Turkey UFO UPDATE Dr Roger Leir speaks about ET FOOTAGE

-working on a clip has the tremendous advantage of allowing for corroboration of data: it can always be argued by critics that any specific image in a photo is a randomly generated illusion. It is much more difficult to put forward such an argument when the alledged optical illusion can be found in succesive frames of the same film, moving coherently.

Quote: "Do you have anything backing up this assertion? an illusion is an illusion what difference does it make if its a clip that generates the illusion?


...you are mistaking an illusion / freak image in data processing,, with an optical illusion as can be found in the 3D world, because of certain lighting conditions and/or points of view.

Working with a clip will enable you to verify the freak image hypothesis , or verify that what can be seen in one frame can be found also in other closely preceding or following frames, eliminating the freak image hypothesis.

Now, most, if not all, 3D optical illusions are static, since they depend either on specific lighting conditions and/or the witness point of view. An "optical illusion", which could be seen actually moving around, simulating human movement in the fashion shown in the images here would be quite the rare exception...

Originally posted by funkster4

...you are mistaking an illusion / freak image in data processing,, with an optical illusion as can be found in the 3D world, because of certain lighting conditions and/or points of view.

no, I used the word "pareidolia". "illusion" is your word which I used after you used it.

Now, most, if not all, 3D optical illusions are static, since they depend either on specific lighting conditions and/or the witness point of view. An "optical illusion", which could be seen actually moving around, simulating human movement in the fashion shown in the images here would be quite the rare exception...

edit on 24-8-2013 by funkster4 because: correction

there is nothing simulating human movement. the image you have of an alien is due to pareidolia which is quite common when looking at ambiguous images of hoaxed UFOs.

reply to post by funkster4

The fact that it shows alien creatures when applied to the Kumburgaz clip has nothing to do with the validity of the process...

The process may be valid but it still doesn't show "alien creatures". what you have is "garbage in, garbage out". the "alien creatures" are due to your own pareidolia that your own brain generates.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by funkster4

 

The fact that it shows alien creatures when applied to the Kumburgaz clip has nothing to do with the validity of the process...

The process may be valid but it still doesn't show "alien creatures". what you have is "garbage in, garbage out". the "alien creatures" are due to your own pareidolia that your own brain generates.

...so how come you've been spooked by the Predator image? Just curious....

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by funkster4

...you are mistaking an illusion / freak image in data processing,, with an optical illusion as can be found in the 3D world, because of certain lighting conditions and/or points of view.

no, I used the word "pareidolia". "illusion" is your word which I used after you used it.

Now, most, if not all, 3D optical illusions are static, since they depend either on specific lighting conditions and/or the witness point of view. An "optical illusion", which could be seen actually moving around, simulating human movement in the fashion shown in the images here would be quite the rare exception...

edit on 24-8-2013 by funkster4 because: correction

there is nothing simulating human movement. the image you have of an alien is due to pareidolia which is quite common when looking at ambiguous images of hoaxed UFOs.

...So you know now for a fact that the clip is a hoax? Please develop...

There is actually indication of mouvement in the "window area" as can be verified by viewing the clip. The nature of the movement is what actually intrigued me.

It is not about "one image of an alien": I have shown already 3 images of the creature. There are two more to go, one of them showing the other creature on the left...

Originally posted by funkster4


...so how come you've been spooked by the Predator image? Just curious....

why? seriously? the alien predator is the ultimate killing machine! Even told Arnold to go eff himself before blowing itself up...total bad ass!

reply to post by funkster4

...So you know for a fact that the clip is a hoax?

I have narrowed it down to dumb Turkish people who fooled themselves or a complete fabrication. At any rate, there is nothing to suggest anything is flying in these images.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by funkster4

 

...So you know for a fact that the clip is a hoax?

I have narrowed it down to dumb Turkish people who fooled themselves or a complete fabrication. At any rate, there is nothing to suggest anything is flying in these images.

...I have no serious indication that the Turkish people exhibits lower intelligence than others on the face of the earth.

