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.

 

Huge UFO Sighted In Tuaran, Malaysia

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUDDD49
Assuming its NOT a fake. The only other explanation not yet drawn up is a possible high-altitude Nuclear test, this would explain how the "object" disappeared after being spotted.


Assuming its NOT a fake, I would go with plasma 'CRITTER'




posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by tarifa37

This is a switch... first time I have ever seen a skeptic use pareidolia type images to make a case



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Oh man; Suppose I have a camera (10mgx) with me at the time a UFO (spaceship) appear; I pull it out of my pocket and take a picture. If it was crystal clear, people gonna say that it is straight-up photoshoped. If it was kinda blur, then some will say it is long exposured, light reflection, or tampered with photoshop. So how can a person convince others that his/her picture is genuined ? (I do not mean sarcastic or anything like that, I just curious and wonder)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by the_0bserver85
 



Well if a UFO has an electromagnetic force field as either shielding or part of the drive unit that imparts that 'glow' then if you showed me a photo of a clear well defined photo I would say its a fake.

Same applies to those I would class as plasma 'critters' They too would be fuzzy or out of focus. And being 'lifeforms' shapeshifting would be no big deal

Funny thing is, the new plasma charging techniques the military is working on also would produce fuzzy hard to define images, which is the whole purpose of stealth after all

Hope that helps




edit on 24-9-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
As I first said some time back, I think it's probably CGI.



Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Ahh yes.....the pixilation.....it's a bit all over the place, but it could be simply the manner in which the photo has been reproduced. Therefore, I'm not sure we can draw too many conclusions from it.


The problem I have with your statements here MMN, is that from the picture alone you cannot (your statement) draw any conclusions whether it is CGI or not. Still you draw the conclusion that it's CGI, and that in spite of witness statements.

Let's draw some quotes from the OP article;

"The round blue object, which was said to be hovering in the sky near the Tuaran Beach Resort, was sighted by resort guests and employees."

Indicating that there are multiple witnesses. I did a check on the beach resort, it has a total of 116 rooms of various sizes, meaning that there could be a lot of witnesses.

"Tuaran Beach Resort restaurant manager, James Dungil, 27, who were among the eyewitnesses said the object was sighted on Saturday around 4pm.
“I was in the restaurant with some friends and saw some guests pointing up to the sky."


Not only were there guest and employees who saw it, there were 'friends' as well.

"“We were curious so we went out to see what the commotion was all about and I saw a round transparent object in the sky,” he said when contacted yesterday."

Which means it wasn't a reflex in a glass window or a camera lens, but actually up there in the sky. The journalist gives us an indication that he personally spoke to the witness.

"Several other guests and employees, who claimed to have also spotted the object, said it hovered in the air for a few minutes before disappearing.
Some even claimed that their handphones “went dead” when they tried to record the object with the devices.
Another witness, Donny Benedict, 29, said he did not believe in the existence of UFOs, but changed his mind upon watching the unusual sight.
“I saw the object for about 20 seconds before it disappeared.
“It’s strange that it did not make any noise like a normal aircraft,” he said, adding that he regretted not being able to take a picture of the object with his handphone as it was out of battery."


Electrical devices went dead when they tried to record the 'object'. Well, don't we recognize that from earlier UFO investigations? What a coincidence...
The journalist quotes another witness, showing us that he has done his job taking statements, in effect going straight to the source to verify the information.

Now, this is what separates a UFO amateur investigator from a mediocre ATS debunker. The investigator will go after all the facts and factors in a case and take them into account, and if need be he will follow up on them. The debunker will ignore witness statements. Witnesses will be of no help to him since they probably won't say what he wants to hear, and they probably lie or got it all wrong anyway. So he wraps it up nicely by excluding them.

So with all respect to you and your general attitude on the subject, which one are you?








edit on 24-9-2010 by Heliocentric because: After I'm dead Tell them I was a persimmon eater who liked haiku



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


Heliocentric.....

Thank yor for your thoughtful, well expressed reply.


At the time.....

My opinion was the object looked as if it has been rendered with CGI......& it still looks like that to me.

My opinion was the validation of the witness stories was not strong & therefore I doubted the voracity of the claims.....& I still can't see why that couldn't be the case.

If I get time during the weekend, I will see if I can find time to re-read the thread in detail & see if there is anything associated or therein that changes my opinion.

Kind regards
Maybe....maybe not



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


I'm not joking around, I actually think it's a cloud. Please see my last post with updated pictures. Do you think it could be a cap cloud?


CHA0S.....

Like I said.....DOH!

I didn't understand the term "cap cloud".

OK..... so after all that.....ahem.....

I don't think it's a "cap cloud".

I'm sorry.....I just can't get it out of my head that it still looks extremely "CGI-ish" to me.

Cheers
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
i dont see any thing to prove the ufo is real. it has to be cgi



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Thanks for that reply my friend,

You don't have to change your opinion, but you do have to consider all the angles and factors in a case in order to evaluate it properly.

The question of witnesses and photographic evidence is an interesting one.

Debunkers have always been able to whiff away UFO witnesses as unreliable evidence, of hardly any value (even though witness testimonies have credibility in our legal system. You can send a person to lifetime prison or death based on witness testimony).

