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: 26
48
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Karilla
 


Very kewl site Karilla!



These people were trying to undermine Phage's "Mirage Theory" that he had

written some pages back, however, now because information of the unique

logistics of the Sea of Mamara, in conjunction, its unique weather conditions

for that area attributed by the Black Sea et al, it is now written in stone.

Needless to say the video only further validates weather environment of

Marmara.

Actually it's really quite a fascinating place to read about and it all looks

rather inviting in a surreal kind of fashion.




posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by KIZZZY
reply to post by Karilla
 


Very kewl site Karilla!



These people were trying to undermine Phage's "Mirage Theory" that he had

written some pages back, however, now because information of the unique

logistics of the Sea of Mamara, in conjunction, its unique weather conditions

for that area attributed by the Black Sea et al, it is now written in stone.

Needless to say the video only further validates weather environment of

Marmara.

Actually it's really quite a fascinating place to read about and it all looks

rather inviting in a surreal kind of fashion.

I missed the part where it is demonstrated that there actually was a temperature inversion strong enough to produce the desired effect at the dates, times and location.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

I missed the part where it is demonstrated that there actually was a temperature inversion strong enough to produce the desired effect at the dates, times and location.


Isn't it funny how skeptics are always put on the spot for real evidence to back up their claims, yet they're also ridiculed when they ask for the same of believers?

I missed the part where it is demonstrated that it wasn't anything more than an unidentified mass of pixels and was instead an alien craft. Forget the yachts and mirages for a moment and show me how this could be an alien craft, rather than simply unidentified.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


you need to take a break from trying to
convince people you are correct and they
are wrong.
infact you need to learn some manners.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brainiac
I'll buy a Yacht on the horizon of the Sea before i'll buy a UFO with Alien beings moving around inside it...


The alien beings are at best, subjective.
However it would be naive to think you could identify this as a yacht, which requires even more puzzling assumptions than the latter.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
I missed the part where it is demonstrated that there actually was a temperature inversion strong enough to produce the desired effect at the dates, times and location.


Be SPECIFIC. Tell us exactly what you want demonstrated. With numbers, and show your workings, thanks.

Ie how high are the lights, exactly? How far away? Where exactly is the horizon line? What distortions, if any, might be present? What are the heights you would expect to see from local ships, fishing vessels, or other man made sources? And provide sources for any assumptions, there's a good chap.

After all, that is what you are asking others to do, and yet we aren't making the claims. If YOU claim this is something weird, get off your backside and show us WHY, BEFORE you rudely ask others to do all your work.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
OK, onto 08... First... I gotta say it.. While my expectations weren't high, the '08 video was a bit of a waste of time. Remember those few brief moments of stability in the '07 video when Yalman turned on the Image Stabiliser (IS)? Sadly you'll also recall that very soon after, he turned it off. (Wouldn't want stable images now, would we...)

Anyway, here we are one year later, and if anything, the images are worse. No tripod, no return of the IS, and in fact the only difference is we have diiferent lighting effects, and more grandiose claims. Indeed the translated comments are so comical that I shall ignore them and simply let them speak for themselves..

For the record the first part of this ongoing 'analysis' is here, and the second part is here

The video I used was found here.

Off we go:

0:00
Video time - 2008/6/8 3:54am
The footage commences with that same object again, in its 'notched' form. As usual the image is underexposed, and the background contains no detail, even when processed.

Yalman seems to have got the focus a little more accurately, but, in an unfortunate balancing coincidence, the compression artefacts are notably worse, so there is no useful improvement. Again, he does not refocus after zoom changes. Again, there are vague blurs in the notched area, but they do not resemble any figures, humanoid or otherwise. Nothing in the image is moving other than from camera shake, in other words there is no RELATIVE movement within the frame. If anyone disputes this with *specifics*, I am happy to do a series of overlays showing what I mean.

AGAIN, right at the end of this sequence (~0:47) the exposure changes and the object goes very dark..

..either because the lighting has changed or Yalman is deliberately altering it. But he immediately cuts the sequence! This is VERY strange behavior,and has happened more than once (refer notes to previous video). I have a theory about this.. later!

0:49
Video time - 2008/6/11 2:58am
Another scene change, the object has changed its appearance (notch gone, new edge 'details') - AGAIN we do not see a transition. This sequence is even more underexposed than usual. During brief moments (1:15,1:19,1:28..) there is an odd effect at the left hand side of the object - an effect that looks very like light showing through branches of a tree (see below)...

