The 2008 Turkey "UFO" is NOT a UFO

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
... I'm making this thread to document evidence that it's NOT a UFO.

You're making this thread to build backlinks to your website so you drive more traffic to it and get higher Google page rankings on a topic no one discusses anymore.

a reply to: Dimensionalcowboy

Exactly, recall seeing the debunk at the time.

Arby, I know you rebutted this but it really seems to me to be a cast iron explanation.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

But how do the screen shots definitively show that the craft hadn't at all moved in a year? Couldn't it just as easily be that there is something of interest at that location over the water, and the UFO comes back to that spot periodically. I'm not saying I know that, but I don't see how you can KNOW that this video implies/shows the object never once moved from that spot, even when this dude wasn't there to film it?

I don't know what this is AT ALL, just trying to understand if you have more info on this case than I have? Has dude said that the craft is always there (and nobody but him ever goes that that spot to see it)? If one wanted their sighting to be respected, that would be a pretty stupid thing to say out loud. But I don't think he has said that, at least not from my memory reading through all the UFO believer/debunking theories on this case.

a reply to: aairman23
Interesting, I started a thread about this video earlier in the day then Arb puts another out to make a point. Arb, your points and comments are well taken. This has been considered a seminal video because of the two objects inside and became of dr roger leir.

I did so because the detail of the two objects matched the frontal and cranial anatomy of a specimen in 1988 working with MiTRE and the DIA.

I just thought it interesting that ET has a window or viewing portal as part of craft. I don’t know why that would be a good idea but maybe translucent materials are built in the design. Never really saw a window on a ship before. Kind of made me think it was bs. Otherwise, this could be a cruise ship for all I know.

the problem is it My understanding is this was captured in the presence of Dr Rodger Leir, who those in the know, knows what has ascertained. Was he set up ? Well, I don’t think it’s pareidolia. Isn’t it interesting when you go to Wikipedia for word recognition and the face on Mars is the picture as the great example

lmao

Arb, you still looking for some good videos on triangles (I won’t call them TR3-B’s. That was surely a misnomer )🤠👽? I
youtu.be...

Wow blast from the past. I remember this. We were two weeks in Bodrum in 2008 with my girlfriend as we wanted to see Halicarnassus and Uluburun shipwreck. One day we were in some restaurant and there was a turkish newspaper on the table with that pic from op and UFO on the headline. It bothered me a long time as I wondered what was it about.

B) can you name any other species on earth that have the ability to make fire or build houses? Submarines, aeroplanes, quantum computers etc…..this is probably quite a good physical form in the grand scheme of things…

A) don’t we build shiny ‘craft’ ?? Cars, planes etc……I do agree they may not be of this dimension, but maybe ‘they’ve’ figured out how to transcend it……we are still in the baby phase of development about who we are and what we know……

/

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
I just find it rather comical that virtually all of the alleged UFO and alien sighting claimants allege:

a.) There was a spaceage metallic craft with aliens "inside" of it

b.) The aliens had a head, a torso, two arms and two legs (gee, just like humans)

It's a pretty safe bet that if there are UFO's and aliens they don't come from your solar system. Therefore, the chances of them being in some type of a metallic craft are almost zero. That it would even be a physical craft at all is pretty unlikely. Probably more likely would be some form of an energy envelope of some kind.

Then there's ET himself. The chances that an alien would have a human like form is next to impossible. First of all, the human form is not well adapted for space travel. Humans are beings adapted to living on a planet with gravity, water and air. Why would ET need legs or arms...or a torso, or a head? Why would ET even need to be "alive" by your definition of the word? He too might just be some energy source, and have the appearance of a blob or an amoeba, easily able to reconstruct itself at some distant location.

You humans are pretty silly to think ET's and UFO's would be similar to you.

Silly humans! LOL!

originally posted by: easynow
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You can't prove the dates are real, changing the date on a camera is easy.

If it's a hoax, the entire thing may have been hoaxed.

There were other witnesses, so to the extent you can believe those people we have other people commenting on things like the dates, saying the dates were more or less correct except the photographer apparently didn't understand the difference between AM and PM and so he could be up to 12 hours off from that misunderstanding. Others have questioned things like daylight savings time so that's up to 13 hours his times could be off which creates some issues trying to research possibilities. I'm not saying some other people couldn't be in on the hoax too, but that makes it less likely, since he's have to also have co-conspirators lying too.

