The infamous Turkey UFO a yacht?

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

I figured it was nightime there just figured there would be a little more from him. Didn't really think about the time though and for that I apologize for my earlier remarks. I forget about the time difference between here and there. I guess I am just used to the time difference here in the states. I guess I need to pay better attention.

Why? Maybe maybe not is up posting and he is from there

Post removed by Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

reply to post by KANE OG


Besides the trolling Paradigm 2012, who have I "flamed"?

No one.

reply to post by Chadwickus


You can flame me if you want...

Let's see...

How could you Chadwickus! That is such a real UFO!

Look how it just hovers there! It is real, I know it.

*pulls out a fan*
For the flames!

Seriously though, I have seen no flaming. In fact this is the first thread I have given a flag to in a LONG time.

The OPer has got something here, like I said in my first post. "Something has always bothered me about this sighting(s)."

The guy(s) filming were "off". (No proof, other than a feeling.)

The dog barking? Yeah that is some proof right there...dogs never bark for no reason. Oh, and there is no way you can train a dog to bark on command...Oh and dogs never bark at boats, just UFOs

Look at the shape of the lights on the UFO, and look at the examples of the Yacht windows. That is what sold me, even the concentration of the lighting matches up with the examples.

In my opinion, this is now an INO. (Identified Nautical Object) AKA Yacht(s)

reply to post by adigregorio


Thanks for the kind words.

I think quite a few people seem to think that because I've shared this analysis, that it must be me saying it's gospel.

I'm actually on the fence in regards to the yacht theory, but I can see how it could very well be a yacht, well a yacht's window.


At the end of the day, I'm just sharing a new (to ATS) theory for people to digest.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Using navigation and anchor lights are the same as using head lights and your parking lights. You are mainly letting anyone around you know you are there. This yacht would have had its anchor lights on and also would have had some form of identification to show where the anchor was at in the water to avoid a problem with another vessel.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Hey mate, not too sure where you're going with this one?

Could this be an everyday object such as a shower head?

reply to post by Chadwickus


You are quite welcome.

I enjoy how the "believers" are just as 'angry' as the "skeptics".

As for me, I "believe" I am a "skeptic".

As for "gospel", I never received that vibe from you at all. Of course, I didn't interpret the thread like others did. (Incidentally, avoid this crap by ASKING QUESTIONS) Just sayin', if someone had asked "So do you think this is gospel" instead of assuming; ignorance would have been denied.

Still an INO IMO (Ha!)

EDIT (To fix: Semicolon after assuming)

[edit on 7/17/2010 by adigregorio]

reply to post by Chadwickus


I do see what you are getting at with the yacht theory. In this case though there is really not enough evidence to show this as a yacht. I will say with this thread you have got my brain working more than it usually on saturdays. I guess we need to look at it this way you are just the messenger. No reason to shoot the messenger.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by adigregorio

 

Thanks for the kind words.

I think quite a few people seem to think that because I've shared this analysis, that it must be me saying it's gospel.

I'm actually on the fence in regards to the yacht theory, but I can see how it could very well be a yacht, well a yacht's window.


At the end of the day, I'm just sharing a new (to ATS) theory for people to digest.

Do you have me on ignore? testing 1,2,3...

If you're on the fence about this, then tell us why? Is there something about this new theory that doesn't sit right with you? Just by re-hashing this old debate and not continuing with the original thread shows you subscribe to this silly idea. But it's easy for you to back peddle by stating you put a "?" at the end of the title and pose it as a mere question.

If I said it was a yacht and it was common knowledge it was a sub, then you would show that the "window" has no glass and isn't transparent. Why the double standard?

reply to post by adigregorio


I will say that the remark about the gospel was probably from me when I made the remark regarding wikipedia. That is one site that is used like mad in these threads.If I offended anyone sorry it wasn't meant to.

Originally posted by FlySolo
Do you have me on ignore? testing 1,2,3...

I don't have anyone on ignore.

If you're on the fence about this, then tell us why? Is there something about this new theory that doesn't sit right with you?

Well, the fact that there are no lights is suspicious, but doesn't prove it can't be a yacht, it could just mean they weren't turned on.

Also, the lack of movement, as I've said this has been a sticking point for me right from the beginning, again this could be explained away due to such factors as the shaky camera etc.

And finally, the fact that only one window is seemingly visible, do we need perfect conditions at the right time of year to see it?

Just by re-hashing this old debate and not continuing with the original thread shows you subscribe to this silly idea.

Well posting this in one of the old threads would be re-hashing the old debate.

I wanted a fresh perspective on it.

You've also just tipped your hand as to your lack of willingness to consider a different theory by calling it silly.

But it's easy for you to back peddle by stating you put a "?" at the end of the title and pose it as a mere question.

Where have I back peddled?

I started the thread with the question mark in place, I also asked ATS for their thoughts in the OP.

If I said it was a yacht and it was common knowledge it was a sub, then you would show that the "window" has no glass and isn't transparent. Why the double standard?

I don't understand what you're getting at?

What double standard?

What submarine? Why are you deflecting the subject by continuing derailing it by calling it a submarine? Is it yellow? Do you live in one?

reply to post by Chadwickus


I'm not attempting to derail your thread. Sorry if you think that way but I'm only asking questions. I've seen a lot more of that from you historically.

