World exclusive! most significant and undeniable ufo videos of all time that also cover aliens

Okay, for the hundreth time THE SUN IS NOT A NEWSPAPER! It is a tabloid. Do you take the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer seriously?

On another note, these scientists work for a UFO researh group right? Correct me if I'm wrong. I will be waiting for an independent analysis from people who don't have an interest in this being genuine.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by drock905]

To be fair The Sun was simply republishing a story that had been published elsewhere before hand. And while a UFO group were the ones who originally studied the film it was later given over to an independent research group in Turkey who were originally skeptical of the film. However, they have not addressed some inconsistencies that were present in the shortened version released to the public. So, either these are explained in the full film or they were overlooked.

Originally posted by Phage
Hoax, and a very bad one. The shots, in order:

1. A satellite, probably ISS
   
2. No background, no point of reference. "It's moving fast". OK, I believe him, don't you?
   
3. Satellite, probably ISS
   
4. No background, no point of reference. While zooming out we hear "it's moving away". It's an object alright, but not a UFO
   
5. Looks like a star. Altair and Capella are candidates.
   
6. Offshore oil platform
   
7. No background, no frame of reference, same "thing on a string" we saw before
   
8. Oil platform
   
9. Couldn't watch anymore
   

[edit on 10-10-2008 by Phage]

Oh come on Phage, I've seen you put some good posts on ATS. Now this post of yours is being quoted on multiple threads. There are absolutly no satellite images on the film.

I know some ATS members have some telescope or camera equipment. Go out and take some video of some satellites going over head just before dawn and post the photos in a new Stock Footage section so we can refer to it as needed. It will be a light passing at a steady speed with no changes in direction. And probably no shape details unless a very powerful lens is used.

The new generation IV night vision cameras may make video from a telescope available for the first time. Current cameras still require time lapse and motorized following to get an image while mounted to a telescope. I'll see what I can do to get a scope here in Sarasota.

I'm still undecided on this one. While the Turkey lab results are significant I would like to see a study done by another university. I'm wondering what the light source is. A lot could be learned if there was a visible moon and the lighting angles are correct for the time the film was taken.

Thumbs up on finding the Sun story. Skeptics With Scopes could make ATS a force to reckon with when the Armada hits the fan.

Originally posted by drock905
Okay, for the hundreth time THE SUN IS NOT A NEWSPAPER! It is a tabloid. Do you take the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer seriously?

On another note, these scientists work for a UFO researh group right? Correct me if I'm wrong. I will be waiting for an independent analysis from people who don't have an interest in this being genuine.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by drock905]

Im sorry but could you please read what I posted before jumping the gun.

No, the second report was done by completely mainstream scientists and in the National Observatory of Turkey, an official and respected institution with NO affiliation with any kind of UFO or questionable studies. They are a professional observatory of mainstream science.

The FIRST evaluation was done the the UFO group and the mainstream scientists called it "hoax", they were then publically challenged to verify the claim at which time the insisted the footage be examined at the Turkish National Observatory to disprove validity.

In the end the validty was CONFIRMED. This is genuine footage confirmed even by a national space science institution.

The good thing about it being on The Sun is that the story gets national exposure, it will be revealed at a UK UFO seminar later this week and hopefully this will lead to another independant evaluation by a UK based science institution, if it passes that one also it will be undeniable proof of unknown phenomenon at the very least.

While this might not give us all the answers it will at least give us something very rare in this day an age, a good clear piece of footage which isnt open to the cries of "hoax, hoax" every two minutes.

The more validated genuine footage we can get the more people can focus on trying to identify and qualify the objects instead of whether its real.
Its a big step forward really.



[edit on 21-10-2008 by silver6ix]

[edit on 21-10-2008 by silver6ix]

reply to post by free-energy



There are apparently different versions of the video. I am referring to the one in the OP.

Please check the :26 mark and the 2:10 mark. Both are satellite passes. The timing for both (verified on heavens-above) confirms them as the ISS (there is a 13 minute offset, consistent in both shots).