On the other hand, I know that the film was analyzed and authenticated, and is not disputed per se. The controversy lies in the interpretation of the images only. As of today, I have found no convincing debunking of these images. The cruise ship proposition, for instance, is verifiably inept. And there are several segments where it can be verified that the object is above the horizon, including some daytime footage..

Originally posted by funkster4

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by funkster4

 

...So you know for a fact that the clip is a hoax?

I have narrowed it down to dumb Turkish people who fooled themselves or a complete fabrication. At any rate, there is nothing to suggest anything is flying in these images.

...I have no serious indication that the Turkish people exhibits lower intelligence than others on the face of the earth.

On the other hand, I know that the film was analyzed and authenticated, and is not disputed per se. The controversy lies in the interpretation of the images only. As of today, I have found no convincing debunking of these images. The cruise ship proposition, for intance, is verifiably inept. And there are several segments where it can be verified that the object is above the horizon.

I disagree. there does not need to be a convincing debunking. There is no indication whatsoever that this a flying anything from anywhere. there is a ton of evidence to suggest that this is a hoax.

reply to post by VtaUFO

i found the answer. its a u.s drone



Most of youwon't believe me but here it is. U.s. spyingn

www.myfoxdc.com...

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by funkster4

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by funkster4

 

I disagree. there does not need to be a convincing debunking. There is no indication whatsoever that this a flying anything from anywhere. there is a ton of evidence to suggest that this is a hoax.

...I must say I'm a bit perplexed at the above statements...

Why would there be no need of a convincing debunking for a clip that was analyzed and verified as conform to/not in contradiction with the witness's description of events, that of a strange craft in the sky filmed from a distance? I would think on the contrary that some serious contradictory evidence should be produced to answer that.

And where is the ton of evidence "suggesting" that it's a hoax?

edit on 24-8-2013 by funkster4 because: correction

reply to post by funkster4


no one verified there was anything in the sky. just google "turkey ufo hoax" or flip black a couple of pages. please! stop wasting time with your new process here. there are some decent bigfoot videos. how about that Patterson footage? im on the fence with that.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by funkster4

 

no one verified there was anything in the sky. just google "turkey ufo hoax" or flip black a couple of pages. please! stop wasting time with your new process here. there are some decent bigfoot videos. how about that Patterson footage? im on the fence with that.

..I've done my homework on that: there is no credible debunking of those images, sorry...On the other hand, the film was authenticated. If it did not correspond to the witness claims, I would assume that it would have been indicated by the experts who analyzed it.

Let's see, again, the debunking arguments:

-the debunking site Forgetomori claimed it was a party going on on some yacht

-now the latest proposition is that it is a huge cruise ship (quite different from a yacht in size and shape...)

-now we have the new proposition that it is caused by some malfunction of the video camera, but with absolutely no back up info about the frequency of such incidents, and how they could relate to the circumstances under which the clip was filmed.

Interestingly, when I suggested that back up evidence for this "hypothesis" should be quite easy to find, your answer implied that you seem OK to acccept any debunking hypothesiswhithout back up, but you are quite adamant about confirmation that the process is effective (though you did not bother to check, evidently, what it is about...)

And your previous answer "I've narrowed it down to either dumb Turkish people who fool themselves or a total fabrication" confirms that you are only pretending to adress this a an objective critic. You know that the clip must be a hoax: it's just a matter of finding the right explanation....(I don't subscribe to your opinion about Turkish people, either)

So, what does the "objectve critic" think of the fact that we have now 3 totally different, mutually exclusive, explanations for this clip? A yacht sized boat with a party going on aboard, thus explaining the movement seen on the film? a huge cruise ship in total darkness -no explanation for movement here-? and now some equipment malfunction?

So let me just post here the citation I like to quote. It is from the reknown economist and thinker John Maynard Keynes, and it goes like this:

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"

So no, it is not "my" process, but I think you will not want to verify that it is a scientifically validated methodology, which can very easily be done. I can understand that you don't want your certitudes blown out of the water.

And no, I have no interest in Big Foot.

