The infamous Turkey UFO a yacht?

page: 31
48
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by KIZZZY
reply to post by JPhish
 





You can't see the boat in both pictures. You only see the lights!

Oh and the the heads of people as well. Go figure!




Silly? I have to disagree with you. IMO, There is more of a probability of this

being a boat than anything else.

Take that same little skeeter boat all the way out there and I have no doubts

that it would produce a photograph very similar to that of the alleged UFO in

that Sea!

false analogy, your argument is logically bankrupt; it wasn't a photo, it was a video.




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by JPhish
Come on people; if you want to call it an elaborate hoax call it an elaborate hoax. Calling it a boat is just silly.

JPhish..... Why?

Because it looks absolutely nothing like a boat in the dark pictures.
Also, the boat theory is completely thrown out the proverbial window the moment the scene becomes "brighter" and there are apparently lights suspended above the water by a great height.
I'd find it more believable if you told me he hung a fancy nail-clipper by a string in front of a window, recorded it and played around in sony vegas.
In my opinion, THAT story is more likely and it's not very likely at all.


JPhish.....


Because it looks absolutely nothing like a boat in the dark pictures.


I can’t agree with that in absolute terms. It could be said to resemble various window shapes, prows & illumination patterns, albeit this is all conjectural at this point as our “expert panel” works through this issue.


Also, the boat theory is completely thrown out the proverbial window the moment the scene becomes "brighter" and there are apparently lights suspended above the water by a great height.


I’ve always thought those 2 objects were unrelated.

Tell me.....

What do you think the object is?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


i live on an island by the water and have spent a good deal of time observing boats. Unless the video has been altered, i do not beleive it is a boat. I've deduced this based off of many years experience. You can disagree with me if you like. But there is no way in hell you are convincing me that is a boat without some better explanation for why it looks and behaves nothing like a boat.

I don't know what the object is.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by JPhish]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


These are still shots taken from videos....both videos.

a·nal·o·gy [ə nálləjee]
(plural a·nal·o·gies)
n
1. comparison: a comparison between two things that are similar in some way, often used to help explain something or make it easier to understand
2. similarity: a similarity in some respects


This is a great comparison! Your remark is absurd!

Many coastal people so I am not buying your bulldinkery!

[edit on 1-8-2010 by KIZZZY]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JPhish
...
Also, the boat theory is completely thrown out the proverbial window the moment the scene becomes "brighter" and there are apparently lights suspended above the water by a great height.
...


I'm sorry, but when exactly did you see those?

I saw some lights very close to the horizon (you do realise that he had zoomed in with a very long telephoto?), and then one solitary light higher up that was likely an aircraft. They had nothing whatsoever to do with the other 'dark background' objects.

Can you change that "apparently" to an "actual", by providing the time stamp on the video, please?

you are way off, i'm talking about the part in the video at dawn when it is brighter out.



I don't much like the yacht window theory either, but I'm certainly NOT yet dismissing those 'd-b' objects being a part of a boat.


i'm 99.9999999999999999% sure it is not a boat. Wish someone knew the truth about it because i'd bet any amount of money on it.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by KIZZZY
reply to post by JPhish
 


These are still shots taken from videos....both videos.

a·nal·o·gy [ə nálləjee]
(plural a·nal·o·gies)
n
1. comparison: a comparison between two things that are similar in some way, often used to help explain something or make it easier to understand
2. similarity: a similarity in some respects


This is a great comparison! Your remark is absurd!

Many coastal people so I am not buying your bulldinkery!

[edit on 1-8-2010 by KIZZZY]


You are comparing a video to a photograph. It's a false analogy. If one were to see a video of the boat you presented, it would be obvious it were a boat. Photographs can be more misleading because there is no movement.

What you gave is indeed a comparison, i'm not saying it wasn't a comparison; i called it a false analogy because that's what it is. It does not logically help your argument.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by JPhish]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JPhish
...
Also, the boat theory is completely thrown out the proverbial window the moment the scene becomes "brighter" and there are apparently lights suspended above the water by a great height.
...


I'm sorry, but when exactly did you see those?

I saw some lights very close to the horizon (you do realise that he had zoomed in with a very long telephoto?), and then one solitary light higher up that was likely an aircraft. They had nothing whatsoever to do with the other 'dark background' objects.

Can you change that "apparently" to an "actual", by providing the time stamp on the video, please?

you are way off, i'm talking about the part in the video at dawn when it is brighter out.



