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: 15
48
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Its disturbing how professional assessments, analysis, and opinions can be dismissed so quickly.

And instead a UFO case that has taken some professionals years to research and is still unexplained, will be completely explained and debunked here within minutes by our members.

Your right, we have some BRILLIANT minds on ATS




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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]


Per the report:

TUBITAK, as a result of the thorough analysis it conducted it prepared an official report that stated:

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 suppose take that as you will. I take it to mean it's not an obvious object (including a yacht, nor even a mirage). And I'm not terribly surprised it did not get more coverage or people even caring. Honestly.. if you do any UFO research at all, you fully realize that 99.5% of your friends could care a flying elephant less about what you are talking about. These were at night, a night-shift.. he DID get at least a few interested parties, but I don't know enough about the situation to comment further.

I'm not saying it's not a hoax. It could WELL BE. I'm saying I find there are far too many holes for the "yacht" theory, or even mirages.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Alright! Some awesome responses FINALLY!

I didn't know about the "movement", I will take your word for it


...One second lost your post...ah there it is...

Anchor Lights:

I was thinking "illegal drugs" or some other activity that would have one "keep the lights out".

(Remember, not saying that is what is going on. Just factored that idea into my reasoning.)

Sarcastic? "Mirage Yacht":

Thank you for the clarification. I have been looking into mirages since I read that point in your post. I had to make sure you weren't being sarcastic; again, I will take your word for it (I have a headache, seriously.)

Two boats, one pilot:

I misunderstood you, so my fault not yours. I didn't consider "shipping lanes". I have a follow up question: "Does this make it odd that there would be no ships?" (If this is not a yacht)

Linked Video:

I be such an idiot. I thought I had seen all of the footage, until this page I didn't realize there was daytime footage. I now see why you are saying mirage, and my ignorance explains why I was saying lighted window. (Only thought there was night time footage)

IE My fault!

Hoaxers:

Awesome, thanks for letting me know that you are not "positive" they are hoaxers


IN CONCLUSION (Finally, right?)

Due to this poster, I am now "with it". I was having difficulties before, due to the hostility I was receiving (Perceived or real, I mentioned it several times and no one said anything to the contrary.)

Lastly, all I ever said is "It is possible". The hostility I was met with, was unreal to say the least! Please folks, not so hasty with them trigger fingers! Not all of us have our thoughts "set in stone".

Thank you again for the patience, those of you who had it!

And apologies again for being ignorant of the daytime footage.

With that said, I no longer think that it is a lighted window on a yacht. However, it still could be a lighted window on a mirage yacht!

That's a joke son, a joke I say

EDIT (To fix: ...no longer thing (to) ...no longer think)

[edit on 7/18/2010 by adigregorio]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 

The professional analysis has not been "dismissed". It's value to confirmation that this is a UFO is questioned. Unfortunately the English translation of the analysis seems to have gone missing.

Something I posted when it was still available:

Here is a translation of the "Image Pre-evaluation Report" from Tubitak:
English
Notice that the report says the tape was received on January 31, 2008.

Here is a scan of the report (in Turkish):
www.siriusufo.org...
Notice that the date of the report is January 31, 2008. TUBITAK received the tape and issued the report on the same day. They barely had a chance to look at it unless they had nothing else to do. If this is just a preliminary ("pre-evaluation") report, where is the final report? In any case I see only two thing of interest in the report. The truncated translation says that the tape is not CGI (I would agree with that). It also says the tape was not made in a studio (though I can't imagine how they would determine that). It says nothing else which bears on its authenticity.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Aha! Found another copy!
www.ufoseek.com...

[edit on 7/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   

I misunderstood you, so my fault not yours. I didn't consider "shipping lanes". I have a follow up question: "Does this make it odd that there would be no ships?" (If this is not a yacht)


Not so much, no. These are odd hours. Often, things like tourist ships will be docked at night at a port, so their guests can visit local cities. But, some may still be traveling on those lanes, as well as other sorts of commercial boats. While there may be so night traffic in and out, these videos are not -that- long honestly, and so I wouldn't be surprised we see no other boats. But that doesn't mean there are not rules / regulations in place, that prohibit other boats form anchoring in that area. But there are strict rules for that, and over a long period of time, one would expect a boat / yacht without anchor lights, would get them. To those on the open water, such things are critically important.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



The light reflection from the left side of the object which is seen on August 10th shootings is not produced by the moon. At that time, the moon was in a phase that was pretty close to the “new moon” phase and located approximately at a 10 degrees proximity/angle to the horizon. Moreover, the image processing analysis conducted on some part of the footage revealed that the center of the object has the same density as its background, namely is of a transparent nature.


