Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
zoser

Tantalising Testimony

5,543 posts in this topic

Not deliberately may I add; just my unorthodox nature. Now what did you say?

How about a little comic relief.

This must be an ET because it has never been positively identified, however, he appears every time humans attempt to apply logic to unexplained phenomena.

I must admit he is better looking than my avatar.

troll.jpg

Edited by synchronomy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I would share a detail with you that I missed earlier. Not sure if anyone else spotted it. On this clip towards the end, the underneath of the craft is illuminated. The row of 4 lights in an arc is clearly visible. This doesn't tend to show up in a some of the other footage:

zoser43.jpg

Compare with:

turkufo1.jpg

I believe this is real.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I would share a detail with you that I missed earlier. Not sure if anyone else spotted it. On this clip towards the end, the underneath of the craft is illuminated. The row of 4 lights in an arc is clearly visible. This doesn't tend to show up in a some of the other footage:

Ships often have a bathroom located one deck below the bridge.

One of the bridge crew went for a pee and turned the lights on.

There, I just presented you with a plausible explanation which I believe MAY be more likely than the ETH. :clap:

edited for spelling

Edited by synchronomy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ships often have a bathroom located one deck below the bridge.

One of the bridge crew went for a pee and turned the lights on.

There, I just presented you with a plausible explanation which I believe MAY be more likely than the ETH. :clap:

edited for spelling

I know I've attempted to make comparisons before, but look again at the Yuma footage (Arizona) and compare it to the underside lights:

Yuma (AZ)

Zoser30.jpg

Kumburgaz Turkey

zoser44.jpg

This Cannot be a coincidence surely?

The point is Synch that the footage differs in detail slightly; why the underside is lit on some frames and not others I cannot say, To me it only lends credence.

Towards the very end of the clip the camera zooms out and the top part of the hull fades out and only the bottom few lights are visible. Presumably because the only illumination on the top part is because of the moon. That could explain why the upper part of the craft is not visible in Yuma, Frazerburgh or Denbigh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ20iwIn_ow

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I've attempted to make comparisons before, but look again at the Yuma footage (Arizona) and compare it to the underside lights:

This Cannot be a coincidence surely?

The point is Synch that the footage differs in detail slightly; why the underside is lit on some frames and not others I cannot say, To me it only lends credence.

I respect your viewpoint and I agree there are similarities in the images.

However I cannot agree with your statement, "This Cannot be a coincidence surely?"

I believe it would not be an exaggeration on my part to state that there are likely millions of situations worldwide where there are manmade lights which appear in rows forming an arc. My speculation is that it is far more likely that the similarities of the image are coincidence as opposed to being a definate indication that they are caused by the same or similar light source, particularly when it is deemed to be from an ETV.

I have always believed, that if ETV's are patrolling our atmosphere, it would be extremely unlikely that it would be done with lights blazing.

If ETV's can navigate the vastness of space it would seem unlikely that they would require lights either to view the Earths surface, or to be seen by others of their own kind.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always believed, that if ETV's are patrolling our atmosphere, it would be extremely unlikely that it would be done with lights blazing.

What if they are an essential part of the craft's propulsion system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the way you craftily avoid anything and everything prosaic to focus on the mysterious zoser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it would not be an exaggeration on my part to state that there are likely millions of situations worldwide where there are manmade lights which appear in rows forming an arc. My speculation is that it is far more likely that the similarities of the image are coincidence as opposed to being a definate indication that they are caused by the same or similar light source, particularly when it is deemed to be from an ETV.

I have always believed, that if ETV's are patrolling our atmosphere, it would be extremely unlikely that it would be done with lights blazing.

If ETV's can navigate the vastness of space it would seem unlikely that they would require lights either to view the Earths surface, or to be seen by others of their own kind.

That's assuming that they [any hypothetical extra Terrestrials] want to skulk about secretively & furtively, that they're up to no good. If, however, they're just doing like we're doing on mars right now, but perhaps on a slightly bigger scale, they wouldn't necessarily want to be secretive, or Furtive. They may not be bothered one way or the other if the natives do take retaliatory action at them now and again, since they'd probably know there'd be very little chance of any significant damage being done, or at worst they might just lose a drone or two, which they could probably live with. besides, one theory which has been expressed before is that the lights might be some side-effect of the propulsion system, just like the afterburners on a terrestrial Jet.