If Blue Shift's hypothesis correct, and it's the best explanation I've seen so far (for the images in the opening post), I suppose it would be sort of an unintentional hoax, due to the photographer's inability to figure out what he was photographing was much closer than he thought.

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: Dimensionalcowboy

Exactly, recall seeing the debunk at the time.

Arby, I know you rebutted this but it really seems to me to be a cast iron explanation.

So did you try to look for where the "UFO" droops down more on the right side than the bridge of the cruise ship, to see that curve doesn't match? To me that's self-debunking, I don't need much more than that. But if you want more, I also think the lighting is not right.

Cruise ships don't have lighting like that. Here's what a cruise ship lighting looks like, do you think his "UFO" looks anything like this? (Note the GIF uses a daytime photo of the cruise ship instead of night time, since I think it would be impossible to find a nighttime photo of a cruise ship looking like that.)



If you can find a photo of a cruise ship at night looking anything like the photo you think is a cruise ship, I'd love to see it, but I'm betting you can't. So the fact that cruise ships at night don't look like that is a nail in the coffin to me, for the gif showing it's a cruise ship.

Someone made a web page with a whole list of other reasons it can't be a cruise ship, but I'm only relying on the two preceding arguments to say it's not. Some of the other arguments may be valid, but I didn't try to verify them because I don't think it's necessary.

For example, cruise ships aren't going around on secret missions like some military craft can sometimes do. Cruise ships are tracked at all times so if you have the date, time, location, and direction of his video, you can check to see if any cruise ships were in that area. Someone claims to have done that, but, I haven't tried to verify it because I think my other evidence is already convincing. But if you want to consider the other claims about why it's not a cruise ship, here they are:

New Evidence Suggests The Turkey UFO Was Not A Cruise Ship Or Yacht
This is a summary of the eight points at that link. I'm agreeing specifically with #6 here with my example photo above:

1. Triangulation shows the unknown object was too high above the horizon to be a ship or yacht.

2. Alcione incorrectly labeled the cruise ship marina's location.

3. AIS ship traffic reports do not list a cruise ship in the area.

4. No eyewitnesses can confirm seeing a cruise ship in the area at the time of the sightings.

5. Alcione only compared one frame from May 13, 2009, but 23 different video segments from 2007, 2008, and most of 2009 are not similar to the cruise ship photo.

6. Cruise ships have a lot of lights at night not seen in the Turkey video.

7. Some of the UFOs were filmed above land areas.

8. Instances of light ball phenomenon are too high above the horizon to be cruise ship.

Again I'm referring here specifically to the image in that GIF, which I think Blue Shift's guess about what it is is a much better guess. Regarding some of the other photos the photographer made that show distant lights, there are numerous possible explanations for those, and they also don't appear to be flying, they never fly away for example.

originally posted by: aairman23
a reply to: Arbitrageur

But how do the screen shots definitively show that the craft hadn't at all moved in a year?

That's just icing on the cake. The fact is, none of the individual videos ever show the object flying away, so I don't see why anybody would think they are flying. The shaking motion in some videos is camera shake because he's not holding the camera steady, the things are not flying around, even in the individual videos.

So if you watch the individual videos you should already have concluded you see no evidence of flying, then the fact it also doesn't change over time is additional evidence of that.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok not exact but this was just one of the first images on a google search.



However fair enough, you have obviously spent a lot more time looking into this than me so accept your conclusion as the most likely.

If I was too early to accept a specific debunk explanation I think part of that was because I don't find any of the pics or videos from these Turkey sightings to be particularly significant but good luck positively identifying.

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok not exact but this was just one of the first images on a google search.

That's a perfectly fine example of a cruise ship at night.

I took the image people say convinced them it's a cruise ship and put it on top in the comparison below.
I then cropped your image to show how many more lights a cruise ship would have. in the image below that.
Based on your own sample of a cruise ship, do you still think it could be a cruise ship?
"Not exact" is not how I would describe it, I'd say "not even close" or "complete mismatch" based on the lights (The angle is slightly different so the geometry imperfections can be disregarded, focus on the lighting.

However fair enough, you have obviously spent a lot more time looking into this than me so accept your conclusion as the most likely.

If I was too early to accept a specific debunk explanation I think part of that was because I don't find any of the pics or videos from these Turkey sightings to be particularly significant but good luck positively identifying.