I don't much like the yacht window theory either, but I'm certainly NOT yet dismissing those 'd-b' objects being a part of a boat.


i'm 99.9999999999999999% sure it is not a boat. Wish someone knew the truth about it because i'd bet any amount of money on it.


Excuse me? prove it!.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
...
false analogy, your argument is logically bankrupt; it wasn't a photo, it was a video.


???

I'd really like to see your elaboration on this - what precisely do you believe are the problems in comparing still frames from video footage with a still image, if you are discussing a relatively, if not completely, stationary object/scene?

How would the issues differ from, say comparing frames from two still cameras of different brands/models?


And yes, I already know the answers to these questions...

Don't get me wrong - I don't *think* the dark object is a boat either, but I'm not yet sure what it is.

And I DID think you were referring to the dawn lights with regard to your other comment - AGAIN, can you be specific about exactly what time in that video you think shows lights that are too high to be a boat or ship...



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by KIZZZY

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JPhish
...
Also, the boat theory is completely thrown out the proverbial window the moment the scene becomes "brighter" and there are apparently lights suspended above the water by a great height.
...


I'm sorry, but when exactly did you see those?

I saw some lights very close to the horizon (you do realise that he had zoomed in with a very long telephoto?), and then one solitary light higher up that was likely an aircraft. They had nothing whatsoever to do with the other 'dark background' objects.

Can you change that "apparently" to an "actual", by providing the time stamp on the video, please?

you are way off, i'm talking about the part in the video at dawn when it is brighter out.



I don't much like the yacht window theory either, but I'm certainly NOT yet dismissing those 'd-b' objects being a part of a boat.


i'm 99.9999999999999999% sure it is not a boat. Wish someone knew the truth about it because i'd bet any amount of money on it.


Excuse me? prove it!.


you're asking me to prove a negative . . .

There is more evidence for the object not being a boat than there is for it being a boat. In fact, the only real "evidence" that supports the boat theory is purely circumstantial; that evidence being it is on/over the water.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by KIZZZY
reply to post by JPhish
 


These are still shots taken from videos....both videos.

a·nal·o·gy [ə nálləjee]
(plural a·nal·o·gies)
n
1. comparison: a comparison between two things that are similar in some way, often used to help explain something or make it easier to understand
2. similarity: a similarity in some respects


This is a great comparison! Your remark is absurd!

Many coastal people so I am not buying your bulldinkery!

[edit on 1-8-2010 by KIZZZY]


You are comparing a video to a photograph. It's a false analogy. If one were to see a video of the boat you presented, it would be obvious it were a boat. Photographs can be more misleading because there is no movement.

What you gave is indeed a comparison, i'm not saying it wasn't a comparison; i called it a false analogy because that's what it is. It does not logically help your argument.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by JPhish]


I gave you the definition of the word "analogy" which apparently you cannot

seem to grasp. Is that for want of reading comprehension?

One again........they are both still shots taken from a video AND they are

very similar. Your opinion is just that 'YOUR OPINION". You have proven

nothing.

BTW, I am comparing a photo shot to a photo shot!

[edit on 1-8-2010 by KIZZZY]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JPhish
...
false analogy, your argument is logically bankrupt; it wasn't a photo, it was a video.


???

I'd really like to see your elaboration on this - what precisely do you believe are the problems in comparing still frames from video footage with a still image, if you are discussing a relatively, if not completely, stationary object/scene?

How would the issues differ from, say comparing frames from two still cameras of different brands/models?

because boats are not stationary, it's as simple as that.

A stationary cardboard cutout of a corvette could appear to be exactly the same as an actual corvette moving if both were depicted in a photograph.



And yes, I already know the answers to these questions...

Don't get me wrong - I don't *think* the dark object is a boat either, but I'm not yet sure what it is.

And I DID think you were referring to the dawn lights with regard to your other comment - AGAIN, can you be specific about exactly what time in that video you think shows lights that are too high to be a boat or ship...

There are various videos of this all over the place, give me a link to a video and i'll give you a time. I also never said the lights were too high to be a boat, i said the lights appeared to be suspended above the water by a great height.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by JPhish]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by KIZZZY

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by KIZZZY
reply to post by JPhish
 


These are still shots taken from videos....both videos.

a•nal•o•gy [ə nálləjee]
(plural a•nal•o•gies)
n
1. comparison: a comparison between two things that are similar in some way, often used to help explain something or make it easier to understand
2. similarity: a similarity in some respects


This is a great comparison! Your remark is absurd!

Many coastal people so I am not buying your bulldinkery!