When a UFO thread comes along here on ATS with only witness statements, "I saw this or that", no photo or video, right away you have kids going "What? No video, this sucks". Still some of the most solid, well-documented UFO cases have no photos or videos to them, like the Betty and Barney Hill Case, The Lonnie Zamora case, the Travis Walton case, etc.

30 years ago, a clear UFO photo was a troublesome thing to debunkers, but today, digital technology and image tampering technologies offers almost unlimited possibilities to hoax a photo. Which means that now, debunkers can tread a photo more or less like they've always treated witnesses. You can always discard its credibility one way or another, because it's 'not proof'.

So when we have multiple witness cases it tends to become more interesting, because it' harder to discard 30 witnesses than 3, and 300 even harder than 30.

Aren't we obligated, somehow, to find out what the cause was when anti-aircraft artillery started firing at 'objects' over LA in 1942, when thousands of people were involved in what? Mass hallucinations (that does not even exist as a clinical term)?

And what about the Our Lady of Fátima incident in Portugal 1917, when thousands of people saw strange lights doing strange manouvers in the sky? Can we also discard that as mass hallucinations (that does not exist), and if so, if all those people were hallucinating collectively, what's to say we aren't all hallucinating on a daily basis?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


Heliocentric.....

I agree completely.....witness testimony is a critical factor that must be taken into account in all such cases.

Taking it into account also includes assessing the validity of such testimony via a number of factors.

One must even be very critical of one's own perceptions if one is fortunate to see an "unknown".

I discussed this on ATS Live a few weeks ago, including reference to my own possible brief sighting of an "unknown" when I was younger. Emotions, memory, perceptions, etc.... those all play a part.

You mention the "Battle of LA" & the "Fatima" cases......both are very interesting.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


edit on 24-9-2010 by Maybe...maybe not because: Syntax



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by loopery4
i dont see any thing to prove the ufo is real. it has to be cgi


Have you contacted the journalist that wrote the article, to get his POW on the report he made?

Have you contacted any of the witnesses (the journalist could probably help you with that one) to get a first hand account of what they say went down?

Did you check the witness statements against each other, to see if there were conflicting accounts that could indicate a hoax?

Have you asked any of the witnesses if they know of more witnesses, to get an estimate of how many people saw this thing (if it was there), and additional accounts? You know, perhaps one or two more people did get a shot of this thing, but then went home and never bothered to post it on the net or send it to the press. That would be corroborating evidence in that case.

Or did you skip all that and simply go straight for the CGI solution?

Thanks for giving me a prime example of bad debunking!



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Debunker = Denier = Afraid of reality and change (very Narrow in thinking.) Yes, if my mother 68 years of age saw a real UFO she would deny reality. Allowing this idea of reality in your head opens a huge bunch of questions and then you realize how vulunerable we all are. Face it stuff happens. There is seriously something wrong with humans and the way they acknowledge reality. Most people just can't do it. After the awareness of a very brief sighting and saying to oneself "Oh I can see what everyone is saying on TV, and in the books, and movies.", fear and frustration set in permanently.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by frugal
 


Interesting post but...huh?

What's your angle?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Somehow it looks a bit too picture perfect to be real.
In my oppinion i think it's some type of publicity stint to get the resort attention or to get the resort a reputation for the apparent sighting.
Not sure if anyones said this previously, sorry if it's been said, can't be assed reading all of the posts.

Cheers
Brady



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
light perspective is completely off - compare cloud shadows from the sun which are the reverse of the object shadows

photo was taken through the restaurant window

object is reflection of a light fixture inside the restaurant
you can see other reflective artifacts appearing to be on the roof of the building in the forground

hoax

obvious!

I'm not a denier - i believe - but not this one


edit on 24-9-2010 by Emptiness Dancing because: sp?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Emptiness Dancing
photo was taken through the restaurant window

object is reflection of a light fixture inside the restaurant
you can see other reflective artifacts appearing to be on the roof of the building in the forground

hoax

obvious!


Sweet! You solved the case in a split second,

Here are a couple of web sites with images from the Tuaran Beach Resort Restaurant. Can you please identify what light fixture you're referring to?

www.agoda.com...

www.holidaycity.com...

I see that the only thing the debunkers have in common in this thread, is the 100% certainty that they're right.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

edit on 24-9-2010 by Crumbles because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric

Originally posted by Emptiness Dancing
photo was taken through the restaurant window

object is reflection of a light fixture inside the restaurant
you can see other reflective artifacts appearing to be on the roof of the building in the forground

hoax

obvious!


Sweet! You solved the case in a split second,

Here are a couple of web sites with images from the Tuaran Beach Resort Restaurant. Can you please identify what light fixture you're referring to?

www.agoda.com...

www.holidaycity.com...

I see that the only thing the debunkers have in common in this thread, is the 100% certainty that they're right.



i see that the only thing the believers have in common in this thread is the 100% certainty that they're right.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by frugal
 


Frugal.....


Yes, if my mother 68 years of age saw a real UFO she would deny reality.


Perhaps you shouldn't generalise like that.....

My grandfather.....a total & utter hard-line skeptic.....experienced a very detailed sighting of a disc-shaped object when he was in his 70's. He had a credible witness with him at the time.

From that day on, he was a believer.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
looks more like a painting then a photo to me




top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join