The infamous Turkey UFO a yacht?

reply to post by Karilla


Karilla.....

For interest's sake, have a look at this accident that occured on Sydney Harbour because of boats not using navigation lights.

I point this out (again as per my earlier post) because people can be extremely stupid about not using their marine navigation lights,when moving or when stationary.

www.smh.com.au...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by free_spirit


Free Spirit.....

I an effort to assist, I am going to risk being so presumptuous as to offer a little advice.

Relax a little.....

Your "message" is getting lost in your "delivery".

It's sounding a lot like an "angry ant" attack.....you know, when they wave their feelers around & try to bite you on the toe & all that sort of stuff?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Herewith a preliminary look at just the first 20 seconds or so of the very first Yalcin Yalman Kumburgaz video. It is aimed at the technical issues surrounding the videos and how they were captured and subsequently presented, not so much at identifying the object/s.

I'll make a few comments before I start:

1. UFO? I see NOTHING in any of these videos that suggests "Flying", either in terms of height or motion.

2. I gather the camera is a Canon GL1. That is a VERY capable camera, which should give sharp, well exposed results even in quite poor lighting conditions.

3. In low-light situations at long telephoto settings (where you have the time to do so) it should be mounted on a TRIPOD.

4. When presenting such videos, it is advisable (if you wish to be taken seriously) to provide full provenance and documentation, and to post the original footage (or at least a small snippet to show the real level of quality).

5. When presenting such videos, it is.. (you get the picture).. best to always use appropriate exposure settings (more about that later), and VARY the exposure to show the background, and known objects in the vicinity.

6. When focussing, it is best to rack the focus back and forth beyond correct focus in both directions, before settling on the final focus...

There's lots more, but I better get to at least the first bit of the video... The video I used is here:


0:00
The video commences with a message, claiming it to be the most significant video of all time.. and that it 'also covers two extraterrestrials'. This is NOT a very good start for what is supposedly an unbiased investigation...

0:07
Title screen showing logo and website for 'Sirius UFO Space Sciences Center'. One hopes some 'science' follows..

0:11
Time on video - 2007/07/30, 4:49pm (yet video seems to be taken at night..)

Description - This first video sequence shows what appears to be a light coloured rounded object partially obscured at the bottom, on a featureless background. Object shows severe camera shake effects, consistent with a hand held lens with a (35mm equiv) focal length of over 200mm. The obscured area is not straight, but is static, indicating that it is solid (not waves, for example). However, because the background is featureless (except for compression artefacts), no identification of either the object or anything obscuring it, (if that is the case) can be made with any certainty.

Technical Discussion:

Resolution/Focus - Very Poor. 'Object' shows no sharp detail ('sharpest' features are well over 8 pixels width). The time stamp, however, shows resolution of about 3-4 pixels. This indicates that the lens is compromised either by being of poor quality, by being unfocused, or by the addition of a low quality or unmatched tele-extender.. or some combination of those. As the time stamp is relatively clear, the blurring is NOT caused by compression or post-processing issues.

Compression - Yes. Compression artefacts are obvious. As a logo has been added and it is on Youtube, the image has obviously been post-processed and compressed at least once, but without details of what took place it is impossible to determine why the quality is so poor.

Dynamic Range - Extremely poor - less than half of the possible range. The 'blacks' are around RGB levels of 20, and the background is featureless except for compression blocking and posterisation. The 'whites' are also severely underexposed - the brightest area barely reaches RGB levels of 130 (of a possible 255). When you subtract the additional loss of 20 or so from the overexposed blacks, the resulting dynamic range is less than HALf of what it should be. It is hard to envisage how the dynamic range could be so reduced, without deliberate intervention or very poor manual exposure choices.

Both the 'whites' and blacks' (more accurately referred to as light greys and dark greys) are quite unbalanced, with strong greenish/bluish tints in areas. While the unidentified object could of course be any colour, the featureless background should be a balanced grey. The fact that it is not, indicates the white balance has also been compromised and should not be used for judging colours.


That will do for a start, even tho' I'm only about 30 seconds in...

I won't draw any conclusions yet - I'll be looking at further segments later and drawing all this together.. Additions, corrections, complaints all welcome, but be prepared to back yourself up with links and references. If anyone disputes my approach and/or conclusions, I am happy to explain and defend them under the same rules.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


That was tragic. Obviously I accept that it happens., although I wish fervently that it didn't.

Still, on balance I don't think the yacht explanation fits the evidence. Let me make it very clear, though, that I don't think that the lights on the horizon at dusk and the other dome-like structure are the same object, or that either of them are UFOs. I don't believe that any of the videos show the object flying or moving as if under control.

I've said what I think the lights are, but I'm not at all sure what the other object is. If someone can find images of a craft that would match closely what we see in the video I will happily accept that, but I don't think anyone has yet.

