Press Release from SIRIUS Space Research Academy of Turkey

reply to post by spikey

What is the point of the dusk/dawn comment?

Are you seriously saying that if a video of an anomalous object is shot at dusk or dawn (twilight), that it's an automatic hoax? If so, i don't understand the logic.

Not at all. I just meant that in this particular video, the segments that were filmed at dawn/dusk look to me (and many others) to be of ships on the horizon and approaching helicopters or aeroplanes. They are unlikely to be 'real' UFOs, hence the "misrepresented" comment.

The other night time footage is of a model. Of that I am 100% certain, and it boggles my mind that so many people cling to this video as proof of UFOs. It's so obvious to me that it is a model filmed against a black background. There are no clouds, there are no stars (which you'd think there might be given that there's no clouds), all movement seems to be made by the camera only not the UFO & when the "night watchman" pans the camera and you catch a glimpse of the 'Moon' it clearly isn't the Moon but a lamp.

Yes I have tried "zooming to maximum on a hand held camera" before and yes, it's gonna shake, but it's hardly impossible to stay relatively still. In this video the cameraman goes from steady to shake to steady to shake. The shaking never seems natural and appears to be done deliberately to give the illusion that the 'UFO' is moving.

It is an appalling fake, but because it's obviously not CGI and is 'solid' some people take that to mean it must be real. It's about as real as the "Millenium Falcon".

I'm not a debunker, I'm a believer and I want to see the real 'smoking gun' as much as anyone. I just hate to see people buying into these shysters' fake video flim-flammery.

These guys are enthusiasts for fireball meteor UFOs too -- a famous case from a few years back was a reentering Russian rocket stage that startled several Turkish airline pilots. For 'Sirius', it was yet more proof of alien invasion.

Two grains of salt, please.

I suggest you think for yourself instead of letting Phage do it for you.

Lets say you see a light in the sky. There are probably 20 things it could be, where alien craft is the *least* likely and perhaps a airplane is the *most* likely.

Most people will pick the most likely explanation because they think its "common sense" to pick whatever thing it is most likely to be. The problem with that is that they will always wrongly identify a real UFO as a airplane or a balloon. They also think that anyone who doesnt think it must be the most likely explanation is ignorant and stupid. Their mind is closed to the object being something other than the most likely.

Believers have real alien crafts as a possibility in their mind while non-believers do not. I will never understand why its so difficult to believe that we are being visited by other races. Most sceptics say "its impossible because of the huge distances" or something along those lines. Do you think they are using combustion engines and travel in a straight line for hundreds of thousands of years? Or what?

Even humans wont be using combustion engines maybe 50 years into the future. Imagine several thousand years into the future.


[edit on 21-3-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus

"Believers" tend to see UFOs everywhere. Even when what they are looking at is an airplane or a balloon.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

They also tend to accept hoaxes as real.



[edit on 3/21/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Copernicus

 

"Believers" tend to see UFOs everywhere. Even when what they are looking at is an airplane or a balloon.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

They also tend to accept hoaxes as real.



[edit on 3/21/2010 by Phage]

well,skeptics tend to get mundane explanations for the unexplained and they tend to catalog as hoax everything that they can't explain as well.
The problem is the ego.
Everybody wants a piece of glory.

reply to post by upnorthtrip

I can't really speak for others but yes, I first look for "mundane" explanations (and hoaxes) before jumping to the conclusion that a UFO is an extraterrestrial craft.

Most of the time it turns out that mundane explanation is correct. Often it turns out to be a hoax. But even when no explanation can be found it does not mean that the UFO must be an artifact of extraterrestrial intelligence. Sure, it's a possibility but without evidence that it really is that, that is all it is...a remote possibility.


[edit on 3/21/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
Sure, it's a possibility but without evidence that it really is that, that is all it is...a remote possibility.

You slip in your own presupposition and present it as fact.

