Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ATS Exclusive - Turkey UFO Incident - New Details - A Fresh Look At The Kumburgaz Case 2007 to 2009

page: 10
133
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by CigaretteMan
 


This is one of those too good to be true cases if it's the one I'm thinking about but it just might be genuine as about 10% of all reported sightings are. Flagging for later...Thanks! S&F




posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I think this thread has gone better than the previous threads on this case. I hope this thread can remain as the main thread to discuss this case. For some reason all other threads on this case were derailed.

I am hoping someone can contribute their research into this.

Please share your research.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by CigaretteMan
Please share your research.

Please share the "Original video file copies obtained which are 400 to 500MB. "



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Some points regarding the TUBITAK "analysis", actually a "pre-evaluation report."

Notice that the report says the tape was received on January 31, 2008. Notice that the date of the report is January 31, 2008. TUBITAK received the tape and issued the report on the same day (New Year's Eve). They barely had a chance to look at it unless they had nothing else to do.

The tape that was subjected to the pre-evaluation was date stamped for the summer of 2007. A year and a half before being submitted to TUBITAK.

If this is just a preliminary ("pre-evaluation") report, where is the final report? In any case I see only two thing of interest in the report. The truncated translation says that the tape is not CGI (I would agree with that). It also says the tape was not made in a studio. It says nothing else which bears on its authenticity.

edit on 3/21/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Phage
Some points regarding the TUBITAK "analysis", actually a "pre-evaluation report."

Notice that the report says the tape was received on January 31, 2008. Notice that the date of the report is January 31, 2008. TUBITAK received the tape and issued the report on the same day (New Year's Eve).

Does the new year start in February 1 in Turkey?



The tape that was subjected to the pre-evaluation was date stamped for the summer of 2007. A year and a half before being submitted to TUBITAK.

It looks like you are mixing your months. From the summer of 2007 to January 2008 it's half an year, not one year and a half.


If this is just a preliminary ("pre-evaluation") report, where is the final report? In any case I see only two thing of interest in the report. The truncated translation says that the tape is not CGI (I would agree with that). It also says the tape was not made in a studio. It says nothing else which bears on its authenticity.

With that I agree.




As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Does the new year start in February 1 in Turkey?
Of course it does. Just like Chinese New Year, Turkish New Year is a moving target.


It looks like you are mixing your months.
Among other things. I have no idea where I came up with those goofs.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Does the new year start in February 1 in Turkey?
Of course it does. Just like Chinese New Year, Turkish New Year is a moving target.


It looks like you are mixing your months.
Among other things. I have no idea where I came up with those goofs.


You are really working hard to find anything. Anything you can complain about. And after your desperate search this is all you can find? LOL. Why have you not been able to debunk this case?

Usually when a case goes through the scrutiny and remains standing it ends up meaning that there is a good chance the case is REAL.

Here is one example: There is no report anywhere stating the the Turkey UFO was a yacht or a hoax.

edit on 21-3-2013 by CigaretteMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CigaretteMan
 

I pointed out that the TUBITAK pre-evaluation report really says nothing. In fact, it says that the video is pretty much useless for any serious analysis and I agree.


Why have you not been able to debunk this case?
I guess that would depend on what you would classify a debunk. I think there are several different objects seen, not the same object. The first video, back in 2008, featured several shots of the ISS in addition to the offshore mirage effects and whatever that "zoomed in" and oddly illuminated object is. I think it's a model.

In spite of your claim, there is nothing new. Nothing that hasn't been discussed since way back when.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 3/21/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevenaugust
Please share the "Original video file copies obtained which are 400 to 500MB. "


Still no original videos?

All we're getting is stupid pictures with no context, why is the OP obsfucating?



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by CigaretteMan
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread932761/pg7#pid16080737]post by ZetaRediculian[/

...... I am preparing several more posts that will show the object moving.

This will finally put to bed the argument that the object doesn't move. It does

stay tuned



I tuned out. But it looks like nothing was put to bed. Did you prepare these posts but forget to post them?