I use the submarine as an example of my point. Let me explain it a different way. Suppose it is a sub and the whole world knows it except me. I come here and say its a yacht and use your example. How long do you think it would take for me to be laughed at? You are not dumb and it wouldn't take you long to disprove my evidence. The double standard is, you're not attempting to disprove your own example. Get it?

As for the back peddling, I skimmed through the thread and read where you gave yourself a way out in the event this doesn't go over well. Of course, we all really never make claims of certainty if you've been to this site long enough and know better.

I gave you the benefit and really tried to see a yacht. Squint my eyes, put myself in a skeptics mind set but nope. I'm surprised you even considered it and I won't worry about too many others considering it either.

edit to add:
it is silly. I would have expected something better from you. Forget about this for a while and come back to it after you re-think it a little bit.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by FlySolo]

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

As for the back peddling, I skimmed through the thread and read where you gave yourself a way out in the event this doesn't go over well. Of course, we all really never make claims of certainty if you've been to this site long enough and know better.

Have you ever noticed how many threads are titled something like, "Undeniable Proof?" Is there a difference when a skeptical possibility is presented?

You know what? I've been on a motor yacht or two. I can actually see how the "close up" images resemble the view from the bridge, not an external view. But, like Chadwickus, I'm not sold on the possibility.

[edit on 7/17/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

Using navigation and anchor lights are the same as using head lights and your parking lights. You are mainly letting anyone around you know you are there. This yacht would have had its anchor lights on and also would have had some form of identification to show where the anchor was at in the water to avoid a problem with another vessel.

Tsurfer2000h.....

But.....people don't always do the right thing!

Unfortunately there was recently a terrible tragedy on Sydney Harbour one night (right under the famous Sydney Harbour Bridge) wherein several people were killed because a boat was being driven without lights.

People don't always follow the rules with boats & lights.....

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by FlySolo


Don't try to see a yacht, try to see a yacht's windows.

Look at A and then look at C The shapes are the same, AND so are the concentration of lights.

Just sayin'

(No sale here too, I just think it is more feasible than an alien or government craft. Unless it was a government yacht...)

Originally posted by King Loki
reply to post by QuantumDeath

 

go back and have a look at my edited post on page 7 .. its just matrixing at work i have proven it beyond doubt pretty much ... i can make like 20 diff pics from that one picture.


actually ill repost some of it here again for you.

OH LOOK its a horse (in the bigger red circle) eating another aliens head (in the smaller red circle) .... damn those meat eating cannibal horses ... damn them to hell.

AND OMFG some creepy dude peeking out spying on us (in the yellow circle) ... need i go on ?





[edit on 17/7/10 by King Loki]

Need you not go on with it. I'm more interested how one gets flying lighthouses out of an actual fast moving craft and how one comes up with the Mass Hallucination explanation.

One can make a list of explanations out from A Real Deal, but all thats going to come out and backfire right in their face when the whole world makes 1st contact, that is whether in 1st contact they decide we're too dangerous to keep around, or if they can still lead us on the path to whats really taking place.

But please, I don't care whether you deny the incidents, i'm not playing your enemy here. Just saying. Time's falling short and the same people that have made miserable the lives of those that have seen things, and have been ridiculed to the point where their families have been shattered. There will be a Mental justice that takes place and the doubters will be the crazy ones as generation after generation pushes eachother to their graves. (The next 1000 Years.)

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

As for the back peddling, I skimmed through the thread and read where you gave yourself a way out in the event this doesn't go over well. Of course, we all really never make claims of certainty if you've been to this site long enough and know better.

Have you ever noticed how many threads are titled something like, "Undeniable Proof?" Is there a difference when a skeptical possibility is presented?






You know what? I've been on a motor yacht or two. I can actually see how the "close up" images resemble the view from the bridge, not an external view. But, like Chadwickus, I'm not sold on the possibility.

[edit on 7/17/2010 by Phage]

my last two words were "know better" See, even I have an escape plan.

Tell you what, I'll go look at the comparison again only because I'm being a true skeptic. Let's not confuse the meanings between "skeptic" and "debunker".


[edit on 17-7-2010 by FlySolo]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Hey mate, not too sure where you're going with this one?

Could this be an everyday object such as a shower head?

Chadwickus.....

Well.....

I recall that during the hours & hours I spent looking at this case, there was considerable conjecture to the effect the object was hoaxed using a mundane object.

The objects mentioned were such things as a plate or similar & there was specific mention the object was hoaxed by illuminating a shower fitting & filming it at close range.

Now, it could be the object has been hoaxed by using a shower fitting in this manner.

Or.....

It could be this wider view of the object (be it a boat or an alien spacecraft with aliens) simply resembles a shower fitting, thereby sparking the idea of the object being hoaxed using a shower fitting.

So what are we seeing here?

It appears to be more of the object, which should give us some clues, contingent on this video being a credible “original” as tagged.

Here’s the frame-grab again, for convenient viewing:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/295ab8911748.jpg[/atsimg]

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Quick note, and a plug for a site I use a lot: Forgetomori

They pointed this out back in april. I would have put up a thread here if I hadn't thought there was already one.

Those should be my flags and sweet sweet ATS points, Chad! Thanks for the thread, this was a pretty high profile case that a lot of people were interested in. Good to see it can most likely be put to bed.