I suppose we are in agreement that this case is not "particularly significant" as you put it.

If the photographer ever figured out what he was doing wrong, I don't think he would have admitted it, because of too much egg on his face.

Little micky
'what U gonna do'
when my man Sander
drops, the S4 hanger doors
up close
like
so Up Close & personal
You & ya Bunky m8s
Gonna be needin
smelling salts, real real soon

As an afterthought
As, it's so pitifully obvious, simply NAME PLEASE..
the cruise liner, to which you refer
Can't Be Difficult
Can it?
Seeing as 'not allowed in/on your little Glee Club
Your lot? Still in denial?
Gravitational RedShift
Pathetic 💋

Keep in mind Paxus that this object was never filmed arriving or leaving. It was always filmed in a stationary position along the horizon line; right where a ship would be... It was originally filmed in 2007 in many short clips over the course of a month. More footage was captured in 2008. Then, in 2009, Roger Leir went to the same area and filmed essentially the same thing. Always along the horizon line. Always exactly where a ship would be.

The video also isn't accurate regarding the analysis.

At about 1:03 in the video linked from the OP the following statement is made:

"The footage has been analyzed by members of TUBITAK, the scientific institute of Istanbul. Their objective was to debunk the entire case..."

"... and yet they concluded that every aspect of the footage was in fact, genuine."

That sure sounds official, doesn't it? What did TUBITAK actually say? That it wasn't digitally manipulated. But this statement only applied to the 2007 footage, not the footage in 2008 or 2009.
The video from the OP is attempting to represent that TUBITAK analyzed all of the footage. To me, that is dishonest

originally posted by: jannies
The video from the OP is attempting to represent that TUBITAK analyzed all of the footage. To me, that is dishonest

I wrote the OP and I could say it's dishonest of you to complain about the video in the OP when I didn't post any video in the OP, though I'll cut you some slack and say you got your wires crossed instead. There's no embedded video, and there are two links.

The first link in the OP goes to post number 246932 on metabunk from various times spanning a year showing no change in the position of the alleged "UFO" over a year. From that post I referred to three screenshots. I didn't link to any specific video in the OP, this is what I said in the OP about the metabunk link, it was the source for the three screenshots:

"Someone on metabunk pointed out that whatever it was didn't move for almost a year, which is not a feature of a flying object or UFO. Here are screenshots showing the same object not moving, with the dates months apart, very nearly an entire year from the first to the last image:"

So you were supposed to look at the three screenshots. If you went beyond that and looked at some video in some other post that I didn't link to in the OP, well you can do that, but don't say the OP represented anything about any video, because it didn't. That would be dishonest of you.

The second link goes to an ATS thread, to give credit to Blue Shift for his hypothesis about the source of the alleged "UFO" and or "aliens". Again I didn't refer to any video at that link, though there may be videos there that aren't related to the OP of this thread...I linked to a specific post in that thread.

Finally in the last paragraph I made a vague reference to some unspecified video on youtube claiming the Turkey videos show aliens, and explained why it doesn't. But again I didn't specify any specific video, so I have no idea what video you're talking about that the OP supposedly referred to when you say: "At about 1:03 in the video linked from the OP the following statement is made". There is no video specifically linked from the OP! There are links to specific posts in other threads, which also don't have videos in those posts.

The linked threads have videos in non-referenced posts, but it's wrong of you to claim those were linked in the OP, I didn't link to entire threads, just specific posts in other threads.

Beyond that, your post seems like a "red herring" to me, because who cares about what Tubitak says about manipulation in whatever video you found somewhere and I have no idea what video you're talking about? The OP didn't challenge whether the video was digitally manipulated or faked in any other way, that's not even the topic. I assumed the footage is "genuine" and not manipulated, but represents probably what Blue Shift thinks it does, some misalignment of the photographic magnification contraption used by the photographer before he got a good telephoto lens, and not any UFO. According to Blue Shift, once the photographer got some upgraded equipment, the alignment problem went away and the alleged "UFO" was no longer there. At least that's the best hypothesis I've seen for the three images in those three screenshots I copied in the OP.

if likkle Micky says so, it must be fact!
Cruise Liner (rofl) Dandelion Seed Pod (rofl) Refracted light pon Spiders Web (rofl)
And for the Lateral Thinkers, Mr Chris Lehto.
Got, just a tad, just a smidgeon, of Real Credability has 'our Christopher'
youtu.be...