It doesn't fly and it doesn't move. The only thing it really does is look odd and ambiguous. There is really nothing to discuss here.

Soooo.... How's the weather where you are? It's cold here still. Can't wait for spring.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CigaretteMan
I am hoping someone can contribute their research into this.

Please share your research.



Originally posted by CigaretteMan
You are really working hard to find anything. Anything you can complain about. And after your desperate search this is all you can find? LOL. Why have you not been able to debunk this case?


Ahh so that's how it's going to be then eh?
All research showing anything other than cartoon drawings of alien insects is immediately disregarded and thrown out. Well then CigaretteMan you are in luck because I have the ultimate UFO analysis for you my friend. Multiple levels of zooming jpg artifacts, pareidolia, the emboss filter!, it's all here man.








posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by CigaretteMan
 


After reading all the 10 pages, let me join the debate:

1. Day object is different from Night objects. I'd like to comment on the night things;
2. No one so far noticed two things about the 'night' ufo thing?
A. It's always like the ufo's shapes are "cropped" at their bottom half. The cropping effect is consistently similar in all films;

B. Again the Ufo shape is persistently not simetrical through out all shootings. Its centre is to the left

3. Finally, he seems to be too sucessfull zooming in the ufo at night. He is far less sucessful zooming in the lights when it's daytime. It should be the opposite unless the night ufo is much closer, or it's a model..

Good thread. For me the night ufo is a model. Actually, I believe it's a picture of something cut, glued maybe on a black cardboard paper, and then filmed.

edit on 23-3-2013 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Hi wmd,
Since you are the specialist, would mind verifying what I suggested on the previous post?
What do you think?



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Very nice topic! I don't have time to read for a few days, but this is definitely one sighting that deserves to be constantly debated.

Posting mainly so I don't lose track of this!



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JackofBlades
 


I'm not sure why this deserves to be constantly debated. The only fascination I have with this case is why people think this case is all that. To me it looks like an obvious hoax. Just because people can't figure out exactly what it is, doesn't make it something else. It's like going to a magic show and thinking that the magician has magical powers because we can't figure out exactly how he did his tricks.

Behold David Blaine.... But really look at the way people react. . They really believe he can levitate!


@4:35 "I read up on this stuff" wow
edit on 23-3-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordAdef
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Hi wmd,
Since you are the specialist, would mind verifying what I suggested on the previous post?
What do you think?


Hi I am not a specialist just a guy who has done photography as a hobby for 30+ years but as a clue to what I think



or even better this



I am not the only one on here that thinks along those lines many others here such as Phage , Chadwickus , ArMap and others have posted links on this thread and others about this case that these things are most likely ships or smaller boats.

The Mirage effect can mean that an object over the horizon from your point of view looks to be in view that could explain the crop I suppose,remember for a person of average height standing on a beach the horizon is only 3 miles away.

What's also typical with this video and supposed ufo's filmed at night over cities is that you don't get reports from people closer to the objects probably because they can see the object above the city is an aircraft or in this case people closer to it along the cost could see a ship or boat



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


But you do really know about photography, of which my knowledge is zero.
The mirage effect is related to the lights filmed in the day. My points were mainly concerning the night object (the ship). I quote bellow my points and need your help to see if it's reasonable:

1. Day object is different from Night objects. I'd like to comment on the night things;
2. No one so far noticed two things about the 'night' ufo thing?
A. It's always like the ufo's shapes are "cropped" at their bottom half. The cropping effect is consistently similar in all films;
B. Again the Ufo shape is persistently not simetrical through out all shootings. Its centre is to the left

3. Finally, he seems to be too sucessfull zooming in the ufo at night. He is far less sucessful zooming in the lights when it's daytime. It should be the opposite unless the night ufo is much closer, or it's a model..

Good thread. For me the night ufo is a model. Actually, I believe it's a picture of something cut, glued maybe on a black cardboard paper, and then filmed.


I underlined the points I need help from you and ArMap.

edit on 23-3-2013 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


This fits in my latter point about him not zooming the full mounty in these lights as much as he did it for the night shots. Right?





new topics




 
133
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join