Istanbul UFO is Back **May 2009** Video, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 109 times


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 04:19 PM by cmazzagatti
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.





reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 04:22 PM by sotp
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.


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 04:38 PM by sotp
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).


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 05:39 PM by internos
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


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 06:10 PM by internos
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.


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 06:19 PM by cmazzagatti
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]


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 06:23 PM by jkrog08
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


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 06:24 PM by tothetenthpower
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]


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 06:28 PM by internos
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.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 10 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 18 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 13 days ago with 31 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 4 days ago with 27 member flags
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
  Posted 2 days ago with 23 member flags
UFO above Wadden Sea
  Posted 12 days ago with 14 member flags