2:03
Video time - 2008/6/12 2:19am
Another scene change - the object looks different and is reasonably brightly lit, although again, that left side looks like it is obscured by foliage or something similar. AGAIN, we do not see a transition!! Why do we never see what happens when the objects move into or out of view, or the dawn light begins to illuminate the background, or any of the surrounding landscape?

It is VERY noticeable that whatever is obscuring the light at left is well in front of the object, as you can see it causes a 'disjointed' effect in the bright areas (eg 2:10).

This effect is caused by diffraction, and indicates the obscuring object (which again, looks a lot like tree branches) is not at the same distance as the bright object. This reinforces the theory that the lower obscuring shape is caused by foreground objects, and begs the question of why Yalman does not make any attempt whatsoever to show us the foreground.

At 2:12, the lighting changes significantly - a shadow seems to swing across the object, as if a car's headlights shone on the area as it turned. The image gets very shaky at this point and Yalman for some reason attempts to refocus, only managing to make the image noticably worse and shake the camera severely.. After a short pause, the shadow moves back the other way, rather like the effect you might expect from that car doing a turn, and having to wait half way for traffic.. That's just to give you an idea, of course - I can't say that is what actually caused the effect ( I mean, it could just be someone with a big torch, or.. an alien power source...!!!)


This sequence, with its odd light and shadow effects, gives a strong impression that the object is simply being illuminated by light, not generating light. It does not appear to be transparent or translucent. However that cannot be determined for certain from such poorly resolved, indistinct objects in a very low quality video. At times, that shadow gives the very strong impression that the light is being blocked by trees (eg 3:06,3:12).

Note the pattern of the shadows - exactly the same as it was before.


Ok, that's it for the 08 video. Again I shall refrain from summarising all the stuff i find 'bothersome', but you are probably getting the picture.. The 09 video has some more interesting bits, so i hope all this will be found worthwhile.

Thanks for listening!



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
It is vexing CHRLZ to say the least. They don't get off of their proverbial touches (arse)! They just sit there on their over-loaded gluteus maximus and say: "WOW! A spacecraft!" They have no idea what they are looking at and they so want to "believe" that they don't even bother to ask questions.

Let's start off with Atmospheric Refractions:

The major cause of "ducting" is humidity and temperature inversion.

Wiki:

Atmospheric refraction is the deviation of light or other electromagnetic wave from a straight line as it passes through the atmosphere due to the variation in air density as a function of altitude. Atmospheric refraction near the ground produces mirages and can make distant objects appear to shimmer or ripple, elevated or lowered,stretched or shortened with no mirage involved. The term also applies to the refraction of sound.

Atmospheric refraction causes astronomical objects to appear higher in the sky than they are in reality. It affects not only light- rays but all electromagnetic radiation, although in varying degrees (see dispersion (optics)). For example in visible light, blue is more affected than red. This may cause astronomical objects to be spread out into a spectrum in high-resolution images.

Whenever possible, astronomers will schedule their observations around the time of culmination of an object when it is highest in the sky. Likewise sailors will never shoot a star which is not at least 20° or more above the horizon. If observations close to the horizon cannot be avoided, it is possible to equip a telescope with control systems to compensate for the shift caused by the refraction. If the dispersion is a problem too, (in case of broadband high-resolution observations) atmospheric refraction correctors can be employed as well (made from pairs of rotating glass prisms). But as the amount of atmospheric refraction is function of temperature and pressure as well as humidity (the amount of water vapor especially important at mid-infrared wavelengths) the amount of effort needed for a successful compensation can be prohibitive.

It gets even worse when the atmospheric refraction is not homogenous, when there is turbulence in the air for example. This is the cause of twinkling of the stars and deformation of the shape of the sun at sunset and sunrise.

en.wikipedia.org...












