at the original picture and try making out the face.



[edit on 6-6-2009 by cmazzagatti]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by cmazzagatti
 


I am sorry, but I can not stay quiet on this one (I have a large mouth that talks too much sometimes).......You just called one of the most passionate and best image expert/UFO members on this site either a disinformation agent or stupid.. I seriously doubt you have seen internos's threads or many other members on here if that is your opinion of him.


I agree that yes there is something very interesting here but the judgement of the pixels is still valid, to sum it up for you in a simple manner:

What was captured in the picture is what was captured, no matter what you do in photoshop to 'enhance' the image it will still be the same. To say FOR SURE that you know those occupants are Grey aliens is ignorant, just as ignorant as dismissing the UFO all together. I personally see what APPEARS to be cliche alien beings, BUT I can not come to a definitive judgement-NO ONE CAN. So when you attack other members, especially those that give A LOT of time and effort to make ATS a more legitimate place I think you really need to rethink what in fact your goal is here.


Is your goal to uncover the truth and sort out bs in a SCIENTIFIC manner, or is it to blindly believe and BASH ANYONE that doesn't believe any image they see?

Just my thoughts on the situation~Justin



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Well then.

After reading through all of this nonsense, along with the nonsense from the previous sighting I've come to the conclusion that NONE of us know what were talking about.

Some people say real, some people say fake. The truth is, you can't ever know. We can do anythign with technology these days, anything. And what we don't know we can do, the government and dis-info agents can easily do.

So let's just preach the good ol' gospel of I don't know, hope to God this is real, and that the next time these crafts show up they land and say hello.

Isn't that the point? We are all in agreement that there are things out there, that are far more intelligent and far more capable than we are right?

If that is the case, then there is no need to "attempt" to prove each other wrong, cause really, were all just looking for the truth.

I for one see is as a very legitimate piece of footage, I think the skeptics have over-anylized it, and are now just nit-picking at the little "inconsistencies" that are found in everyc amateur camera shot ever taken.

I also think the truthers have attempted to over-prove this as being real footage. I mean the outlines of those beings and the argument of the dog barking, come on now? I've seen dogs bark at pebbles.

In any case, we are all here for the same thing, and as I said, let's just all hope this is real and we can actually get some truth from these ET's or the government in due time.

~Keeper

[edit on 6/6/2009 by tothetenthpower]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by cmazzagatti
 

OK, let's do this, if you agree:

This is the same image, but just pixel resized (this is what was actually caught on camera)


if you can outline them even here, the i will change my mind (whenever i've been wrong, i've always admitted it, there's nothing wrong in admitting a mistake).

The point is that was actually caught on camera, is this:


I'm not laughing at your analysis, i just would like to see if the same shapes can be spotted in the actual image instead of in some computer generated one: if you will prove me wrong, i will be happy to admit it, believe me.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
First of all ! the metallic object and the red rainbow dots are not filmed at the same time neither at the same location even!

Second take a look at 3.55 before the dog barks, you can see something to the right around 4 a clock in the water, the dog could be barking at that?.

Third there is something fishy with this video, listen at 4.59 and you can clearly here mouse clicks? why hehe live real time editing?

NO and i still don't believe any of these Turkish videos.



new topics

top topics



 
109
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join