Oops, I only saw the Sun posted video when I made the above post. The original post on this thread has more things spliced in over a period of time. I don't know what they all are but a post of known ISS footage for comparison would be better evidence.

I'll subscribe to this thread and see what I can put together.

Edited to add: I too am learning more about how hoaxing is done.

To give the benefit of a doubt the Turkish guys might have got something significant in the mix while they were taking pictures of every strange light in the area. Their income level may be restrictive to doing more investigating on their own.

This kind of loose video really makes me appreciate the hard work that Richard Hoagland and others do to bring good evidence to the table. ATSing can be hard work.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by free-energy]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by free-energy

 

There are apparently different versions of the video. I am referring to the one in the OP.

Please check the :26 mark and the 2:10 mark. Both are satellite passes. The timing for both (verified on heavens-above) confirms them as the ISS (there is a 13 minute offset, consistent in both shots).

What do you make of the main image, the close up image which is definately not a satellite?

Even you have to admit since its not cgi, faked, mockup or model of any kind, that its a very interesting film deserving of good consideration and further effort to identify the object seen.

The footage images of the object which visibly have a certain configuration are not computer animations, special video effects or studio re-created images or models. The footage is genuine…

from TUG- National Observatory Image Processing Unit.

The big question for me is, WHAT NEXT? If one laboratory comes to
an extraordinary conclusion, do other countries join in to collaborate
the findings? If the Turkey lab is considered to be a legitimate one
by the global scientific community, this would be the next step,
wouldn't it? -cwm

Originally posted by carewemust
The big question for me is, WHAT NEXT? If one laboratory comes to
an extraordinary conclusion, do other countries join in to collaborate
the findings? If the Turkey lab is considered to be a legitimate one
by the global scientific community, this would be the next step,
wouldn't it? -cwm

The TUBITAK Observatory is a Government run institution so in the scientific world it is a credible and serious Observatory, not any kind of questionable outfit. Its run by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey, which is the countries science body. Very credible and respected people in mainstream science.

Given the stigma UFO study has its going to take more though so id personally like to see one of the British insitutions rise to the challenge and do an analysis also. If that happened then the tape would no longer be disputable even to mainstream science for credibility and the questions of "What is it" could then be asked seriously.


It would be a huge step forward to finally have a clear film like that which could withstand the analysis of mainstream science and come out unscathed.

In all fairness mainstream science is quick enough to shoot of silly comments about UFO footage so I think they owe this tape a little respect and should rise to the challenge for once in their lives. I think they owe the study of UFOs that much for all the stigma they have tossed out over the years, fairs fair after all.

The tape is currently with a UK magazine for a show this week. Maybe everyone should email them and suggest that they push this tape and try get one of the UK Institutes to stand and be counted on their science for once

www.ufodata.co.uk...

[edit on 21-10-2008 by silver6ix]

[edit on 21-10-2008 by silver6ix]

reply to post by silver6ix


Thanks for the thorough reply, silver6ix. If this video evidence is
further legitimized, it will hopefully be presented to the public in
mainstream fashion the way the recently released UK files were
publicized. i.e.
www.foxnews.com...

ABC New's Nightline TV show devoted a segment to these newly
declassified files on Monday 10/20/2008 as well.
-cwm

reply to post by silver6ix


Since you like to parse comments very carefully, allow me to do the same. The external quotes are from an english translation (provided by Sirius) of the report.Here

Subject: Image Pre-evaluation Report
Mr.Tolga Özdeniz
ATV Channel - Programme Editor

Pre-evalutaion report? What the heck does that mean?

On January 31, 2008, a MiniDV format video cassette holding 35 minutes of footage was brought over to “TUBITAK” The Science and Technology Research Board of Turkey’s (a Scientific Institution owned by the state that is highly reliable and influential) National Observatory (TUG) by Mr.Tolga Ozdeniz, the Editor of “Reporter” that has been aired on ATV Channel. The footage on the cassette was said to have been recorded by a Canon GL1 MiniDV digital camera on a beach of a holiday village in Kumburgaz/Istanbul by an amateur.