[edit on 27-7-2010 by KIZZZY]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Investigation of Surface Duct Conditions over Istanbul, Turkey

ŞSibel Mentes and Zerefsan Kaymaz
Department of Meteorological Engineering, Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Istanbul Technical University, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey



Abstract


A comprehensive examination of 2 yr of radiosonde data to determine the surface duct conditions over Istanbul (4°N, 29°E), Turkey, was made. The refractivity of the atmosphere is a function of air temperature and water vapor pressure. Any negative gradient in the modified refractivity results in the presence of a duct in the atmosphere. Therefore, the occurrence of ducts strongly depends upon both the synoptic and the local meteorological conditions that prevail over the region. The characteristics of surface ducts occurring over Istanbul were examined statistically. It was found that most of the ducts occur in May and July. The highest occurrence rate of surface ducts was observed in the summer season, and the lowest rate was observed in the winter season. The median duct thickness and duct strength are found to be the highest and the strongest in summer, whereas they are the lowest and the weakest in winter. When the data are separated into stable and unstable atmospheric subgroups, it is seen that surface duct characteristics show clear seasonal differences. Surface ducts in a stable atmosphere are found to be stronger than those in an unstable atmosphere. Also, daytime (1200 UTC) surface ducts occur more frequently than nighttime (0000 UTC) surface ducts in Istanbul. These statistics are discussed in association with local meteorological conditions and weather systems affecting the Istanbul region, and comments are made on the importance of their possible consequences in the region.

1. Introduction


Anomalous propagation conditions in the atmosphere result from variations in the refractivity of the atmosphere that are closely related to changes in the temperature and/or water vapor pressure gradient. The refractivity of the atmosphere at microwave frequencies is given by






Here, N is the dimensionless refractivity (N-units; Glickman 2000), T is the absolute temperature (K), p is the atmospheric pressure (hPa), and e is the water vapor pressure (hPa) (Bean and Dutton 1968; Patterson et al. 1994; Craig 1996). A modified refractivity M, which includes the effect of the earth’s curvature, is suggested for practical purposes and is given as






Here, N is the refractivity from (1), M is the dimensionless modified refractivity (M-units; Glickman 2000), z is the height above sea level (m), and Re is the earth’s radius (m). In the standard atmosphere, because the pressure and the water vapor pressure decrease with height rapidly while temperature decreases slowly, N decreases with altitude (Patterson et al. 1994; Craig 1996). On the other hand, M increases with altitude in the standard atmosphere as depicted in Fig. 1b. Different types of anomalous conditions, depending on how rapidly N or M varies with altitude in response to variations in the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere, are described and are explained below.

Table 1 gives the ranges in which the modified refractivity gradient describes refractive conditions and characterizes the different paths of propagation (Patterson et al. 1994; Hitney et al. 1985). If the modified refractivity increases with height by 157 M-units km−1 or more, it will result in subrefractive conditions as illustrated in Fig. 1a. In this case, the electromagnetic signal bends away from the earth. If the modified refractivity increases by 79–157 M-units km−1, which gives the standard conditions in the atmosphere (Fig. 1b), the signal will be bent toward the earth’s surface with a curvature less than the earth’s radius. The superrefraction (Fig. 1c) occurs when the modified refractivity gradient increases by 0–79 M-units km−1. An electromagnetic signal in this case will be bent toward the earth’s surface but at a rate less than the earth’s radius and greater than the standard. Trapping or ducting occurs when the modified refractivity gradient becomes negative (Figs. 1d–f). The electromagnetic signal in this case is forced to move within the ducting boundaries. However, the ducting layers do not have rigid boundaries and they let some electromagnetic energy leak (Craig and Hayton 1995; Patterson et al. 1994). This effect is related to the strength of the duct. The larger the amount of electromagnetic energy that is trapped is, the stronger the duct is. cont.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Three kinds of ducts are observed in the atmosphere as illustrated in Figs. 1d–1f and as in Brooks et al. (1999), Babin et al. (1997), and Babin (1996). These are surface ducts (Fig. 1d), surface-based ducts (Fig. 1e) and elevated ducts (Fig. 1f). The surface and surface-based ducts are bounded by the earth at their lower boundary. The letter d in Figs. 1d and 1f shows the duct thickness, which is the height difference between the base, the ground in Figs. 1d and 1e, and the top of the ducting layer where the minimum in modified refractivity profile is seen. It is called duct thickness also in elevated ducts in Fig. 1f. In the case of surface ducts (Figs. 1d,e), the duct thickness frequently refers to the duct height in literature (e.g., Babin 1996; Brooks et al. 1999). We have chosen the duct thickness over duct height as terminology in our surface duct analysis. The duct strength ΔM defines the strength of the duct, which is the difference in modified refractivity between the base and the top of the trapping layer, and the modified refractivity gradient ΔM/d gives the gradient of the modified refractivity within the trapping layer. The nature of the duct is determined by the meteorological conditions that alter the temperature and/or water vapor content in the region. Ducts occur over the earth’s surface as a result of advection, evaporation over the sea, anticyclonic subsidence, subsidence at the frontal surfaces, nocturnal radiative cooling over land, and convective activity during the day (Turton et al. 1988; Craig 1996). The surface features from which the weather systems move are crucial in determining the duct characteristics (Gossard 1977). Evaporation and boundary layer ducts are two subgroups of the surface ducts. In addition, more localized effects such as sea breezes, thunderstorms, or microburst outflows can cause ducting over land (Turton et al. 1988).