[edit on 1-8-2010 by KIZZZY]


You are comparing a video to a photograph. It's a false analogy. If one were to see a video of the boat you presented, it would be obvious it were a boat. Photographs can be more misleading because there is no movement.

What you gave is indeed a comparison, i'm not saying it wasn't a comparison; i called it a false analogy because that's what it is. It does not logically help your argument.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by JPhish]


I gave you the definition of the word "analogy" which apparently you cannot

seem to grasp. Is that for want of reading comprehension?

As i already explained,

An analogy and a false analogy are two different things. One is helpful to an argument, and one is not. Something being a false analogy doesn’t mean it is not an analogy; it means the analogy is “false” because it does not bolster the argument of the person using it. You gave a false analogy.


One again........they are both still shots taken from a video AND they are

very similar.

we aren't talking about photographs; we are talking about a VIDEO depicting an UFO.


Your opinion is just that 'YOUR OPINION". You have proven

nothing.

I have proven that you were/are unaware of what a false analogy was/is.


BTW, I am comparing a photo shot to a photo shot!
we aren't talking about photographs; we are talking about a VIDEO depicting an UFO; which is why it is a false analogy.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by JPhish]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.


A. alleged UFO has bi-lateral lights
B. has bi-lateral lights
A. alleged UFO has an aperture in the middle
B. has an aperture in the middle
A alleged UFO has unidentified heads
B. has unidentified heads
A has property P, so also B must have property P
A. is a still shot
B. is a still shot



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   


















[edit on 1-8-2010 by KIZZZY]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by KIZZZY
reply to post by JPhish
 



In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.


A. alleged UFO has bi-lateral lights
B. has bi-lateral lights
A. alleged UFO has an aperture in the middle
B. has an aperture in the middle
A alleged UFO has unidentified heads
B. has unidentified heads
A has property P, so also B must have property P
A. is a still shot
B. is a still shot



one more time . . .

you gave an analogy, but it does not help your argument because you compared two non moving pictures. As i've already mentioned, this is useless because the original material is a VIDEO.

Again . . .

A stationary cardboard cutout of a corvette could appear to be exactly the same as an actual corvette in motion, if both were depicted in a photograph.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by JPhish]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
A photograph is in fact being compared. Now why is that do you think eh?

Is it because the CAMERA-MAN has a good case of UNSTEADY HANDS?

hmmmm? Pah leeeeze!

How do you think the professionals do it hmmm? They need a still shot

especially from the shaken-hand syndrome this man, who took el-crapO video

is suffering from.


p.s. my photo is not a corvette but a boat!
oh and put the corvette in the water as well!

Get real!



oh and since the alleged object is just sitting there not moving...double duh...it would stand to reason to take a still shot of it.



[edit on 1-8-2010 by KIZZZY]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 







i'm 99.9999999999999999% sure it is not a boat.



------------------> Prove it!



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by KIZZZY
A photograph is in fact being compared. Now why is that do you think eh?

Is it because the CAMERA-MAN has a good case of UNSTEADY HANDS?

hmmmm? Pah leeeeze!

How do you think the professionals do it hmmm? They need a still shot

especially from the shaken-hand syndrome this man, who took el-crapO video

is suffering from.


p.s. my photo is not a corvette but a boat!
oh and put the corvette in the water as well!

Get real!

i'm still not getting through . . .

a photograph is lesser evidence than a video.

i'll leave you with that.

i'm spent.


[edit on 8/1/2010 by JPhish]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I'd really like to see your elaboration on this - what precisely do you believe are the problems in comparing still frames from video footage with a still image, if you are discussing a relatively, if not completely, stationary object/scene?

How would the issues differ from, say comparing frames from two still cameras of different brands/models?

because boats are not stationary, it's as simple as that.

A stationary cardboard cutout of a corvette can appear to be exactly the same as an actual moving corvette if both are depicted in a photograph.

Actually, it is not as simple as that at all. But your comment seems* to suggest that motion blur (which could be caused by the camera and/or the object's movement, if any) is IT..? (*Added - I see you are also referring to depth, it seems...? see below). Motion blur is EASY to detect and if necessary 'de-blur' if all you need is the shape. I can easily demonstrate that (with a pic of a corvette if you like)..

But in none of these images is that an issue! If you are claiming otherwise you need to BE SPECIFIC - show us an example of what you mean. Otherwise this appears to be handwaving for no good reason.