Interesting.




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'd trust the hasty judgment of a professional institution, over most of the equally hasty judgment of non-professionals on this board, any day.

I'm not saying they are spot on. But I am saying, what they say is not worthless, it should not be disregarded out-of-hand. Also, the fact that the maker of this video even acquiesced to the submission of his footage to such an agency should speak for itself. Did HE know they would only have limited time to look at it? For all he knew, they would conduct an in-depth analysis of the video. Yet he still submitted it. For a hoaxer, that seems.. unlikely.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 

Again. I'm not dismissing the analysis but TUBITAK itself says:

Because, it would take quite a long time to analyze all of the images, only randomly selected parts were pre-examined. During this process, emphasis was not placed on images produced by optical clarification effects which a number of point light sources generated.

It was a cursory examination . All it really says is that it is not CGI and it was shot outdoors.

If the analysis had declared a hoax, do you think that Sirius would have publicized it?



[edit on 7/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   
This sums up my analysis exactly...

Mr.Tolga Özdeniz
ATV Channel - Programme Editor
On January 31, 2008, a MiniDV format video cassette holding 35 minutes of footage was brought over to “TUBITAK” The Science and Technology Research Board of Turkey’s (a Scientific Institution owned by the state that is highly reliable and influential) National Observatory (TUG) by Mr.Tolga Ozdeniz, the Editor of “Reporter” that has been aired on ATV Channel. The footage on the cassette was said to have been recorded by a Canon GL1 MiniDV digital camera on a beach of a holiday village in Kumburgaz/Istanbul by an amateur.
The images were examined by TUG- National Observatory Image Processing Unit. Because, it would take quite a long time to analyze all of the images, only randomly selected parts were pre-examined. During this process, emphasis was not placed on images produced by optical clarification effects which a number of point light sources generated.
The examination of these frames has yielded following results:
The images were recorded in digital NTSC format by above-mentioned camera.
The date on the video indicates that the recordings were made during 2007, 2008, and 2009.
The footage images of the object which visibly have a certain configuration are not computer animations, special video effects or studio re-created images or models. The footage is genuine…
The first observation made from the footage is that some of the images were recorded in nighttime sky at a certain altitude from the horizon. The footage also covers images of moon in some parts which proves that the video was shot in nighttime and open air. But, the fact that digital date display’s showing AM in certain frames and PM in others, raises suspicion about the validity of the time in which the recordings were made.
Since in some parts, there is no other object that can be featured as a reference in the close-up frames and no observable differences were found on background examination, the actual location, distance, dimensions and nature of the objects could not have been determined.
Through the examination of shootings of multiple dates, it’s a strong possibility that 2-3 different objects were captured. However, it’s difficult to determine whether the objects are moving or not. Their movement is slow even if they do so.
The reflections of light on the objects are sometimes caused by moon which was in a convenient location at that time, and sometimes produced by some other sources of light…
The light reflection from the left side of the object which is seen on August 10th shootings is not produced by the moon. At that time, the moon was in a phase that was pretty close to the “new moon” phase and located approximately at a 10 degrees proximity/angle to the horizon. Moreover, the image processing analysis conducted on some part of the footage revealed that the center of the object has the same density as its background, namely is of a transparent nature.
In conclusion, even though a detailed analysis of the footage is conducted, it might still remain unidentified. Hence, other reference objects need to be recorded in the same frame with the disputable object and further shootings need to be done by ourselves with special equipment in the same location and conditions.
Accordingly, the term “UFO” (Unidentified Flying Object) which has been used for these sort of dubious objects can also be used for these objects . But, this definition does not mean that these objects are from extraterrestrial (flying saucer etc.) origin.
Prof. phD. Zeki EKER
Director
National Observatory of TUBITAK



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Phage
 



The light reflection from the left side of the object which is seen on August 10th shootings is not produced by the moon. At that time, the moon was in a phase that was pretty close to the “new moon” phase and located approximately at a 10 degrees proximity/angle to the horizon. Moreover, the image processing analysis conducted on some part of the footage revealed that the center of the object has the same density as its background, namely is of a transparent nature.


Interesting.



If dealing with an alien technology, I'd say this is hardly surprising.

Again, I'd suspect a fricking alien, before I'd accept that people who live on the coast their entire lives (although sure, I don't honestly know if the maker of this video is in this boat), would be suckered into filming mirages. For a period of over 1.. 2 years. If these sorts of mirages were THIS common, one would assume you'd see MANY variants.. an they'd be common and video'd, on a regular basis. Not.. only a couple guys taping them.. and the SAME type.. over 2 years.

