Turkey UFO UPDATE Dr Roger Leir speaks about ET FOOTAGE

Originally posted by Signals
Turkey should analyze what is underneath the waters at this location.

Why would they keep coming back to the same spot? What's under the water?

fish maybe

Originally posted by mike2008and2008
reply to post by planetzog

 

This video is really a complete HOAX! And a bad one at that! Check out this video....
www.youtube.com...

Do not feel bad about being fooled! You are on a long list my friend.

Talking about being fooled...

All that stuff the guy in your link managed to discover was just compression artifacts from youtube. lol Noise? haha. You see those 'squares' everywhere in millions of videos. I've often wondered about them myself cause it looks like a cut and paste job. However, you can't cut and paste video.

As for the time stamp moving and revealing another time stamp? Idk, that seems rather obvious but I would have to ask, why are we only hearing about it from him and not from the ATS skeptics who would have shredded that the day it was first posted? There were several videos recorded, which one is he referring to? At least give a source so we can check it ourselves.

And that nice little added touch at the end where he attempts to gain the trust of the UFO crowd with his close encounter. Bullocks. Pics or it didn't happen. Someone who has that much confidence after being within 75 feet would never need to reveal those details.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by studio500

 

Just saying.

Thanks for reposting. I saw this on the other thread, on some page on some day long ago and I couldn't find it for some reason.

The boat explanation and this work well. I think what we are looking at is a boat sometimes and a lens at other times. The trick is that one explanation doesn't fit all.

So the question was raised "how come the ALL the other footage over all the days doesn't match the boat?"

The trick in logic is that "it cant possibly be a boat since the ALL of the footage doesn't match"

The answer is that we are not always looking at the same thing across ALL of the footage but someone wants you to believe that you are. There is simply NOTHING showing that all the footage is of the same object or non object.

Its the power of simple editing and simple suggestion that makes a good story. That's why reality crap TV works so well. cheap & easy with an audience that doesn't question what they are seeing.

but I am a little freaked out by the predator.

I have to agree entirely. Since posting my original reply two thoughts often come back into my mind.
1) Is obviously what object could have been used? ( So far I have checked many of my numerous lenses for comparison)
2) Why is the image so very different on each occasion?

The latter obviously coincides with your analogy that we are possibly not looking at the same object even though we are being led to believe that we are.

I think that this may and I emphasize the word may, be a case of people seeing what they want to see.

It just so happens that if what we really are seeing is some kind of inner lens or baffle, it seems to be more than a coincidence that the image is always cut almost in half, which I presume is the horizon. This could just as easily be a piece of black card or something else to obscure the full visible shape, ie the circle of a lens or similar circular object.

..reading all the interesting comments here, let me expand a bit about what I am showing here:

-as explained, my work on the Kumburgaz clip was done as a verification of the methodology I had designed, and applied succesfully on one set of photographic and film material. I had never heard of PTM at the time and, thinking I had maybe stumbled by chance on a totally new technique, I reasoned it had to be checked on a different material.
So, and I think this is important to note, my only objective was to verify if the process could also in this case bring out previously unvisible details, and allow us to settle the controversy once and for all. The same objective would have been achieved if the results showed, with the same clarity, the image of a large cruiseship.

-working on a clip has the tremendous advantage of allowing for corroboration of data: it can always be argued by critics that any specific image in a photo is a randomly generated illusion. It is much more difficult to put forward such an argument when the alledged optical illusion can be found in succesive frames of the same film, moving coherently.

-after finding these images and others, I went back to recheck the debunking argument. This is my take:

*I live uphill above an harbor in a major touristic destination: in the high season we have up to 4 or 5 cruise ships a week, sometimes 2 at the same time. I doubt very much that there could be absolutely no lights whatsoever visible below the alledged deck on a cruise ship of the size and type implied...

-the "ring argument" I had never heard of and is interesting. It should be possible, I think to verify if the explanation is valid by checking consummers' websites or magazines, to determine the frequency of such occurences. I would think that if the phenomenon is statisticaly significant, it has already been adressed in forums, and possibly by the manufacturers themselves. In that case, which is probable, we shall have stats to calculate the odds that it could happen, under the conditions (which have been verified) under which the film was taken

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by studio500

 

but I am a little freaked out by the predator.

Hi...

it is interesting to see how we interpret things differently... The creature has actually more humanoid features than Predator. Note the small, but definitely present nose, the pointed chin, etc....

I actually find those images unsettling, and I'll tell you why: looking at them (there are 6 of them in total as of today) I do not get at all the impression of looking at benevolent space brother, but rather at "people" on a mission, like a military team. I don't know if it is the dark uniform or something, but that's the impression I get.

I will show other images obtained from the clip. Since i don't retouch results, I will present with the Frame 11 crop (the Predator...) as a reference image, to ease the analysis

...here is Frame 10, along with the reference pix...

Note the apparent discrepancies between the 2 images:though the creature is clearly non human, the morphology of the head appears slighlty different. this I think comes from he fact that the reference picture is much more refined, as can be verified

Note, on the other hand, the corroboration in core data: oversized cranium, large eyes, pointed chin, small nose, massive eyebrow

It is my opinion, from the analysis of the whole set of images available, that the creature might possibly be piloting the craft

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by funkster4

Originally posted by glowdog

sounds interesting. do you have any non "controversial" images that demonstrates its use?

Hi...

I would assume you will find easily such images by Googling any combination of PTM / Tom Malbenzer / HP Team / Anthykythera Mechanism.(PTM was used to solve this 50 year-old archeological mistery)

Let me know if you have difficulties...

reply to post by funkster4


honestly...
what you are "seeing" is pareidolia at its best. please explain how it is not.

reply to post by funkster4


Can you post the .PTM file?

Originally posted by funkster4

It is my opinion, from the analysis of the whole set of images available, that the creature might possibly be piloting the craft

So it's not 3 different aliens performing an abduction surgery on some bloke? Geez, now I'm really confused...

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by funkster4

It is my opinion, from the analysis of the whole set of images available, that the creature might possibly be piloting the craft

So it's not 3 different aliens performing an abduction surgery on some bloke? Geez, now I'm really confused...

I can't tell you, I did not work on that specific image...

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by funkster4

It is my opinion, from the analysis of the whole set of images available, that the creature might possibly be piloting the craft

So it's not 3 different aliens performing an abduction surgery on some bloke? Geez, now I'm really confused...

of course not, that would be silly.

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by funkster4

 

Can you post the .PTM file?

I do not use the PTM software, since I design this independantly: but I have the complete file of the iterations from source image to final results, that I can make available to you (just explain to me how to do it: I am not computer friendly) It is the equivalent to the classic PTM file, since it contains all the derived iterations that are used for interpolation.

It's just hard to tell whose image analysis is correct.

funkster4 if you could post the .PTM file it might help clear this up. Afterall, this is very probably the first authentic picture of an EBE, this is huge!!! You're going to be famous!

Originally posted by funkster4

I was working on an image processing methodology now scientifically recognized and called Polynomial Texture Mapping

I do not use the PTM software, since I design this independantly

I am not computer friendly

Thanks, that's all I needed to know!

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by funkster4

 

honestly...
what you are "seeing" is pareidolia at its best. please explain how it is not.

...I explained the reason why I chose to work on a clip, and not a single picture...

reply to post by funkster4

-the "ring argument" I had never heard of and is interesting. It should be possible, I think to verify if the explanation is valid by checking consummers' websites or magazines, to determine the frequency of such occurences. I would think that if the phenomenon is statisticaly significant, it has already been adressed in forums, and possibly by the manufacturers themselves. In that case, which is probable, we shall have stats to calculate the odds that it could happen, under the conditions (which have been verified) under which the film was taken

yes but first we need the stats on how well your image processing works on discovering aliens. since this is very probably the first, you will need a larger sample size demonstrating the accuracy of your process. That is, once we confirm that this image is of an alien and not due to pareidolia.

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by funkster4

I was working on an image processing methodology now scientifically recognized and called Polynomial Texture Mapping

I do not use the PTM software, since I design this independantly

I am not computer friendly

Thanks, that's all I needed to know!

Really?

I can't say I am surprised, for some reason, that you could make an assesment of what is shown here whithout looking at a single file or even asking a single question about the modalities that I use, or that you could think that people who are not computer friendly (I am of the book generation) have no capacity for reasoning...

That's quite interesting that you could form an opinion so quickly

Originally posted by funkster4

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by funkster4

 

honestly...
what you are "seeing" is pareidolia at its best. please explain how it is not.

...I explained the reason why I chose to work on a clip, and not a single picture...

-working on a clip has the tremendous advantage of allowing for corroboration of data: it can always be argued by critics that any specific image in a photo is a randomly generated illusion. It is much more difficult to put forward such an argument when the alledged optical illusion can be found in succesive frames of the same film, moving coherently.

Do you have anything backing up this assertion? an illusion is an illusion what difference does it make if its a clip that generates the illusion?

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by funkster4

 

-the "ring argument" I had never heard of and is interesting. It should be possible, I think to verify if the explanation is valid by checking consummers' websites or magazines, to determine the frequency of such occurences. I would think that if the phenomenon is statisticaly significant, it has already been adressed in forums, and possibly by the manufacturers themselves. In that case, which is probable, we shall have stats to calculate the odds that it could happen, under the conditions (which have been verified) under which the film was taken

yes but first we need the stats on how well your image processing works on discovering aliens. since this is very probably the first, you will need a larger sample size demonstrating the accuracy of your process. That is, once we confirm that this image is of an alien and not due to pareidolia.

edit on 24-8-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

The methodology works: please just Google it, as I requested you do. It has been used to solve the Anthykythera Mechanism riddle. It is used as an operational tool today, and considerd a game changer in image processing. You can go and find several technical papers (including pictures showing how the interpolation of derivations from an identical source set actually brings tremendous enhancement) about it.

The fact that it shows alien creatures when applied to the Kumburgaz clip has nothing to do with the validity of the process...