Different modified refractivity conditions depicted in Fig. 1 have very important consequences in radar systems, military services, navigation systems, communication systems, microwave operations, and many other technological systems that operate on the basis of electromagnetic wave propagation in the atmosphere. They cause a variety of effects among which are loss of propagation, transmission fading, altitude errors for height-finding radars, decreased/increased detection ranges and shortened/extended radio horizons, and so on (Ko et al. 1983; Skura 1987). The ducting could lead to electromagnetic energy propagating over great distances, allowing long-range radio communications. Ducting is not always wanted because the surface-reflected rays may interfere with the direct rays, altering the lobe pattern and resulting in signal degradation and increased background noise (Webster 1997; Rana et al. 1992; Skura 1987; Ko et al. 1983; Patterson et al. 1994). In addition, an air target that would normally be detected may be missed if the radar and the target are on opposite sides of the duct (Patterson et al. 1994; Skura 1987). In weather applications, ducting was shown to give rise to coverage fades, range–height errors, false echoes, and scattered and anomalous clutter returns in radar and acoustic sounders (Abdul-Jauwad et al. 1991; Skura 1987; Gossard 1977). If not removed, the false radar echoes may lead to erroneous results in rainfall estimations, indicating fictitious floods and so on (Moszkowicz et al. 1994). The electromagnetic wave’s incident angle at the ducting layer is another important factor influencing the effect of the ducts upon the surface-based or airborne systems. The steeper the angle is, the smaller the ducting layer’s effect will be upon propagation (e.g., Patterson et al. 1994).

Ducting conditions have been widely investigated in various regions of the world using upper-air measurements. Climatological maps, that is, maps of occurrence of the superrefracting and ducting layers, and maps of refractivity gradient have been derived. Monthly probabilities of the occurrence of surface ducts in the Mediterranean Sea region and India have been established for comparison of the effects of different meteorological conditions (Craig and Hayton 1995). Babin (1996) investigated the height and frequency distributions of surface ducts statistically over Wallops Island, Virginia, by using high-resolution helicopter measurements. He found that the largest surface ducts were observed mostly from April to June and from July to September over Wallops Island. Brooks et al. (1999) studied the surface evaporation and boundary layer duct characteristics over the Persian Gulf. Gossard (1977) showed the association of the anomalous conditions to the different air masses. A more recent study on refractive conditions by Bech et al. (1998, 2000, 2002) was done in Barcelona, Spain, to determine the anomalous propagations at their radar site.

Our purposes in this study are twofold. One purpose is to derive the statistics of the surface ducts over Istanbul, Turkey, which has important implications for the reliability of radar and communication systems. The second purpose is to determine the characteristics of the surface ducts and refractivity profiles that result from stable and unstable meteorological conditions. We give case examples of the surface ducts occurring in both conditions and attempt to identify the meteorological differences using associated weather maps. In the last section, we discuss our results and present conclusions.

The results of this study are of great interest to both the civilian and military community in the region of Istanbul. Because of its critical location, the city of Istanbul includes many military and civilian activities for which refractivity conditions and their effects must be taken into account; some examples include the operation of high towers that supply television communications in the region, radar activities, and navigational needs. Our paper describes the statistical refractive characteristics of surface ducts associated with synoptic and local weather conditions for this important region.

For the rest of this report:

journals.ametsoc.org...



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Conclusions


There are eight main conclusions to this work:

The annual percentage of surface duct occurrence over Istanbul is 31%. Of the observed surface ducts, 60% occur during the day and 40% occur at night.

