Events In Turkey

[Wilhelm]

Originally Posted by dejarma

I'm assuming the camera was on a tripod? If so then it's very shaky for a supported camera! People may argue that if something so far away is moving then trying to follow the object, even on a stand, the footage would still be unstable due to moving the handle just a little, to keep up: accumulation of errors as such..... This would be a fair point but they say: 'it's moving'?? Suggesting that it wasn't for a while. If this is the case there should be some VERY steady clips; there's not!
Plus:going by the zoom action, this footage suggests the object is quite a few miles away! In the close up footage, there is far too much detail regarding the surface texture of the object (more prominent in the 2009 footage). If this is heavily zoomed as it suggests, there's no way so much detail would be visible! Those involved say this is most definitely not CGI..... I make them right, it's not!
This is something that has been filmed around 15-30 foot away! You can even see the dark border line under the object that suggests to me it was filmed in the way Skep's link suggests! & like Wil rightly pointed out: an object on a dark background could have been filmed anywhere!!...100% a hoax> In My Opinion. Not a very good one either> but 10 gold stars for effort

Peace.

dej...

You really think it's that close? Even when they zoom out? If it's a boat, I guess it depends on the size.



That's a pretty big boat right there, and if it was 30 feet away, it would look like a pretty big boat on camera no matter what you did.

Compare the light configuration to the daytime footage; it looks pretty similar. But, it would be way more than 30 feet away. It's the right shape, though.

A smaller, but similar boat, on the other hand....

Do you really think this guy came out three years in a row to film a cruise ship?

[dejarma]

Originally Posted by Wilhelm

You really think it's that close? Even when they zoom out? If it's a boat, I guess it depends on the size.



That's a pretty big boat right there, and if it was 30 feet away, it would look like a pretty big boat on camera no matter what you did.

Compare the light configuration to the daytime footage; it looks pretty similar. But, it would be way more than 30 feet away. It's the right shape, though.

A smaller, but similar boat, on the other hand....

Do you really think this guy came out three years in a row to film a cruise ship?

Who said anything about boats? IMO this is a small object (I don't know, a foot, 2/3 foot wide? Whatever) filmed 10 foot/ 10 yards away in someones back yard for all we know?? Again whatever.... I'm suggesting it's not a large object filmed from a great distance! Simply because of the detailed textures one can see on the object! If this was a large object filmed at great distance with heavy zoom the whole thing would be a blur..... Just 1 of many reasons why I'm convinced without a shadow of doubt it's a hoax! Job done IMO

[Miss Deetective]

Originally Posted by Carol Nistri

I miss Dyslexia,I sure hope thats him.