What? January 31, 2008?

The images were examined by TUG- National Observatory Image Processing Unit. Because, it would take quite a long time to analyze all of the images, only randomly selected parts were pre-examined. During this process, emphasis was not placed on images produced by optical clarification effects which a number of point light sources generated.

"Optical clarification effects"? No matter, it seems they disregarded them.

The date on the video indicates that the recordings were made during the summer of 2007

I'm confused. The dates I see on the video are 2008. It seems we are talking about different tapes after all but, on we go.

The footage images of the object which visibly have a certain configuration are not computer animations, special video effects or studio re-created images or models. The footage is genuine…

I wonder what the rest of the statement might be. Also the phrase used, "studio re-created images or models" could be read as only ruling out studio work. I never considered the possibility of this being done in a studio. If it is actually ruling out the use of a model altogether, I would be curious to know more about how they reached that conclusion.

The first observation made from the footage is that some of the images were recorded in nighttime sky at a certain altitude from the horizon. The footage also covers images of moon in some parts which proves that the video was shot in nighttime and open air. But, the fact that digital date display’s showing AM in certain frames and PM in others, raises suspicion about the validity of the time in which the recordings were made

Well, since we're not even talking about the same year, I guess the time of day doesn't really matter either.

Since in some parts, there is no other object that can be featured as a reference in the close-up frames and no observable differences were found on background examination, the actual location, distance, dimensions and nature of the objects could not have been determined.

The same applies to "our" video. Might I add that no absolute motion can be determined either.

Through the examination of shootings of multiple dates, it’s a strong possibility that 2-3 different objects were captured. However, it’s difficult to determine whether the objects are moving or not. Their movement is slow even if they do so.

Why does different dates imply different objects? Also, as I said, there doesn't seem to be any way to determine any absolute motion.

The reflections of light on the objects are sometimes caused by moon which was in a convenient location at that time, and sometimes produced by some other sources of light…

Again, an incomplete statement. Perhaps the the complete statement furnishes more information but one has to wonder. Without knowing the size or location of the object there is really no way to determine it but, again judging from the video which we are talking about, it would seem to be a fairly strong light source. The light also seems to be from a point source.

The light reflection from the left side of the object which is seen on August 10th shootings is not produced by the moon. At that time, the moon was in a phase that was pretty close to the “new moon” phase and located approximately at a 10 degrees proximity/angle to the horizon. Moreover, the image processing analysis conducted on some part of the footage revealed that the center of the object has the same density as its background, namely is of a transparent nature.

Can't really comment. No August 10th "shooting".

Before I change my opinion that it is a model I would like to know a bit more about the report. The date discrepancy and the incomplete statements would be a good start.


Edit: I see the report is actually dealing with video taken the prior year. Interesting the thing shows up a year later. Should be quite a crowd on hand next summer vacation.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


The date discrepancy was due to the fact that several shootings of several incidents were examined, we have only the most startling clip. The clip they watched was 35 minutes from two hours of footage.

The translation is rough because its from Turkish and probably translated by someone who isnt professional, its hard to translate sometimes things are taken as they are said and the reading gets scrappy.

Whats important is the conclusions, it wasnt a mockup or CGI, and it was only classifiable as UFO.

Remeber this is a mainstream lab and they would have grudgingly given it a clean bill of health. Obviously yes more work can be done but I think if they believed it in any way to be fake they would have clearly said so since that was their agenda.

They didnt want to be giving a UFO video a rating of genuine footage so like any mainstream science report they were very grudging in their praise. Its a major success because they wanted to rip it to shreds and if they could have, they would have.

In fairness the film has a lot of credibility now that many films lack and it would nice to see that taken a step further and for some other organisation to look and it in more depth and see if they can suggest otherwise.

As for the thing showing up a year later, it didnt.