I came here because this site was recommended to me as serious, and devious of the usual low-reasoning-level individuals who populate the Web, and relish in living virtual life where they can pretend to be anything they want. It would appear the advice I got was wrong.

I am not on a crusade here, to preach the Gospel to anyone. I believe anyone has a brain, and shall be able to use it accordingly. I welcome courteous, contradictory debate but I have no time for ping pong match with people who will not even take the time to verify the other party's argumentation, or answer the points put to them.

That is not my idea of a meaningful, interesting debate.

My time is as precious as yours: I do not think there is a mandatory rule here that forces you to follow a thread you think is uninteresting.

But don't worry, I will not be here for long: I am usually patient with fools, but only for so long...

reply to post by funkster4

..I've done my homework on that: there is no credible debunking of those images, sorry...On the other hand, the film was authenticated. If it did not correspond to the witness claims, I would assume that it would have been indicated by the experts who analyzed it.

Please show me any clip or photo that shows this to be a single, flying object. Authenticated by whom? What witnesses? What experts? you have used up most of your hoax words...now what?

Sheese, you cant get out of the front door with this one. A debunking is a waste of time since there is nothing showing this to be flying.

With ALL of the footage, show just one clip where it even looks like its flying.

Interestingly, when I suggested that back up evidence for this "hypothesis" should be quite easy to find, your answer implied that you seem OK to acccept any debunking hypothesiswhithout back up, but you are quite adamant about confirmation that the process is effective (though you did not bother to check, evidently, what it is about...)

You suggested a statistical analysis....I asked for a statistical analysis of how reliable your process is at detecting aliens.... why do I need to provide fact checking when you don't?

So, what does the "objectve critic" think of the fact that we have now 3 totally different, mutually exclusive, explanations for this clip? A yacht sized boat with a party going on aboard, thus explaining the movement seen on the film? a huge cruise ship in total darkness -no explanation for movement here-? and now some equipment malfunction?

already answered that! that's all part of the hoax, isn't it? lets see...take three separate ambiguous objects, and tell someone that they are the same thing....there are several clips over several days of different objects. very confusing. show one where it can be seen to be flying!.

So let me just post here the citation I like to quote. It is from the reknown economist and thinker John Maynard Keynes, and it goes like this:

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"

here is my quote:
"Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, 'Rain Man,' look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Count toothpicks to your cards. Autistic, sure. Not retarded. You know Tom Hanks, 'Forrest Gump.' Slow, yes. Retarded, maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon and won a ping-pong competition. That ain't retarded. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard."

I came here because this site was recommended to me as serious, and devious of the usual low-reasoning-level individuals who populate the Web, and relish in living virtual life where they can pretend to be anything they want. It would appear the advice I got was wrong.

HA! So you came here to discuss the most ridiculous clip out there and expected a good discussion? there are cases a 1000 times better than this. why are you wasting your time with this one?

But don't worry, I will not be here for long: I am usually patient with fools, but only for so long...

see ya

« A debunking is a waste of time since there is nothing showing this to be flying. »

Very interesting statement, I would think. Here is my analysis of what you’re saying :

‘A debunking is a waste of time… » means you acknowledge the fact that there is no credible debunking of the clip, as of today. As I pointed out, the mere fact that there are at present 3 mutually exclusive « explanations » proposed by the critics establish the point that this is not, contrary to what is claimed sometimes, debunked. Simple logic here…

It also means you don’t seem to have much of an argument here, but rather a definitively formed opinion, which is fine, but quite different from a supported proposition.

« since there is nothing showing this to be flying »

That’s interesting : how would this reasoning apply if the witness claimed he had filmed a landed extra terrestrial craft on the ground ? Would you say that the fact it is not seen « flying » exempt us of any investigative efforts ?

« show one where it can be seen to be flying! »

I can confidently state that there are tons of footage showing helicopters hovering in the sky. Helicopters do fly, however…

« see ya »

Well, like I said, I’m usually patient…

And I am, of course, interested in the cases you think are more worthy of interest than this one: I am interested exclusively in cases where pictures and films exist

...but I'd like to go back to the methodology, if I may.