I hope it's him too. I really enjoyed reading Borgs posts.
~~~
Strangestar...if you are Borg....welcome back!!!! Whoever you are, you sure do remind a lot of us of our friend, Borg!!!

[Strangestar]

Originally Posted by Wilhelm

I hate to do it, but I'm going to have to point something out here...

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam can be described as the burden of proof fallacy.



It involves shifting the burden of proof, which is kinda what you did.

Thankyou Wilhelm.

Skeptical - I was not in any way intending to state that the burden of proof rule was faulty. I will be the first to willingly admit that maybe something was lost in translation, maybe I was not clear enough. But if you read my post carefully you will see that I am supporting the burden of proof rule. My argument is in fact hinged on this philosophic rule.

I was accusing your logic of indulging in the burden of proof fallacy (i.e.Argumentum ad Ignorantiam). Making a counter claim - such as claiming someone of being a hoaxer - does in fact require a shifting of the burden of proof. It does not require the same degree of "extraordinary" evidence that the extraordinary claim requires, but it is very much required based on these "rules". You can't just go around accusing people of being hoaxer's based solely on the fact that they made an "extraordinary claim". You are required to provide reasonable evidence for your counter claim. The Burden of Proof rule does not give you (or anyone else) license to make unfounded scurrilous claims. I hope this is clearer to you.

Nevertheless, I will now stress to you that I in no way am arrogant enough - or consider myself worthy enough - to be contesting the age old philosophic rules, lol !!!



Wow ! What is it with you guys persistently suspecting me of being this Dyslexic Bork guy !? This is now the second time this has been brought up. The first time was when I made my first post.

Let me make it very clear...

I am not Dyslexic Borg. I am not the person who used the title of Dyslexic Borg on this forum. I have no association with the poster (or ex-poster) by the name of Dyslexic Borg and I have NEVER conversed with the guy (or gal).

I do remember reading some of his posts when I was lurking and unregistered. I hope my posts aren't as rude and vitriolic as his posts often were ! Although, he is not the only poster on these forums that I have noted as being rude and vitriolic

Am I being accused of being Dyslexic Borg because of my reasoning or writing style ?

Am I being accused of Dyslexic Borg because I am simply from Australia ?

Or am I being accused of being Dyslexic Borg because you perceive me as being rude and vitriolic !?

If it is not the latter, then please be sure to let me know if my posting ever degenerates into the latter, hehe.

Now that you guys have created a myth out of this guy, I am now curious. Why was he been banned !? And why the continued affection with him ?


Alright, so this is my final word on the matter. I am NOT Dyslexic Borg. I am asking you not to bring this unfounded accusation up again. It is not pleasant being perceived as someone you are not. Particularly someone with a sordid reputation; he was banned after all ! And for those unshakable "believers" on my previous incarnation on this forum; I ask you to keep you opinions to yourself. It is incredibly disruptive having to address this in a thread. Take it to PM with me - or a moderator - if you feel that you need to further your "investigations".

Despite my seriousness, I do find this all rather amusing at the same time, lol.:-lol

[Wilhelm]

I thought you were Borg, as well, but I didn't feel it prudent to mention.

Can I just put it out there for everyone else - whether they are the same person or not shouldn't really be a point of open discussion, in my opinion.

Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

[Strangestar]

Originally Posted by Wilhelm

If you want to talk about burden of proof, or evidence, then you'd be spinning your wheels because there is no way we could prove which of those scenarios is the case. What we can offer on an internet forum is our opinions (and if I knew that my literally one word of opinion would send you into such a tizzy, I would have posted ten.)

I totally agree !

However, it becomes a problem when people start representing their opinions as fact.

Before you get mad at me; I am not suggesting that this is what you have done. I am just pointing out that sometimes people get sold on their own opinions and then - convinced by their own divinity - they deftly sell their opinions as fact to the unsuspecting public. Michael Shermer - I'm staring at you... yes you lol

My opinion is clear. I have a real issue with name calling. I have a particular beef with people who insensitively accuse UFO witnesses (or abductee's) as being hoaxers, or as being disingenuous storytellers. For many of these people their experiences are real, regardless of the underlying cause of their perceptions. People who make "extraordinary claims" are often in vulnerable states-of-mind (for whatever reason) and this vulnerably can be exacerbated by having further negative accusations thrown against them. People really do suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders after experiencing events of what they perceive to be "high strangeness". Haphazardly accusing them of being hoaxers or liars WILL lead to a further deterioration of their health.

All I expect from people is respect and sensitivity. It's something that I don't see often on forums, and in the flesh-and-blood world.

I guess I am making a point and used your post as an "in" to express that point. I see a lot of dismissive, insensitive and rude posting going on in UFO forums and felt the need to get on my soapbox - that's what forums are for, right ?

This is my opinion. I don't expect you - or anyone else - to share it.

[Strangestar]

Originally Posted by Wilhelm

I thought you were Borg, as well, but I didn't feel it prudent to mention.

Can I just put it out there for everyone else - whether they are the same person or not shouldn't really be a point of open discussion, in my opinion.

Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

You too !?

I totally agree on your point that it is not a matter for open discussion.

Hehe, but I do assure you that I am not DB.

But I do wonder what the real Dyslexic Bork is thinking at this moment, if he is still lurking on these boards ? Would the real Dyslexic Borg stand-up !

[Wilhelm]

Originally Posted by Strangestar

I totally agree !

However, it becomes a problem when people start representing their opinions as fact.

Before you get mad at me; I am not suggesting that this is what you have done. I am just pointing out that sometimes people get sold on their own opinions and then - convinced by their own divinity - they deftly sell their opinions as fact to the unsuspecting public. Michael Shermer - I'm staring at you... yes you lol

Agreed.

And Shermer, et al... they say all sorts of nonsense with nothing to back it up, and often state it as fact. I posted a very short quip, and if you'd like me to rephrase it for clarity, I'd be happy to.



I think that those videos from three different years are not from three different years. They look very similar, and the whole thing smells fishy due to that fact. The bad time stamp is just a funny aside; The same thing on film 3 years in a row from the exact same vantage point, with all the exact same conditions is the part I take issue with.

Fact = the videos look fishy.
My opinion = because it's a hoax.

Now that I think about it, if what's being filmed is, in fact, a cruise ship, then the cameraman is out there year after year filming people having a great time on their Turkish Cruise while he's thinking he's seeing space aliens. Which is worse, that or a deliberate hoax?

[Alien Guy]

I must admit, i thought you were DB as well. Your location, and your writing style closely resemble his.

[7th Stranger]

Originally Posted by Alien Guy

I must admit, i thought you were DB as well. Your location, and your writing style closely resemble his.

I did as well from the start. LOL