The orginal film was passed to the first group, the Sirius group who spent I believe eight weeks studying it frame by frame before announcing it on Turkish TV. At that time the scientists who hadnt seen it laughed and called it a hoax and the person who did the original analysis challegned them on TV to test it in any lab of their choice.

They demanded it was tested in the National Laboratory Lab because its the most credible one in Turkey, and they believed at that time it would be proven a hoax.

So the result was eating a little humble pie on national TV so yes, they were gruding. This film is going through a process of legitimacy right now and now continues into the UK field where hopefully it will finally be met with a serious response.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Nice find Phage, as noted in the report the object doesn't seem to move at all, this is what set the alarm bells off for me right at the start. I find it hard to believe something filmed over so many days at different times doesn't even change angles, the only logical explanation is that it must be a fixed object, firmly secured to the ground OR a prop of some sorts. I'd go for the latter personally but it sure as hell ain't flying.

reply to post by Phage


I was just looking at the Sun version and it does say 2008 which is odd. The original film was evaluated back in January.

Maybe this person is shooting something which appears regularly. I think the soltuion would be to email the person an ask why that is and why the footage dates are different.

Im just comparing the two and its the same object but not the same footage. Similar but not the same.

Id very much like to know though how hes getting footage of it so regularly, unless theres a test range near him and its some form of prototype plane.

Just for last reference the timeframe points were very valid, Phage.

I actually emailed the guy to see how they were managing to film this over two years and month after month and why nobody else was invited to film it for verification. That does seem suspicious. It could be a date error, maybe when the footage was passed to the UK site, I hope so at least.
[edit on 21-10-2008 by silver6ix]

[edit on 21-10-2008 by silver6ix]

I'm going to play both sides of the fence on this one.

It could be anything from an extremely well constructed hoax, to a secret government project that we won't find out about for another 20 years, to actual video evidence of extraterestial life.

Two more points I would like to make...
1. This could be nothing more than a trial run for project blue beam.
2. There are also some people on this planet who's minds just can not and will not accept the fact that we are not alone, even if a U.F.O. landed on the front lawn of the white house, on national T.V. and aliens held a press confrence.

The more important question that you should asking yourselves is, do you actually need a video to prove to you that we are not alone, that we have been and are being visited by intelligences higher than our own?

reply to post by silver6ix


A craft that returns regularly would be filmed by all manner of
people and organizations.. even if it does only show-up late nights.
I would love to believe that indisputable video evidence is now
on hand, but there's something fishy going on here.

reply to post by carewemust


Im inclined to agree. The dates do need an explanation. Its possible this was grabbed by another cam, or its possible something else is going on here.

I did email the person to ask, hopefully they can clear that up satisfactorily.

reply to post by silver6ix


In trying to determine the date of the report (more on why later) I checked the Turkish (if that's what language it is) copy. I don't speak Turkish and the layout of the report seems odd to my eyes but I notice something that appears strange. On the upper right corner is what appears to be at date. Actually, it is quite obviously a date and that date is January 31, 2008. The report was issued the very day the tape was submitted. Just an interesting piece of information.

Now, the report was issued January 31, 2008, apparently giving the 2007 tape a status of "true ufo" (I'm not buying it yet). Would it be too cynical to think something like this may have transpired? "Hey, Yalcin! They bought it! What say you do another one this summer?"

I could (grudgingly) concede a very slight chance of this being an experimental craft but the cheesy "aliens" in the 2007 version really kills that possiblity (for me). Unless it's an UMV and someone was joking around.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by Phage]

[edit on 21-10-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Ok here an update.

Yes, the 2008 footage is NEW footage by the same person who works as a night guard in the place they were shot.

Im not sure what to make of that. The new footage is better you can see some foreground shots and where hes filming from. I suppose it would have to be some kind of military test plane, a varient of the stealth technology possibly thats all I can think of.


[edit on 21-10-2008 by silver6ix]

[edit on 21-10-2008 by silver6ix]

those are all weather balloons i really dont see anything impresive about that.