And yes, I already know the answers to these questions...
Don't get me wrong - I don't *think* the dark object is a boat either, but I'm not yet sure what it is. And I DID think you were referring to the dawn lights with regard to your other comment - AGAIN, can you be specific about exactly what time in that video you think shows lights that are too high to be a boat or ship...

There are various videos of this all over the place, give me a link to a video and i'll give you a time. I also never said the lights were too high to be a boat, i said the lights appeared to be suspended above the water by a great height.

Sigh. The video has time stamps on it. They don't vary...

Here is a frame grab - is that what you mean (and why am I doing your work for you)?

In that image, the lights appear to be about as wide as they are high, and that *isn't* taking into account any atmospherics or the fact that the mist is possibly giving a false horizon. Note that this image is a long telephoto shot, probably about twice the magnification of a standard set of binoculars.

Have you not seen vessels even as small as this, with lights that are quite high:

Actually, I think the light layout is more likely to be from a small to medium size cruise ship - but to call that image one that is showing lights suspended 'by a great height' above the water is a bit of an exaggeration to put it very kindly, imo.

* BTW - your 'analogy' of the cardboard Corvette would ONLY be useful if we had 3D imagery. We do not. Indeed the 'depth', if any, of these objects - and/or any parallax issues that it would cause - has not even come up as an issue.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   



Here is a professional opinion. BTW this was taken from the 'VIDEOS'

of 'RODS' by the hoaxer Jose Escamillia!



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I'd really like to see your elaboration on this - what precisely do you believe are the problems in comparing still frames from video footage with a still image, if you are discussing a relatively, if not completely, stationary object/scene?

How would the issues differ from, say comparing frames from two still cameras of different brands/models?

because boats are not stationary, it's as simple as that.

A stationary cardboard cutout of a corvette can appear to be exactly the same as an actual moving corvette if both are depicted in a photograph.

Actually, it is not as simple as that at all. But your comment seems* to suggest that motion blur (which could be caused by the camera and/or the object's movement, if any) is IT..? (*Added - I see you are also referring to depth, it seems...? see below). Motion blur is EASY to detect and if necessary 'de-blur' if all you need is the shape. I can easily demonstrate that (with a pic of a corvette if you like)..
there would be next to no motion blur for a car in drive moving at 1 mile per hour if the camera had a fast shutter speed. However, you are missing the point. The point is the motion of an object can help identify it. If you turn something from a video to a picture you are losing a variable which could be used as a means of identification. Pictures are lesser evidence than photographs or stills.


But in none of these images is that an issue! If you are claiming otherwise you need to BE SPECIFIC - show us an example of what you mean. Otherwise this appears to be handwaving for no good reason.
I never said anything about motion blur . . .



And yes, I already know the answers to these questions...
Don't get me wrong - I don't *think* the dark object is a boat either, but I'm not yet sure what it is. And I DID think you were referring to the dawn lights with regard to your other comment - AGAIN, can you be specific about exactly what time in that video you think shows lights that are too high to be a boat or ship...

There are various videos of this all over the place, give me a link to a video and i'll give you a time. I also never said the lights were too high to be a boat, i said the lights appeared to be suspended above the water by a great height.


Sigh. The video has time stamps on it. They don't vary...

Here is a frame grab - is that what you mean (and why am I doing your work for you)?

In that image, the lights appear to be about as wide as they are high, and that *isn't* taking into account any atmospherics or the fact that the mist is possibly giving a false horizon. Note that this image is a long telephoto shot, probably about twice the magnification of a standard set of binoculars.
no offense, but that's poor frame grab, there are no reference points.



Those lights are clearly in excess of 20 feet above the water.


Have you not seen vessels even as small as this, with lights that are quite high:

Actually, I think the light layout is more likely to be from a small to medium size cruise ship - but to call that image one that is showing lights suspended 'by a great height' above the water is a bit of an exaggeration to put it very kindly, imo.
not at all, those lights could be extremely high over the water depending on how large the object is. When I first saw the video THIS is what i thought the day time object was. I changed my mind when I realized the light arrangement was incongruent with that of an oilrig. The lights are definitely higher than 20 feet and I’d be willing to GUESS they are much higher. A very large cruise ship is a good guess*, but again, I believe the light arrangement is incongruent.


* BTW - your 'analogy' of the cardboard Corvette would ONLY be useful if we had 3D imagery. We do not. Indeed the 'depth', if any, of these objects - and/or any parallax issues that it would cause - has not even come up as an issue.
you completely missed the point, that’s ok though; I’m sure you understand now that I have elucidated.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by JPhish]





new topics
top topics
 
48
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant