Kumburgaz UFO Video Still Remains Undebunked.

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
The infamaous Turkey UFO a yacht?

This is the most likely explanation I have seen on this object.

The Yacht theory has been completely ruled out and debunked.

Not a Yacht sorry!

The reality is this 'UFO' resurfaces every year, in the same location, with the sound of the sea in the background, being filmed out at sea at night.. unless the aliens love Istanbul and like to return there year in year out for their holidays, for me the obvious signs point to the top of a cruise ship being illuminated at night time.

If people want to believe that it is a UFO or a alien craft of some form that returns to the same place out at sea every year, thats absolutely fine, but in my opinion there are infinitely more likely outcomes than a Istanbul loving UFO

Originally posted by therovers
The reality is this 'UFO' resurfaces every year, in the same location, with the sound of the sea in the background, being filmed out at sea at night.. unless the aliens love Istanbul and like to return there year in year out for their holidays, for me the obvious signs point to the top of a cruise ship being illuminated at night time.

If people want to believe that it is a UFO or a alien craft of some form that returns to the same place out at sea every year, thats absolutely fine, but in my opinion there are infinitely more likely outcomes than a Istanbul loving UFO

The signs aren't obvious mate, it's not a cruise liner OR any other boat because if it was, this case wouldn't still be here and may I remind you it is still undebunked.

I am not saying it's an alien craft, yes it has appeared over the same period 2 years (I think), in a row, not sure what that means but it isn't a cruise liner. This case might be a hoax, but not a cruise liner hoax.

If I'm wrong, I'll accept defeat gracefully but I haven't been proved wrong, yet.

reply to post by CigaretteMan


Fair enough, I haven't really paid much attention.

So, what is it? Everyone's gone round and round in circles about what it looks like, but nobody can say what it is, so what's the argument?

reply to post by EsSeeEye


I have no idea hence my thread title

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


I've been going over the old thread, and I might not yet be to the big reveal that shows this isn't a boat, but so far it looks like a boat.

Anyone want to help me out as to why this isn't possible? (Not "unlikely" but "not possible")

May I ask, what is the evidence you seek to 'debunk' this?

You have been given the plausible answers embedded within known reality, that is that we know this 'UFO' has appeared in the same location everytime it has been viewed, we know this 'UFO' has appeared over the same section of ocean everytime it has been viewed, we know the 'UFO' is being filmed out at sea as we hear the sound of the waves as it is being filmed, we know this 'UFO' looks the same everytime it is filmed, we know of a cruiseliner with a top section that illuminates at night time which resembles the 'UFO' that frequents the section of ocean that ALL the sightings of the 'UFO' have been made..

What more can you ask for? The plausible answer has been provided to you yet you still mutter 'heh.. not debunked, sorry, try again!' Its been viewed in the same area of ocean multiple times over and over again over the years, and crops up every year as the ship.. sorry 'UFO' floats, sorry flies over the ocean..


The reality is, nothing will ever warrant a debunking for you.. so, I would like you to debunk my theory.

The 'UFO' is a giant china teapot that floats out at sea. It is a test by the chinese goverment to see how much tea can be contained within a pot. I want irrefutable evidence that debunks my theory. Good luck debunking!

reply to post by therovers


The point is to say "Nuh-Uh, try again" until people get exasperated enough to stop trying, they then call it a victory, wait until all the previous work has been mostly forgotten, and bring it up again as an unsolved mystery.

This cycle repeats on these boards quite a bit.

(By the way, I don't know what the object is, but there was some amazing analysis done on the previously mentioned thread, if people took the time to read it rather than flatout rejecting the ideas with extreme close-mindedness)

Yacht Thread, Page 27 Video Analysis

The earlier videos are summarily analyzed in earlier posts at the beginning of the response.

It's funny, reading through the thread again is making me even more convinced this isn't paranormal at all. Maybe others should try it.

reply to post by therovers


Complete crap mate, if there were a legitimate theory then I would accept it and had the boat debunking theory been so good this case would be dead long before now.

Originally posted by therovers
May I ask, what is the evidence you seek to 'debunk' this?

You have been given the plausible answers embedded within known reality, that is that we know this 'UFO' has appeared in the same location everytime it has been viewed, we know this 'UFO' has appeared over the same section of ocean everytime it has been viewed, we know the 'UFO' is being filmed out at sea as we hear the sound of the waves as it is being filmed, we know this 'UFO' looks the same everytime it is filmed, we know of a cruiseliner with a top section that illuminates at night time which resembles the 'UFO' that frequents the section of ocean that ALL the sightings of the 'UFO' have been made..

What more can you ask for? The plausible answer has been provided to you yet you still mutter 'heh.. not debunked, sorry, try again!' Its been viewed in the same area of ocean multiple times over and over again over the years, and crops up every year as the ship.. sorry 'UFO' floats, sorry flies over the ocean..

It's an unidentified floating object! Yew. Efff. Oh.

Im No expert, so just an observation.
If it is a reflection on the lense, internally or other wise, then why would it appear as a light (like a torch) under the picture of the moon, and then when zoomed, begins to show some detail.
Would a lens reflection be zoomed at the same time? Or would a reflection be a constant size?
Im not sure about the lights close to the sea surface, but then we dont see then complete vision...do the lights just appear? Do they float down from the sky? are they faint at a distance and then come close...some of these would definitely indicate a ship...but if we see the full vision and they float from the sky ..well???
Like the many 100s of other accounts Ive read on ATS, i have see a "Triangle" UFO fly silently 100 feet above my head.....notice I didnt mention Alien..I said UFO..
They are out there, but who or what they are, only a few seem to be privy to.
I hope they are ours.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by therovers

 

Complete crap mate, if there were a legitimate theory then I would accept it and had the boat debunking theory been so good this case would be dead long before now.

the case is dead. It's been debunked.

Originally posted by gort51
If it is a reflection on the lense, internally or other wise, then why would it appear as a light (like a torch) under the picture of the moon, and then when zoomed, begins to show some detail.

You have to look at the configuration of the equipment the guy was using when he shot the video. What he basically does is hold up a telescope to his video recorder. It's not even a matching telephoto lens. So what you get is a light when he's just shooting it through the normal lens, and when he holds up the telescope to the lens, you get an aberration from the misalignment of the lenses, further distorted by the internal workings of both the camera and the lens.

Curiously enough, when he got better equipment, the UFO with its convertible top and wonderful friendly aliens never came back. I guess they don't like to have their pictures taken by anything but crappy, cludged together junk.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by therovers

 

Complete crap mate, if there were a legitimate theory then I would accept it and had the boat debunking theory been so good this case would be dead long before now.

the case is dead. It's been debunked.

Think you'll need to drag the hoax bin over here yourself mate

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by therovers

 

Complete crap mate, if there were a legitimate theory then I would accept it and had the boat debunking theory been so good this case would be dead long before now.

the case is dead. It's been debunked.

Think you'll need to drag the hoax bin over here yourself mate

nah, I will just ignore it and your silly emoticons

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by therovers

 

Complete crap mate, if there were a legitimate theory then I would accept it and had the boat debunking theory been so good this case would be dead long before now.

the case is dead. It's been debunked.

Think you'll need to drag the hoax bin over here yourself mate

nah, I will just ignore it and your silly emoticons

Probably best thing all round really, your point has just been destroyed

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by therovers

 

Complete crap mate, if there were a legitimate theory then I would accept it and had the boat debunking theory been so good this case would be dead long before now.

the case is dead. It's been debunked.

Think you'll need to drag the hoax bin over here yourself mate

nah, I will just ignore it and your silly emoticons

Probably best thing all round really, your point has just been destroyed

Nope. You just made my point by saying my point was destroyed but your point really never made it to the point of making a point. The point is that debunking this is silly since the whole case is silly.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


I feel like a kid again for saying this, but YOUR silly

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

I feel like a kid again for saying this, but YOUR silly

The difference is I am silly on purpose.