Or they might just be safety conscious and want to avoid collisions with aircraft.

These are all just hypothetical musing, i wish to re emphasise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the way you craftily avoid anything and everything prosaic to focus on the mysterious zoser.

Examples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if they are an essential part of the craft's propulsion system?

Point taken, although I still consider that unlikely.

As I said in an earlier post, it is incomprehensible to me that ETV's would be sitting in an illuminated cockpit. Interior illumination interferes a great deal with the occupants ability to see out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken, although I still consider that unlikely.

As I said in an earlier post, it is incomprehensible to me that ETV's would be sitting in an illuminated cockpit. Interior illumination interferes a great deal with the occupants ability to see out.

but whyever would they need to see out? The surely wouldn't navigate visually, would they? I expect they wouldn't be flown manually at all, in fact they probably wouldn't need pilots at all.

I know, that then raises the question of why they'd have windows at all, which is a fair questiom, which leads me back to the suggestion that they're not windows, but are some other part of the structure associcated with the functioning of the Craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but whyever would they need to see out? The surely wouldn't navigate visually, would they? I expect they wouldn't be flown manually at all, in fact they probably wouldn't need pilots at all.

I know, that then raises the question of why they'd have windows at all, which is a fair questiom, which leads me back to the suggestion that they're not windows, but are some other part of the structure associcated with the functioning of the Craft.

Yes I think that Synch is thinking far too much in conventional human terms. We just don't know how or why they operate their craft or anything for that matter.

I do agree that illumination makes them vulnerable to attack and if there is one thing that they must have learned about humans it's that they have dangerous toys and a ruthless nature when they see things they want to get their hands on.

The answer has to be that it's their propulsion system at work.

Edited by zoser
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Examples?

This thread is full of examples. You avoid answering direct questions and addressing specific points. Your quotation of a single sentence in Synch's post 4430 is just the latest example of such behavior. You completely ignored everything else he had said about there being millions of situations worldwide where man made lights appear in arcs.

You respond to Chrlzs' points and questions in post 4392 with a dismissive "Chris this is just a waste of a post. It offers nothing." and continue by hand waving away his comments in posts 4399 and 4402. Then came my post 4406 which you didn't even bother to respond to a single portion of...

Sometimes attempting to discuss these cases with you is much like trying to talk to a child who puts their hands over their ears and blabbers "la la la la la la la" in an effort to drown out whatever you're telling them that they don't want to hear.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think that Synch is thinking far too much in conventional human terms. We just don't know how or why they operate their craft or anything for that matter.

I do agree that illumination makes them vulnerable to attack and if there is one thing that they must have learned about humans it's that they have dangerous toys and a ruthless nature when they see things they want to get their hands on.

Who is "they" and how do you know that it is a "craft" the likes of which you are describing? Why would you decide to dismiss conventional explanations out of hand and not give them any consideration at all?

The answer has to be that it's their propulsion system at work.

Why does the answer have to be that? You can think of no other purpose for lights? Like, oh I dunno... illumination perhaps? unsure.gif Pretty far fetched, I know... crazy to even consider eh? Silly me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is full of examples. You avoid answering direct questions and addressing specific points. Your quotation of a single sentence in Synch's post 4430 is just the latest example of such behavior. You completely ignored everything else he had said about there being millions of situations worldwide where man made lights appear in arcs.

You respond to Chrlzs' points and questions in post 4392 with a dismissive "Chris this is just a waste of a post. It offers nothing." and continue by hand waving away his comments in posts 4399 and 4402. Then came my post 4406 which you didn't even bother to respond to a single portion of...

Sometimes attempting to discuss these cases with you is much like trying to talk to a child who puts their hands over their ears and blabbers "la la la la la la la" in an effort to drown out whatever you're telling them that they don't want to hear.

Just excited with the case I suppose; nothing intentional I can assure you. What do you make of the under lights in 4429 and the comparison with Yuma?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like, oh I dunno... illumination perhaps? unsure.gif Pretty far fetched, I know... crazy to even consider eh? Silly me...

Illumination sounds like you are thinking in airliner terms. Why would they need illumination? If anything they would want stealth surely? So propulsion is the only sensible answer I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just excited with the case I suppose; nothing intentional I can assure you. What do you make of the under lights in 4429 and the comparison with Yuma?

