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.

 

The infamous Turkey UFO a yacht?

page: 14
48
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by fleabit
 


Um NO

You said:


P.S. The "drawing" of a yacht window is laughable. Not only was the overlay ridiculous (it did not actually remotely resemble the shape of the object, other than it was slightly arced)...


Now you have changed your mind?

Jesus H Christ

Again.


Please explain how this post contributes ANYTHING of substance to this thread;

You talk about reporting people who are being uncivil and here u are going off topic and getting personal....

[edit on 18-7-2010 by GeminiSky]




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


BS!

All I did WAS TRACE the ILLUMINATED AREA.

I put the other image RIGHT UNDER it. I SEE the DARK LINE in between the LIGHTED area.

Why is this "impossible"?

I have done much defense, yet I have not seen much "why this is impossible"

Other than ad hominem attacks, and statements of "That's not possible"

And WTF "A Mirage of a Yacht"

(As long as it isn't a yacht!)

LOL And I just said it was possible for it to be a yacht. How do "you" know it can't be?

Jesus H Christ



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


Okay, did you read the post before?

Where he said PS Your image is laughable....

He also said my "overlay" looked nothing like the window shape. Did you see that part?

I made the layers transparent to show they were indeed the same shape.

And we get floundering. So I pointed that out, assuming folks might have missed it.

(Please point out where I "got personal" too?)

Jesus H Christ is a form of release, as in "Jesus H Christ, what the hell is going on I just said it was possible!"



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


BS!

All I did WAS TRACE the ILLUMINATED AREA.

I put the other image RIGHT UNDER it. I SEE the DARK LINE in between the LIGHTED area.

Why is this "impossible"?

I have done much defense, yet I have not seen much "why this is impossible"

Other than ad hominem attacks, and statements of "That's not possible"

And WTF "A Mirage of a Yacht"

(As long as it isn't a yacht!)

LOL And I just said it was possible for it to be a yacht. How do "you" know it can't be?

Jesus H Christ



Whoa there bud, read my posts, I never said the word Impossible about ANYTHING.

Seriously take a chill pill and slowly read what I typed before replying.

--GeminiSky



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
It is not a perfect match. Your superimposed filled color does NOT match the shape of the object. Again.. IT DOES NOT MATCH THE SHAPE OF THE OBJECT. Do you honestly think it does? Similar? Sure. But that's the point of this guy's theory. If you look at enough (possibly hundreds or thousands) picture of yacht windows, you will find one that is close (but not identical) to the UFO in question. That hardly constitutes "proof," especially since there are many other unaddressed issues with the yacht theory.

How about addressing my list, then we can go over your window shape.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


Read my post, I used quotes.

As for "calming down" I am using caps to emphasize points people seem to not be seeing. Or if they do they are being flat out liars.

Re-read the thread to see who has been attacking who "bud".



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Alright, so it wasn't taken at the same angle so that makes it bunk. Check!



Seriously, all I said is that this is a possibility.

And you can't tell me why it is impossible...

I have done enough defending, your turn to tell me how it is impossible.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 



No problem here, I just view things like "BS" and "WTF" as emotionally charged dialogue.

Id still like to call you bud if you dont mind.

Now getting back on topic, I would love to see someone analyze and or debunk Fleabit's post, as I believe he has brought up some very good points against this yacht theory.

I hope that someone takes notice of his post, and does not simply overlook it because it does not conform to their personal theories.

---GeminiSky



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   
I think too many people here on ATS use the theory, 'it COULD be this so it HAS to be'. I as well dont believe this yacht theory. In my opinion there are just way too many factors showing it isnt a yacht or boat! The day time footage, the movement and at times lack of movement of the object, the illumination and the scientific study which doesnt seem to matter to certain people because if the study wasnt by the person that particular user wanted, its not legit. There is way too much debunking due to affiliation and who or what outlet presented the evidence.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
I've never said it was impossible. I did give you a list of other issues that need to be addressed however. Something being arc-shaped is hardly conclusive proof that something is a reflection from a yacht window. If you cannot satisfactorily address the other issues, then you hardly have a case.

Think about this from the angle of the person who did this "research." He thought "Ok.. it's not an oil derrick, so.. what else can I use. Hmmm.. what else would be on the water?" The obvious answer is boats. So.. then it's a simple matter of matching up a window to the general shape of the object, and presto.. you have solved this case!

Well.. not so fast, imo. You can't simply ignore all the other issues with the "it's a boat" theory.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

Originally posted by SupremeKnowledge
The video doesnt show him zooming in or out at all,
1 scene is far away, next scene its a super close up,

You cant even tell if they are the same object....