Thirty-three percent of surface ducts occur in summer, and 17% occur in winter. Within the surface ducts, the highest occurrence rate is seen in May and July (14% and 13%) and the lowest is seen in January (5%).

The annual mean surface duct thickness is 36 m, and the median is 25 m. Summer surface ducts are about 10 m thicker (the median is 35 m) than winter ducts (the median is 24 m). Summer surface ducts are also found to be the strongest (median ΔM = −6.5 M-units), and winter ducts are the weakest (median ΔM = −2.2 M-units).

Extreme duct thickness are observed in summer, mostly in July, reaching 400 m.

The percentage occurrence of surface ducts in the stable and unstable atmosphere is 51% and 46%, respectively.

Summer ducts are caused more by local effects than by synoptic effects. However, synoptic-scale weather systems mostly affect the surface ducts in winter.

Surface ducts are the thickest in summer in both a stable atmosphere and an unstable atmosphere. A similar trend was found in the duct strength.

More surface ducts were found during the day than at night by 20%. These are associated with the sea–land/land–sea wind systems operating in the Bosporus region of Istanbul in combination with the convective activity during the day, especially in summer.

At this time, although a complete long-term climatological study is missing, these results serve as a basis for future comprehensive and comparative studies of atmospheric refractivity for the Istanbul region. They will be incorporated into modeling of the refractivity fields and microwave propagation in the region.


journals.ametsoc.org...



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
The major cause of "ducting" is humidity and temperature inversion.

other links with great graphics:



journals.ametsoc.org...

www.mike-willis.com...

www.ginque.com...













[edit on 27-7-2010 by KIZZZY]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Nicely done, Kizzz, but geez, they say *I'm* long winded..!!



Up until now, I thought the major cause of ducting was air-conditioners....



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   


[edit on 27-7-2010 by KIZZZY]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Nicely done, Kizzz, but geez, they say *I'm* long winded..!!



Up until now, I thought the major cause of ducting was air-conditioners....


love your wit!

You have done a great job of this so far CHRLZ. What you have done is

so time-consuming and tedious as well. Bliss you CHRLZ!


[edit on 27-7-2010 by KIZZZY]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by KIZZZY

There is always this to put it 'all' together eh?




I was wondering when that joke would arise. But you've just raised a very important issue. Is it DUCT tape or DUCK tape? It seems the answer is, according to my in-depth research.. BOTH.

Getting back ontopic, a small update. I have just downloaded the last video (I want to spend a bit more time on this one..), and have had an initial look and think... I've already noticed something I didn't see before...

Anyway, I'll hopefully get to it tomorrow evening - hereabouts it's time for sleepin', and yes, I work..... So I shall return in 20 hours or so, providing the hit-squad of a certain pair of ufo promoters doesn't get to me...



PS - where's Lupelius???? Maybe they got to him???!!!



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ








PS - where's Lupelius???? Maybe they got to him???!!!


I duct-taped his gob!
Should I rip it off? idk


[edit on 27-7-2010 by KIZZZY]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


Thanks for reading the whole analysis.

:shk:








Comparison clip of Car on a hill in fog to lights of Turkey video.





posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by KIZZZY
It is vexing CHRLZ to say the least. They don't get off of their proverbial touches (arse)! They just sit there on their over-loaded gluteus maximus and say: "WOW! A spacecraft!" They have no idea what they are looking at and they so want to "believe" that they don't even bother to ask questions.

Let's start off with Atmospheric Refractions:

The major cause of "ducting" is humidity and temperature inversion.



Hi KIZZZY, maybe this information about past weather reports
could help in some way to complete the investigation regarding
the "mirage theory".



BTW in the picture above there must be a mistake in the "hour mark"
because at 4:46PM the Sun should be at this position:



As an example here is the Istanbul Turkey (IST) weather from
August 01 of 2007 which shows the following information:

Hour -- Temp --- Dew Point - Humidity -- Bar/Press -- Wind
4:50 AM -- 24.0 °C -- 20.0 °C -- 78% -- 1008 HPA -- NNE 20.4 km/h (15mph)
SOURCE: www.wunderground.com...

(You can go to any past weather reports in that page)

Then with that information there was a high chance to see a mirage.

Regards,

Capt. Alejandro Franz


.



new topics




 
48
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join