Istanbul UFO is Back **May 2009** Video

reply to post by internos


I think you have a problem here with your image. Let's see.

This is your image wich shows only pixels due to a very high zooming right?

[img][/img]

Yours is a 600 X 496 pixels image in a png format with a resolution of 95,987 pixels
per inch. Compare it with my image at the same size and even at less resolution.




Now, we all can see a big difference in both images, one is unclear due to pixelization
and the other is more clear even at high zoom, both of them same size and values.
Then what is the essential difference here? I know but first we have to review your
tutorial you posted along with the image in question. Unfortunately internos your
tutorial is not complete or should I say not specific that is you didn't provide the
required information that should accompany your tutorial therefore I will make the
pertinent questions to know how did you get to that conclusion.

First and most important: From what source did you get the capture? Or should I say
these are images from a video, where did you get the exact frame you showed?

What software you used to make the closeup, Photoshop or any other brand.
What tool you used to make your close up.
What was the original size and resolution of the source where you captured the frame.
You talk about resize, did you resized the video itself or just the frame you captured
from that source.

My image was captured from the high quality footage at NTSC standard size(not the
Youtube copy) and the still frames preserved the original resolution. This is why my
images are sharp and clear even at zooming. Haktan Akdogan did the same from
the original tapes. The images I posted are courtesy of him and Mr. Yalman.

You say your image is what the camera recorded. I have to disagree with that. The
close up images from the original footage prove it. Remember the big difference is
the source wich results in better resolution and quality.

It will be necessary to know those answers internos to understand the process you did
to get that results. Because if not I'm afraid your tutorial and image are not correct.




[edit on 6-6-2009 by free_spirit]

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by cmazzagatti

 

But would it really matter what size frame you view? All the information is already contained correct? So you can zoom and 'enhance' all you want but you are not going to get anymore digital information (pixels) and thus not be able to see what in fact we are looking at concerning the 'beings'. Unless there is a much closer source image this is impossible is it not? Forgive me but I am no image expert, I am only going by what I think I might know about imaging,lol.

Oh geez, I have a headache now from trying to figure this out. You're analyzing the larger picture and I'm analyzing the smaller one. The smaller picture has already been enhanced with quality software at the Sirius research center. I'm making further enhancements to the smaller photo by simply adjusting the brightness & contrast settings and focusing, to which the details of the face are revealed. Apparently, this isn't the case with the larger photo even if you zoom in on it because it has less resolution. But try making the enhancements to the smaller photo and you'll see the face.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by cmazzagatti]

reply to post by FlySolo


"That wasn't cool"?

What? I'm sorry but am I wrong for thinking that whether or not there's a 'bob' in the water the dog probably isn't barking at a UFO? You may just have been pointing out the differences but it seemed like you were doing it with an unjustified air of smugness.

And change my story? I didn't claim it was definitely an oil rig so I'm changing nothing. And what does the flying dutchman have to do with it? Am I wrong for pointing out that both videos of the rig/ship/UFO seem practically identical? No I don't think I am.

reply to post by sotp


The comment for grasping at straws. I'm hardly being desperate but maybe smug. Further to the rig/ship/ufo...

Just look at the horizon in relation the the object. How can you sit there straight faced and say it's a ship? This sounds more like an attempt to grasp at straws.

As for being in the same place, well, so what? Why not? If it were an alien ship, how can you criticize it's behavior? You/we have no authority to make judgment calls on something we know nothing about. Even if it were a ship, it would seem even less likely.

Nit picking at irrelevant details (dog barking at bob) to further one's direction of hoax doesn't prove a thing.

reply to post by FlySolo


The comment about "grasping at straws" was just a 'return volley' of your "deny, deny, deny" comment...anyway...

