reply to post by Chadwickus
First of all your source Andres Duarte is not a ufo researcher but a second grade
skeptic a classic “Can't debunk this , will invent” who may be called also armchair.
I'm very surprised you brought this individual here with nothing but 100% speculation,
your dissapointed me. Now about your extremely weak imported theory.
QUOTE: “I've always felt that this object was too low to be anything airborne”
Really? How about a UFO, what about perspective, how can you meassure too low, how
would you define airborne or not by watching a video without being at the location as
a witness. What you feel may not be right because what you feel is not a fact, nothing
of the arguments constitute a fact, you were not there so there is no way you can
prove anything as a fact, just an assumption based in a hunch a guessing.
QUOTE: Andrés has calculated the direction the object was seen by using the moon and
the shoreline as references:
Sorry that was done already during the investigation of this incident, I'm surprised you
didn't know this, try to do a better research next time.
And what about the Andres Duarte alleged analysis? Very simple, AND WHERE IS THE
ALLEGED YACHT? Show a single photograph of the alleged yacht Mr. Duarte.
Another skeptic even claimed this was in fact lights from an oil platform in the sea
even that they are not oil platforms in that location, ridicule. Where is the evidence.
Attention - The whole allegation by skeptic Andres Duarte is based in a single
argument, the supposed existence of a mysterious yacht in the sea capable of making
an illusion like the one captured on video, AND HOW DOES DUARTE KNOW THIS?
He doesn't know, not as a fact wich equals to this: 100% Speculation = ZERO.
Of course because this individual named Andres Duarte doesn't know as a FACT that
there was a mysterious yacht in the sea at that time but this simple cheap explanation
suits his need to debunk the case. He as usual invents the explanation and waits to see
who are the ones to belive his 100% absence of facts but 100% pure speculation bait.
Therefore I ask you again: Where is the yacht, who is the owner, what was doing at
that time allegedly sailing or stationed in that location etc. etc. But I must ask directly
to skeptic Andres Duarte: Did you bother to check with the naval authorities of the port
in Istanbul if there was a registered yacht or ship at that location, that day at that exact
time? Of course not. This individual named Andres Duarte was just in his armchair
trying to figure out how to explain an incident without making any research at all.
Then I ask you again: Where is the alleged yacht. to whom this yacht belongs to?
If this lights were indeed a yacht or ship like skeptic Duarte claims the information must
be there at the naval records in Istanbul, why haven't you checked this out. Simple.
QUOTE: Now, most people probably won't buy the yacht explanation.
You are absolutely right, people won't buy absurde ridicule allegations without hard
evidence, people don't buy speculations. This incident is waiting to be explained with
facts but nothing has been provided to date.
QUOTE: The infamous Turkey UFO a yacht?
You wrote it wrong, it is not infamous BUT famous. You want proof? Just see
this thread and see how it is growing fast, why? Simply because this is a famous case
or should I say a popular case among the people. For you of course is infamous
because you want so desperately to debunk this sighting that any resource even a
naive one like the illusory yacht will help you, but things are different and people are
not idiots. Show us a single photo of the alleged yacht, show us the log of the naval
from Istanbul, show us the information of the mysterious yacht. If you fail then you
must accept you are speculating, simple.
Anyway it seems your thread has awakened the desired and I could say the expected
response, yes why not after all as I say not infamous but famous Kumburgaz incident,
5 pages, 13 flags plus stars in short time and counting. GOOD, then enjoy your party.
[edit on 17-7-2010 by free_spirit]
[edit on 17-7-2010 by free_spirit]
[edit on 17-7-2010 by free_spirit]