It is possible that he got footage of a light in the sky,
then edited a ufo miniature model in between the outdoor shots....

Or maybe he was switching camera lenses...

I want to see the unedited footage...

[edit on 17-7-2010 by SupremeKnowledge]



What you just typed was proven wrong about 100 times but we appreciate you taking the time to try again.

Come up with something else
Because that was shot down long time ago.


Here is the video from the guys claiming that it is "The most important proof ever"



at minute marker 1:15
it jumps to a different clip,
the date and time even changes,

again at minute marker 2:10

and again at minute marker 2:28

and again at minute marker 4:25

and multiple more times after that,

If you are talking about it being a model,
then maybe you havent seen many in your lifetime,
Here are some examples

farm5.static.flickr.com...

farm5.static.flickr.com...

farm5.static.flickr.com...

with that level of detail and artistry on just anime toys alone,
I doubt a model of a ufo with hardly any lighting at all would be difficult to create


[edit on 18-7-2010 by SupremeKnowledge]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Are you privy to how this film was edited and by who? Or why? Or just jumping to conclusion?

This was at least analyzed by one professional agency, who said it was an actual, structural object. Not a mirage, not a toy.. but a thing.. sitting there. But of course, again, I'm sure you know more than a paid professional, don't you. Most everyone here on ATS is a frigging bonafide scientist.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I have a fair sized cabin cruiser and i would never anchor there for the night without my all around light on.

I thought the mirage theory was smart, but i doubt you would see the curvature of the hull in the mirage as it would be under the water line.

Cool ideas but im not sold either way.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
1. The camera IS still enough in many shots to determine that the object is not moving... not at all. This is an issue, as the ocean is a turbulent thing. And consider these were taking over the course of a long period.

It is always turbulent? There is never enough calm to cause a boat to sit motionless? (Or at least give the appearance that the boat is not moving?)


2. The lighting is just off in so many ways. There is no anchor light. There is supposedly nothing BUT the window illuminated. Repeatedly, again, over the course of a year. No deck, not anything.

We already discussed that not all ships always use their lights. Just because the lights are missing, does not make this impossible. Because, maybe the lights were turned off.


3. Let's combine theories to make it more plausible! It's a complex mirage of a yacht! A repeating mirage of the same yacht over the course of a year.

Really? Or is this one sarcastic. I mean I get the feeling it is allowed to be anything but a yacht.


4. There is only one boat. Why?

Why not? Are you suggesting a person can pilot two boats at once?


5. In the shots in clearer light, there is obviously no visible boat. More mirage-y stuff, I suppose.

Obviously? I disagree, since (if/maybe) the boat had its lights off you would not see the boat in the dark.


6. These guys are obviously hoaxers if this is true. They live on the coast. They probably know every docked yacht in that area. Yet they filmed it as if it were something special.

Again with the obviously. How do we know for certain, even if it is a "fake yacht" and not a real one, how do we know that they are hoaxers? Or, how do we know that they "probably know every docked yacht in that area". We don't, it is possible. Just like it is possible that the thing being filmed was a yacht's windows.


7. The professional analysis said clearly, this was an object, and it was NOT a case of mistaken identity. But then.. I keep forgetting, people on this board are much smarter than paid professionals.

You sure spout "obviously" alot. Then you make this statement? I have been saying, the whole time, possible. Yet you, a professed "non professional" (by that statement, I assume this) say things like "obvious" and "not possible". Why is it impossible?

Now, why is it "impossible" I answered your points.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Are you privy to how this film was edited and by who? Or why? Or just jumping to conclusion?

This was at least analyzed by one professional agency, who said it was an actual, structural object. Not a mirage, not a toy.. but a thing.. sitting there. But of course, again, I'm sure you know more than a paid professional, don't you. Most everyone here on ATS is a frigging bonafide scientist.


I won a Nobel Peace Prize for creating the theory of folding time and space to travel across the universe instantly without breaking the laws stated in Einsteins Theory...

And NASA donated 2 million dollars to the public schools in my area to fund a space education program.....

[edit on 18-7-2010 by SupremeKnowledge]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SupremeKnowledge

Originally posted by fleabit
Are you privy to how this film was edited and by who? Or why? Or just jumping to conclusion?

This was at least analyzed by one professional agency, who said it was an actual, structural object. Not a mirage, not a toy.. but a thing.. sitting there. But of course, again, I'm sure you know more than a paid professional, don't you. Most everyone here on ATS is a frigging bonafide scientist.


I won a Nobel Peace Prize for creating the theory of folding time and space to travel across the universe without breaking the laws stated in Einsteins Theory...

And NASA donated 2 million dollars to the public schools in my area to fund a space education program.....



Thats lovely!

So what your saying, if I understand correctly, is that you were NOT privy to the actual analysis done on this footage and who it was performed by;

Therefore I would have to say your guess is just as good as ours.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 

A yacht is a "thing". Please provide the source stating that this was "not a toy". The English translation of the report from TUBITAK (after an extensive analysis of less than a day) seems to have disappeared for some reason but I do not recall it saying anything to that effect. To my recollection the report made two salient points; 1) It was not CGI (fine with me) 2) It was not made in a studio (not sure how they reached that conclusion, but OK). I do not recall any statement to the effect that the object was a UFO.

You know what seems odd. This thing supposedly showed up for three years in a row (hasn't made its 2010 appearance apparently) and only this one guy was on the ball and lucky enough to get videos of it or talk about it after all the publicity it had.

[edit on 7/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


I was replying to the comment


Originally posted by fleabit
Most everyone here on ATS is a frigging bonafide scientist.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SupremeKnowledge
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


I was replying to the comment


Originally posted by fleabit
Most everyone here on ATS is a frigging bonafide scientist.




No worries, I just wanted to clarify that your Nobel peace prize and NASA school donations lends nothing to your theory on this UFO sighting.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   

It is always turbulent? There is never enough calm to cause a boat to sit motionless? (Or at least give the appearance that the boat is not moving?)


There is always activity, absolutely. Currents, if nothing else. And as a long-time diver, and person who has lived on both coasts, I can say without a doubt... even docked in a bay with a breakwater, there is SOME movement. Always. There is none in these videos. This "Yacht" will have had to be anchored (without it seems, anchor lights), and even then it would have some movement.


We already discussed that not all ships always use their lights. Just because the lights are missing, does not make this impossible. Because, maybe the lights were turned off.


Sure, I suppose over the course of a year, a boat illegally could have not had anchor lights. You DO know those are required by law.. everywhere.. right? Every boat I've ever been on has had them. So, no. not impossible, but when you add up many improbable items...



Really? Or is this one sarcastic. I mean I get the feeling it is allowed to be anything but a yacht.


It's not sarcastic at all. Again, you are looking at videos over the course of a long period of time. By the same person. The odds of this person seeing the same mirage repeatedly and being stumped by it? In no less, changing weather conditions? Unlikely. I'd accept it was a hoax, before I'd accept that.



Why not? Are you suggesting a person can pilot two boats at once?


I don't understand what you are asking. I am saying: many areas have shipping lanes / places where tourist boats come in. Boats are not allowed there at certain times (to anchor). There is only one boat there. Anchored over the course of over a year? Why? Why are there not OTHER boats in the vicinity? I suppose I could dig up regulations for that bit of coast. There are no boats there (other than our mystery yacht), probably because they are not ALLOWED to be there.



Obviously? I disagree, since (if/maybe) the boat had its lights off you would not see the boat in the dark.


Please watch the video I linked in its entirety. There are shots in the LIGHT. Not in the middle of the night. You can clearly see the hills / water / coast under the object. i.e. if it's a boat, it's invisible.



... how do we know that they are hoaxers? ...


They well could be. I am not saying they are not. I've always said that could be the case. I am just saying I don't think it's a boat or a mirage of any type. But if it's a hoax, I've yet to hear a plausible and articulate theory on how they did it.


You sure spout "obviously" alot. Then you make this statement? I have been saying, the whole time, possible. Yet you, a professed "non professional" (by that statement, I assume this) say things like "obvious" and "not possible". Why is it impossible?


This was submitted to and examined by an agency who has the means to make professional judgments on such things. That is all I am saying. But apparently, since it's not a professional institution that people are not familiar with, they disregard it. Although, I have a feeling, those that examined and came up with a conclusion, are probably brighter and more learned about videos, hoaxing and CGI than 99.5% of this board. But people on this (and other conspiracy) boards love tooting their own horns. They are brilliant! They can solve entire cases in MOMENTS! It happens all the time. And any actual professional assessments are disregarded. You think that's right and fair? I don't.

I feel the yacht idea is not plausible for many reasons. It MAY be a hoax, but for other reasons. Yacht windows though? No.. I think that's a convenient "conclusion" someone reached, nothing more.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join