Somebody (maybe ZR) asked for an exemple of the process applied to a "non controversial" picture.
I normally prefer people to do their own homework, but I have a feeling I was being overly optimistic there.

So here is below an exemple of this technique, based on interpolation, from the scientific paper presenting PTM.
The exemple show 3 images (a,b,c): "a" and "c" have been taken from an identical point of view, but with varying lighting directions. "b" is a composite obtained by interpolating "a" and "c".

Note that "b" contained not only the data content of "a" + "c", but is actually richer in fine details (use details of the throat to verify this). The sum is actually bigger than the added individual values of the parts.

That's one of the "unconventional" aspect of this technique.

So this is how the process works. here, you have an exemple using only 1 interpolation, with only one variable (light). Now; imagine using dozens, or hundreds, of interpolations on that finite data set...

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Originally posted by funkster4
« A debunking is a waste of time since there is nothing showing this to be flying. »

Very interesting statement, I would think. Here is my analysis of what you’re saying :

‘A debunking is a waste of time… » means you acknowledge the fact that there is no credible debunking of the clip, as of today. As I pointed out, the mere fact that there are at present 3 mutually exclusive « explanations » proposed by the critics establish the point that this is not, contrary to what is claimed sometimes, debunked. Simple logic here…

It also means you don’t seem to have much of an argument here, but rather a definitively formed opinion, which is fine, but quite different from a supported proposition.

« since there is nothing showing this to be flying »

That’s interesting : how would this reasoning apply if the witness claimed he had filmed a landed extra terrestrial craft on the ground ? Would you say that the fact it is not seen « flying » exempt us of any investigative efforts ?

« show one where it can be seen to be flying! »

I can confidently state that there are tons of footage showing helicopters hovering in the sky. Helicopters do fly, however…

« see ya »

Well, like I said, I’m usually patient…

And I am, of course, interested in the cases you think are more worthy of interest than this one: I am interested exclusively in cases where pictures and films exist

edit on 25-8-2013 by funkster4 because: additional info

Nothing showing its flying means there is nothing flying. Your logic is ass backwards.

There is a clip of something that is supposed to contain aliens on an unknown flying object. Footage taken over days. yet nothing can show that it is flying. but there are experts who verify that its flying.. where? you are asking for a debunking of something that cant even be shown to be what it claims to be?

most of the time people on both sides can agree that something is in the air flying as in the case with balloons or helicopters. In this case, nothing can be shown to be flying. There is absolutely zero evidence of anything in the air.

in this case, you would be better off with just witness testimony because the footage is clearly showing that there is NOTHING flying.

The debunking is a waste of time because it has been shown to be a number of possible things none of which fly. the hoaxers say "its not a boat" and its not debunked therefore aliens. This is the equivalent of saying "you cant figure out how a magician does his trick so he must have real magical powers"

How does David Blaine levitate? any explanation you provide will not be adequate, therefore, he has magical powers.

Originally posted by funkster4
...but I'd like to go back to the methodology, if I may.

Somebody (maybe ZR) asked for an exemple of the process applied to a "non controversial" picture.
I normally prefer people to do their own homework, but I have a feeling I was being overly optimistic there.

Since you're not using PTM, and instead claim you're using your own image processing methodology, developed independently, something that only you knows how the process is done, how do you expect someone else to "do their own homework"? You're the only person on the planet that knows exactly what you are doing to these images.

The picture you posted of that statue is not yours, and does not show how your method works. So since you've figured out how to use Photobucket and post images and files to the web, how about you post some of your own images showing how you created the image of the EBE pilot.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

How does David Blaine levitate? any explanation you provide will not be adequate, therefore, he has magical powers.

There was a time when I considered that possibility.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

How does David Blaine levitate? any explanation you provide will not be adequate, therefore, he has magical powers.

There was a time when I considered that possibility.

well there is more evidence that he has super powers than there is for an alien pilot flying around Turkey.