Considering that the Yuma lights were illumination flares dropped by Harriers doing practice maneuvers, I think that your correlation is completely contrived.

A much better match for those lights you've focused on from Turkey is the example provided previously. This'n:

00_DECK_SHIP_KUMBURGAZ_MOV3.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is "they" and how do you know that it is a "craft" the likes of which you are describing? Why would you decide to dismiss conventional explanations out of hand and not give them any consideration at all?

Why does the answer have to be that? You can think of no other purpose for lights? Like, oh I dunno... illumination perhaps? unsure.gif Pretty far fetched, I know... crazy to even consider eh? Silly me...

I thought that had been fairly comprehensively discussed, and it would seem not unreasonable, would it not, that any race capable of navigating the vast distances of space (and/or dimensions) wouldn't need, oh I dunno... illumination perhaps, to see wher etehy're going? I mean, we don't need to, by use on infra red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the Yuma lights were illumination flares dropped by Harriers doing practice maneuvers, I think that your correlation is completely contrived.

A much better match for those lights you've focused on from Turkey is the example provided previously. This'n:

00_DECK_SHIP_KUMBURGAZ_MOV3.gif

Honestly Boon, it's a nice try but I'm going to accuse you now of doing exactly what has brought ufology into disrepute; hoaxing through CGI.

Check out the clip in post 4408. The camera picks up a single light point source (in the sky!) and zooms in. It's no ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly Boon, it's a nice try but I'm going to accuse you now of doing exactly what has brought ufology into disrepute; hoaxing through CGI.

Check out the clip in post 4408. The camera picks up a single light point source (in the sky!) and zooms in. It's no ship.

Further the most captivating image of the craft looks nothing like the elevation of it in your inset:

You have hoaxed the image in the inset; or someone has.

UFO3_623130a.jpg

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that had been fairly comprehensively discussed, and it would seem not unreasonable, would it not, that any race capable of navigating the vast distances of space (and/or dimensions) wouldn't need, oh I dunno... illumination perhaps, to see wher etehy're going? I mean, we don't need to, by use on infra red.

The question of lights and UFOs has been raised, discussed, re-raised, re-discussed, ad infinitum here and elsewhere. The point I was making was not in reference to UFOlogy in general, but with regards to the specific footage we've been discussing. You know, the Turkey videos? You know, those videos that some people seem to think are the... oh, how did zoser put it again?... "the capstone of the entire thread" and "the most important UFO/extraterrestrial images ever filmed" etc...?

Honestly Boon, it's a nice try but I'm going to accuse you now of doing exactly what has brought ufology into disrepute; hoaxing through CGI.

Check out the clip in post 4408. The camera picks up a single light point source (in the sky!) and zooms in. It's no ship.

When I respond to this point, you will most assuredly go back and respond to every point that you've avoided so far, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think that Synch is thinking far too much in conventional human terms.

Sounds like you are accusing me of limiting my speculation to the boundaries of what is commonly referred to as reality.

Although I am very open-minded, it does not mean when I see a hole I jump in headlong like the rabbit in Alice in Wonderland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further the most captivating image of the craft looks nothing like the elevation of it in your inset:

You have hoaxed the image in the inset; or someone has.

UFO3_623130a.jpg

What are you talking about in terms of elevation? You mean because the matching portion is high on the sailing vessel?

Are you aware of the curvature of the earth zoser? Are you aware that this planet we are on is ROUND, and things that are at sufficient distance in the horizon disappear behind that horizon because of the curved surface upon which we live, eat, breath, sleep, and boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illumination sounds like you are thinking in airliner terms. Why would they need illumination? If anything they would want stealth surely? So propulsion is the only sensible answer I have.

Stealth?

Well if they are after stealth, they should note that we are a helluva lot better at it. Maybe that's why they might be here...to learn from us. Our stealth technology does a better job of consealing the heat from propulsion than they're doing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you are accusing me of limiting my speculation to the boundaries of what is commonly referred to as reality.

Although I am very open-minded, it does not mean when I see a hole I jump in headlong like the rabbit in Alice in Wonderland.

i hardly think doubting that any hypothetical Alien race would need to look out of windows in order to navigate is jumping headlong into an Alice in Wonderland fantasy world. What's so implausible about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.