We have no idea of how big the rig/ship/UFO is. There are plenty of large container ships out there that when fully loaded are very very tall. It also may indeed be an oil rig. Yes, they look like the picture you provided but that's not the only form of rig there is. They come in many variations with some having many 'vents' (firey exhaust things). The fact that the object is in an identical position leads me to believe it may be a static object (as an oil rig is). I've never claimed to be an expert on the movement of UFO's but I think that the rig/ship explanation makes more sense, and if I remeber correctly there's supposedly a port close by so that adds even more credence to it not being a UFO.

If you look at night shots of Oil Rigs - they have lights on those towering cranes of them. But each tower is of a different size, spaced out unevenly. The lights in this image below, for example, are inconsistent with the perfect arch of lights we witnessed in that video.



However, having said that, I did some research. The large body of water in the video is most probably considering the Sea of Marmara as it is the only body of water near Kumburgaz, Turkey. I found out that there was some drilling for oil and gas done in the past. The equipment used, I can't confirm, but regardless I have my suspicions that it would have a structure with lights that could give off that 'formation' of arched spots.

BUT

If you look closely at those lights and the general outline and body of the supposed UFO, it doesn't seem likely from where I sit that this object is responsible for those lights. Where would they be from considering the depth of the arch in comparison to the more flattened outlines of the UFO?

reply to post by cmazzagatti


Quote form another user, sorry forgot who

Seems like they are hanging around just so that he can film them.

It almost looks as if the one on the left is recording this guy recording them. lol

Why isnt't it moving? Well, you guys here at ATS are the pros when it comes to complaining about tripods and the such... maybe we aren't so different from them after all.

I don't know what's what, but I saw similarities, on first glance, with the photos of my own sighting I have posted here on ATS. All I know is what I saw had a bright orange light, and the photos came out with no real light source - though I have a far worse camera than tis. I could also understand why he wouldn't just "hop on a boat" and get close up pictures. Some of us don't care enough about your investment of trust to venture into the unkown, plain and simple. We've seen something unidentifiable to us, you didn't... too bad? Sorry?

I have no clue as to what it is, but if this man says he can't identify it and it's flying, I would trust it's a genuine UFO. I haven't seen any difinitive proof as to what it is, as of yet, beyond hypothesis and speculation, anyway.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by shanerz]

reply to post by shanerz


lol, I hope they're friendly. The one in the center seems to have vertical pupils if you look very closely though, and you know what that might mean...




[edit on 6-6-2009 by cmazzagatti]

reply to post by free_spirit

free_spirit, your question is pertinent, but please let me point out that mine wasn't a tutorial: there are tutorials all over the internet, and even wikipedia entries about bilinear, trilinear, bicubic etc interpolations make the point Whenever i'd want to publish some tutorial, you would be able to read somewhere TUTORIAL: did you read "tutorial" somewhere? No, you didn't, because that was just a post which purpose was to make the point about image resizing related to THIS thread: if it happens to you to ignore the purpose of some of my post, then please be so kind to ask rather than guessing and trying to pass your guesses as facts, thank you in advance for that.

First and most important: From what source did you get the capture? Or should I say
these are images from a video, where did you get the exact frame you showed?

This is the image from which i've started

I took it from your post, this one.

I took only that, because i never use enhancements, enlergements etc made by others.

What software you used to make the closeup, Photoshop or any other brand.

Paint Shop Pro.

What tool you used to make your close up.

Image resize.

What was the original size and resolution of the source where you captured the frame.

You already know the answer to this question since you have posted it.

You talk about resize, did you resized the video itself or just the frame you captured from that source.

Ive resized just a part of the frame: question marks when you pose questions no, huh?

My image was captured from the high quality footage at NTSC standard size(not the Youtube copy) and the still frames preserved the original resolution. This is why my images are sharp and clear even at zooming. Haktan Akdogan did the same from the original tapes. The images I posted are courtesy of him and Mr. Yalman.