Alas, Phage, there is no way you could possibly claim an extraterrestrial explanation for "unknowns" is a "remote possibility" by definition (that it is improbable, not based on the case parameters, but by arbitrary definitional fiat). Obviously, if you are going to suggest the extraterrestrial option is a remote possibility then the burden of proof is on you. And I predict you will fall back on fallacious arguments about the distances involved, if there even are any ET civilisations, etc.

Of course, if you take some of the better cases and weigh the case parameters involved - that is, what are people really seeing - and not merely reduce those cases to "unknowns" as if this label is supposed to be in any way an accurate "catch-all" description of what was seen, then the extraterrestrial explanation is not so "remote" at all.

reply to post by jclmavg

It is a remote possibility because there is no evidence to support it. Just as there is a remote possibility that UFOs are piloted by fairies or beings from neighboring "dimensions". No evidence, but it could be so.

Originally posted by Phage
It is a remote possibility because there is no evidence to support it. Just as there is a remote possibility that UFOs are piloted by fairies or beings from neighboring "dimensions". No evidence, but it could be so.

This is just predictable fallacious reasoning, Phage. Obviously there is some evidence which fits the ETH, otherwise it would never cross people's minds in the first place. There are aspects of some UFO sightings which are very suggestive of operated, manufactured craft with extraordinary performance characteristics. Need I go on?

Now, you might feel the quality of the evidence is lacking, and no doubt the evidence is surely not conclusive but that is not the same as arguing that there "is no evidence to support it" for this would make you no different from a pseudoskeptic such as Phil Klass who argued in a similar fashion.

All the more fallacious is it to suggest the ETH option is as probable as UFOs piloted by fairies, etc. Such explanations are far less attractive or even impossible from a scientific point of view. In short, they are not just as "remote" a possibility as the ETH. They are not grounded in reality and experience. Extraterrestrial (advanced) life is a serious scientific possibility. Humanity itself is an example of the viability of the hypothesis. Yet you seem to be arguing Bozo the Clown or Santa Claus could be just as well piloting UFOs. *laughs* In reality this is merely an indicator of your own bias and presuppositions than it is a reliable indicator of the likelihood of some UFOs being of extraterrestrial origin.

reply to post by jclmavg

Sightings alone do not constitute evidence because people are extremely prone to misinterpret what the eye actually sees. People tend to "fill in the blanks", unintentionally and otherwise. A recent example:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Photographs and videos do not constitute evidence for the same reasons. They are easily hoaxed and are subject to interpretation.

Yes, my use of fairies was facetious. Let's use the suggestion of earthling time travelers. Is that less likely than the ability of supposed ETs to travel the vast distances involved? Both require technologies which we do not know exist. Is one more likely than the other?

[edit on 3/21/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Dangit! You beat me to it....I wanted to say it was time travelers....I say they are stuck in a loop because as I believe it may have been mentioned previously this sighting has happened several years in a row around the same time each year...?
Yep time travelers.

ok to the guy that said he sees this as proof for ets... I do hope you were being sarcy!

You can;t make anythign out in the video, you can;t even even see that it is something in the sky? It looks like a giant blurry blob... I'm sorry but it is not clear enough to draw any serous conclusions.

The first shot, also looks very much to me to be obscured at the lower half by a solid object (looking very much to me like a horizon line) and t by the shape of the top curved section looks giant if it's a ship. It looks like a mess of video that could quite literally be anything. Evidence my ass

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jclmavg

 

Sightings alone do not constitute evidence because people are extremely prone to misinterpret what the eye actually sees. People tend to "fill in the blanks", unintentionally and otherwise. A recent example:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Photographs and videos do not constitute evidence for the same reasons. They are easily hoaxed and are subject to interpretation.

Yes, my use of fairies was facetious. Let's use the suggestion of earthling time travelers. Is that less likely than the ability of supposed ETs to travel the vast distances involved? Both require technologies which we do not know exist. Is one more likely than the other?