An edit to add: The fact the moon was "convenient" is not necessarily so. If they mean they were able to film (and see it) when there was a bright enough moon to do so.. ok, sure. That doesn't make it suspect. Perhaps this object was there often when not visible, due to the lack of light from say, a new moon.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by fleabit]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


Paradigm2012.....



We are all laughing at the BOAT WINDOW CRAP.


Is it possible that you could be a little more civil in these discussions?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 18-7-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 

The maker of the video is a night watchman.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by fleabit
 

The maker of the video is a night watchman.


Well, yes.. that's my point.

I'm not terribly surprised his videos did not garner further interest. Honestly.. I could tell people I know "Hey.. I have been seeing some ufos at night during my night shift.. come check it out with me!".. and I feel I'd have few takers.

I am a bit suspect though..over THAT long a time, it seems odd they were not able to garner more public interest. Unless they were not trying overly much to do so.

But, this is a thread about a yacht idea. I don't think it's a yacht like for many reasons. I don't know the original intent of the person who did the research, but if I were to guess, I'd think that they were trying to dismiss this in any way possible. This was a convenient out. Arc-shaped craft.. arc-shaped windows.. boo-yah!



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Adigregorio.....

I commend your tremendous patience & politeness in this thread.

I too see merit in considering this "boat theory", but that is not to say I am convinced it is the answer to all of this.

However, some members want to exclude all discussion of this boat option.

I have posted several times now regarding the problems I have with the video & the conflicts of interest & vested interests that further obfuscate all of this.

It is these latter aspects that are destroying serious attempts to work through cases such as this.

It's a shame.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Thank you! I was worried my posts were being taken as hostile themselves!

I really couldn't (can't) understand why I was "shot at" in such a way.

Deny ignorance, don't kill the ignorant!

Thank you again flea for showing my ignorance, really! I was un-aware of the daytime footage, and if someone had mentioned that to me all of the "bad" stuff could have been avoided.

**EDIT**

LOL, and if I had been a good researcher I would have known of that footage. (Didn't want that to look like I was skirting the blame.)

**/EDIT**

(Thank you for the answer to my follow up as well.)

And sorry to the readers for my ignorance, it has been remedied (this time :p )

EDIT (To add)

[edit on 7/18/2010 by adigregorio]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeminiSky
reply to post by fleabit
 

Its disturbing how professional assessments, analysis, and opinions can be dismissed so quickly.
And instead a UFO case that has taken some professionals years to research and is still unexplained, will be completely explained and debunked here within minutes by our members.
Your right, we have some BRILLIANT minds on ATS


GeminiSky.....

You really do need to look further into what is going on with this whole case.

You seem like a bright guy, so think.....

Who are the people promoting it?

Why are they promoting it?

Where is the high resolution version of the video?

Who has it?

Why hasn't it been made available?

Who's making money out of this?

How are they making money out of this?

Could it be there are some big $ involved?

Could this really not be about UFO's & aliens at all?

Where are the conflicts of interest amongst the supporters of the video?

Where are the conflicts of interest amongst the "expert analysts" of the video?

It's all here in front of you.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
ATS Team:

Well, well, well.....

Look who popped up in Turkey.....



Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Good questions MMN, too many holes in the story.

The yacht theory doesn't do much to help clear up the muddy waters I guess.

As for your previous question about the object being something like a shower head, I really couldn't say with any kind of certainty.

We'll probably never know!



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
ATS Team:

Well I never.....

Jaime was in Turkey to promote the "Turkey UFO".



Why would he do that?

Who might be there helping him?

I wonder if the Istanbul Space & UFO centre might like to share in the publicity & the $?

I wonder how they might sell more tickets to their big UFO congress at the centre?

Gee whiz.....such tough questions.....

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 18-7-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Chadwickus.....



Good questions MMN


Thanks Chadwickus!




too many holes in the story.


Unfortunately.....true.....



The yacht theory doesn't do much to help clear up the muddy waters I guess.


Well, I think it’s done 2 things:

1. It has stimulated more discussion about this case which is important, whether it is genuine or not.

2. It has offered another way in which this could have been hoaxed, as opposed to the “model” theory.



As for your previous question about the object being something like a shower head, I really couldn't say with any kind of certainty.


I agree......& the other problem is, we’ve never had access to the real video because of the money hungry control freaks that want to suck ufology dry until it’s a dead, lifeless husk on page 3 of a Michael Cohen trash tabloid creation.



We'll probably never know!


As to what the object in the video really is?

I think we might in the end.....& your thread will help to contribute to that.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join