I don't know what you mean for "sharp" and "clean": in resizing, what does matter is not how nice some image looks, but how close it is to the reality:
for example, in the following image, you can try by yourself to do this experiment: calculate the ratio of these segments: in order to don't be "biased" in my calculation, ive even reduced the differences of the ratios:



Regardless each single value, in the "Ratio" column you should have the same values, or light variations: you should have a series of all 1, or all 1,6 or all 1,8.
And this is a quick comparison between image and zoom: the differences are obvious even to the naked eye: and here, (as said i've kept the differences VERY low) you have ratios from 1 to almost 1,8 (meaning, 80% of ERROR). So either the zoom is not of the same image (and it says all about the accuracy of whomever made the enhancement) or the Zoom does NOT show the actual resized image, but something ELSE.
Now let me try to do a zoom with pixel resize:
I will zoom about the same area:


Measures:



Ratio:


You can check the accuracy of my measurements here


Of course it's just a coincidence that the ratio is the same, i know, i know.

You say your image is what the camera recorded. I have to disagree with that. The
close up images from the original footage prove it. Remember the big difference is
the source wich results in better resolution and quality.

It will be necessary to know those answers internos to understand the process you did
to get that results. Because if not I'm afraid your tutorial and image are not correct.

Yes, i've said that THIS

is what was actually caught on camera, of course according to the image that you have posted.
This enlargement shows this area:


I didn't take the photo personnally so i have no ide: as far as i know, it could be anything, but this doesn'ty change the things at all.

Now, if we are done with your third degree, we can talk about your enhancements: you say:

Now, we all can see a big difference in both images, one is unclear due to pixelization and the other is more clear even at high zoom, both of them same size and values.

Yes, we can see a big difference, but the reason is NOT the one that you are trying to pass as truth, free_spirit.
Simply, i've resized the base image with the only method which preserves the actual image: PIXEL resize. You didn't use the pixel resize method, but a smart resizing method: my image is an enlargement of the actual one (IF the one that you have posted can be called actual one). Your image is a Computer Generated one, with a bicubic algorithm: in that way the result that you get is is frequently used for scaling images and video for display (see bitmap resampling). It preserves details better than the bilinear algorithm, but unavoidably, bicubic interpolation causes overshoot, which increases acutance.

In photography, acutance is the edge contrast of an image. Acutance is related to the amplitude of the derivative of brightness with respect to space. Due to the nature of the human visual system, an image with higher acutance appears sharper even though an increase in acutance does not increase real resolution.
However, due to the negative lobes on the kernel, it causes overshoot (haloing). This can cause clipping, and is an artifact (see also ringing artifacts), but it increases acutance (apparent sharpness), and can be desirable.

en.wikipedia.org...


In the example image, two light gray lines were drawn on a gray background. As the transition is instantaneous, the line is as sharp as can be represented at this resolution. Acutance in the left line was artificially increased by adding a 1 pixel wide darker border on the outside of the line and a 1 pixel wide brighter border on the inside of the line. The actual sharpness of the image has been decreased because the transition takes place across 4 pixels, but the apparent sharpness is increased because of the greater acutance.

So, basically, the method that you are applying is NOT reliable, but can (and SHOULD) be used whenever you need to resize any image for all the purposes, except.... ANALYSIS.

It will be necessary to know those answers internos to understand the process you did
to get that results. Because if not I'm afraid your tutorial and image are not correct.

As said, mine was NOT a tutorial, and with all the due respect, i don't think that you are entitled to make any judgement in imageering, while i DO urge you to read some tutorial, then try again.
Thank you for your post.


[edit on 7/6/2009 by internos]

reply to post by cmazzagatti


I see it, but I don't know what to think about it... internos is right in his tutorial. BUT... it seems we need a response to free spirits post about having the source of the video, and where internos got his source from. I can clearly see a difference in the frames compared on freespirits latest post.

*Edit: guess he beat me to the punch. lol

As to the lights:
I'd like to see photos of boats versus the 4 oranges. If it's a boat (ship likely) I would like to know why it doesn't seem to move. And if it's coming straight at us, or away, I would like to see narrowing/splitting of the points of light. Ship/port logs, speed of ships and time captured in video, etc. I probably could do this, but well I'm comfortable in my thoughts/"beliefs" on this (aka, I'm lazy tonight - oh and I gotta jet soon).