[edit on 3/21/2010 by Phage]

We do live in a mechanical world which is organised by universal elements, and the electron is probably king. Maybe if we could package the electrons in our makeup as we left earth to travel at near light speed to somewhere light years away, so the the electrons could react to hydrogen and other elements when we arrive, then you have the answer to travelling to other worlds at near speed of light, I don't really see much difference between that and time travelling, or for that matter teleportation. Thought I'd better add to that, could we still be considered the same organism that left Earth... I don't know.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by smurfy]

well ive seen ufos but not like this red/orange plasma orbs house sized.
When i first watched this it reminded me of the sea, i figured the night watch man filmed from his cabin/office, office door or window zooming down to a marina/beech/sea/shallow bay so it wont bob to much shooting slightly down hill,why either recording with a moon shine or light reflection on to canoe tethered out useing the shelter of bay,mostly because of angle i think this and shape or maybe a water ride.
But then i seen the one with the alien so i do not now know if its legit., it will be easy for some one to anchor both ends of canoe and maybe put a small torch/light in the place your feet rest, the place you sit will look like hatch with the canoe viewed slightly from higher ground the angle the round hole where you sit may appear square, buy an alien doll and presto, but i dont truely know the guy knows lthough i can say that

[edit on 3/21/2010 by dashar]

reply to post by jclmavg


All the "evidence" is circumstantial. There is no physical proof, just anecdotal evidence, which in many cases is obtained through hypnotherapy which is prone to providing questionable results. Furthermore, if you look at the history of UFOs their occupants have also presented themselves as gods, angels, fairies, dwarfs, time travelers, mad scientists, and numerous other things. So, how can you be so sure that what these beings are telling us now is any more truthful than what they have presented themselves as in the past?

reply to post by smurfy

I agree. It is a remote possibility that either interstellar or time travelers could account for some of the unexplained reports.

There is still no evidence to support either hypothesis, much less one over the other. Much less the less remote possibility of an unknown natural phenomenon.


[edit on 3/21/2010 by Phage]

So, this guy films a UFO for a whole month, but can't manage to find a tripod to get a better shot of this world-changing event?!!!


Night 1, "My god, i got a ufo on tape!!!"


Night 2, "My god, it's back - i got it again"


Night 3, "It's back again - maybe it'll be back tomorrow?!"


Night 4, "Yep, there it is... these shots i'm getting are a little crap. I'm gonna get me a tripod for tomorrow night...."


Night 5, "Oh yeah, beautiful steady shots - there's the little green guys in their ship, waving down at me clear as day. Try debunking that...."


Surely any sane person would of gone through these logical steps (a little quicker, even!)

Makes me a little suspicious that maybe he needs the shots to be shaky to make any analysis difficult.

Originally posted by Phage
Photographs and videos do not constitute evidence for the same reasons. They are easily hoaxed and are subject to interpretation.

It is important to understand that these interpretations of what qualifies as evidence are inherently subjective.

If you do not believe alien life exists or visits Earth it is obviously easier to rationalize any event as a common occurrence without any reason beyond probability.

What you perceive as likely or not is based on preconceived notions rather than the actual circumstances or qualities of the event.

So while you may look at an event and say that there is no evidence for aliens someone else could easily say there is no evidence for humans or some other unknown phenomenon.

Since my knowledge differs from yours, what I perceive as reasonable doubt or probable can be extremely different. You might have no reason to believe something is an alien spacecraft while I may have no reason to believe it is some other speculated possibility.

My point is simply that "likeliness" is not evidence and what is likely is subjective.

If the photograph was of a regular airplane would you ever think to introduce the possibility of forgery?

reply to post by GoodFella


Since you have only posted a few times you may not know about Phage he has forgot more about this subject than you will ever learn!

What age are you 9

www.youtube.com...


if this video does not play can someone use the link above to fix it I do not know why i cannot get youtube videos to play in the forum