Offshore rig is probably the best alternative probability I've seen on this portion of the video (even though the clear shots of the UFO are what I believe should be the focus - but maybe the orange lights could debunk the clear shot), but no one has really looked into it either.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by shanerz]

Those darn oil rigs again Is it from the same hoaxer as last time?

Sorry if it has been mentioned already. I did not read the thread after seeing the video.

The video of the oil rig lights should alert everyone the whole thing is bogus.

Originally posted by sotp
reply to post by FlySolo

 

The comment about "grasping at straws" was just a 'return volley' of your "deny, deny, deny" comment...anyway...

We have no idea of how big the rig/ship/UFO is. There are plenty of large container ships out there that when fully loaded are very very tall. It also may indeed be an oil rig. Yes, they look like the picture you provided but that's not the only form of rig there is. They come in many variations with some having many 'vents' (firey exhaust things). The fact that the object is in an identical position leads me to believe it may be a static object (as an oil rig is). I've never claimed to be an expert on the movement of UFO's but I think that the rig/ship explanation makes more sense, and if I remeber correctly there's supposedly a port close by so that adds even more credence to it not being a UFO.

Static perhaps, but lets examine the obvious. You didn't comment on my question about it being above the horizon. Lets take these two pictures for comparison:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/93f2b5a1f6d6.jpg[/atsimg]

you can clearly see the horizon in the circle. Where is the rig/ship? Please don't omit the absence of this from your proposition. To add to this, the lights would be there every night if it truly was a stationary rig.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9c101157cc0d.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 6-6-2009 by FlySolo]

That's a good point the light would be there every night if it was a rig and all the locals would be well aware of its location.

The lights appear to follow the form of the craft .... for me the best part of the footage is the end when you can see the moon and the ship in the same frame followed by the zoom in and out.

Best footage I have seen

To be fair, here are a couple of night shots:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/980bbae21d56.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/41f2ac56ebe7.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by FlySolo


Also to be fair Istanbul has a lot of these too:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cb72fe99bb86.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by FlySolo

 

Also to be fair Istanbul has a lot of these too:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cb72fe99bb86.jpg[/atsimg]

I'm sorry, a lot of what? umbrellas?

reply to post by FlySolo


Think you're funny?

DOMES

Istanbul has lots of domed buildings.

Do I need to spell it out for you?

[edit on 6/6/09 by Chadwickus]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by FlySolo

 

Think you're funny?

DOMES

Istanbul has lots of domed buildings.

Do I need to spell it out for you?

[edit on 6/6/09 by Chadwickus]

I'm sorry, Domes, rigs, ships OH MY!

Ok, I guess I'll have to dig deeper and prove that it is not a domed temple 100+ ft above the horizon. I'm curious as to what else you can possibly claim it to be. Or would you like to try to maintain your position from the first random guess?

When all else fails, deny deny deny, or change your story.

I can not find the video that was nearly identical that turned out to be oil rigs, so I'll admit its a guess. The video I'm talking about was on a thread a few months ago. The problem is if it was a You Tube video it may not exist any more. I'll keep looking. I could swear it looked almost the same. Even the dog rings a bell. If I'm wrong, shoot me.

I think that it is impossible to make further analysis of the picture as internos as already said many time. I mean I do not know too much about imaging and such but I do know a little bit about information thresholds and processes (theoretical physics) and the same can be applied here. Simply put there is no way you can change information captured from one image into another image that CONTAINS MORE THAN THE SOURCE IMAGE. So with that said the "smart algorithms used" are only making a educated guess on what POSSIBLY could be seen with MORE DETAIL. You can NOT make any kind of educated analysis from another EDUCATED ANAYLISIS (algorithm).


Now I think the best thing to do is start investigating why did this guy not film this craft leave, why is this craft always at the same spot and allowing itself to be seen? Also what reasons could the filmer have to hoax this? If we start researching those then I think it might be possible to debunk or prove this case to some extent.