Edit: CHRLZ, you raise a very good point in your analysis. We see the lights on the horizon, from the beach in the twilight section. I think I have assumed that the moonlit section is filmed from the same place, but is there actually any evidence for this? Given that the surroundings are never actually shown, all we see is the moon and the object, it could have been filmed in a field for all we know.

The only section of the video put up by Sirius (www.youtube.com...) that shows a light above the horizon, looking out to see is short and shows a single light, it could easily be explained by morning mist and a light on top of a sailing yacht's mast. I see no connection with the other objects.

I'm off to do what I should have done earlier: Check to see what phase the moon was in on may 27th 2008 and see where it would have been visible from at that time of day.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Karilla]

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
SORRY KIDS I AM WAY AHEAD OF YOU ON THIS..


YOUR DESPERATE ATTEMPTS TO DEBUNK WILL BE SHOT DOWN EVERY SINGLE TIME.

I AM YET TO SEE ANY DECENT EVIDENCE OF YACHT.

Does shouting give your opinion more gravity?

FROM NOW ON... ALL THEORIES SHALL BE PROOFED VIA SHOUTING!

I never thought science would be this easy!

IRM

reply to post by Karilla


Karilla.....

I agree the "boat" theory has it's problems.

I will be extremely interested to see CHRLZ develop his work on this.....he knows his stuff!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

CHRLZ, while you may make good points about what is -recommended- when using say, that camera, that does nothing for this case. It is what it is. Which is that a guard... not a professional cameraman, took these videos. Woulda shoulda coulda adds nothings to the investigation. Unless you are suggesting it could be a hoax by virtue of the poor film quality, which I would have to disagree with. I wouldn't expect a night watchman to take expert video of anything, and I would also expect him to make poor choices for taping, as probably would any layman. Also, if I am recalling this correctly, this isn't even -his- camera, he borrowed it after he started sighting this object.

As far as the video, I'd suggest at least watching it in it's entirety at least once, before making comments like.. you see nothing to indicate it would be flying above the water or landscape. There are day shots that make this more obvious.

This -was- reviewed by a professional agency, alibet in a very hasty manner, and the results are hardly conclusive. But they were able to make some definitive comments about it being a flying object, being a solid object (not CGI), and so on. Personally I think this should be submitted to further agencies for study. It's sad to have supposed excellent footage, and then have it stagnate somewhere.

And by "excellent," I mean in comparison with near all other UFO videos and pictures taken over the years.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by fleabit]

reply to post by fleabit


Fleabit.....

Extremely unfortunately.....

The "expert analysis" is conflicted.....

"They" (yes.....you know who you are) won't release the orginal video.

I also confirm that CHRLZ knows his stuff, so I think we should all give that a go & think about what he says.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Obviously he does, but what does knowledge of cameras do for THIS case? Unless there is some level of proof that the maker of this video was more video-savvy than we would assume a nightguard to be, it's pointless. Yes, he didn't fully utilize the maximum potential of the camera he was using. AND? It's still remarkably steady, clear, and lengthy than almost all the videos we get. That makes it stand out imo.

I agree that the lack of making the original video available for study is suspect. I hardly assume this is an alien UFO hovering over the sea. But I still think it's unexplained. And this particular thread is about one guy's theory that it was a yacht. Yet it has drifted off into other realms.. like mirage-yachts, and now in-depth analysis of the video.

Slap that sort of stuff in the original thread.

reply to post by fleabit


Ah come on without this thread we probably wouldn't have the input from a Kumburgaz local, Lupelius or the exposure of a biased, tainted UFO investigator.

Such things would have just disappeared in one of the other threads.



[edit on 25/7/10 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by fleabit


Fleabit.....

I respectfully disagree.

This is a positive, constructive & entertaining thread.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by fleabit
CHRLZ, while you may make good points about what is -recommended- when using say, that camera, that does nothing for this case. It is what it is. Which is that a guard... not a professional cameraman, took these videos. Woulda shoulda coulda adds nothings to the investigation. Unless you are suggesting it could be a hoax by virtue of the poor film quality, which I would have to disagree with. I wouldn't expect a night watchman to take expert video of anything, and I would also expect him to make poor choices for taping, as probably would any layman. Also, if I am recalling this correctly, this isn't even -his- camera, he borrowed it after he started sighting this object.

As far as the video, I'd suggest at least watching it in it's entirety at least once, before making comments like.. you see nothing to indicate it would be flying above the water or landscape. There are day shots that make this more obvious.

This -was- reviewed by a professional agency, alibet in a very hasty manner, and the results are hardly conclusive. But they were able to make some definitive comments about it being a flying object, being a solid object (not CGI), and so on. Personally I think this should be submitted to further agencies for study. It's sad to have supposed excellent footage, and then have it stagnate somewhere.

And by "excellent," I mean in comparison with near all other UFO videos and pictures taken over the years.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by fleabit]

fleabit, may I suggest that you reread the comments I made at the end. I have not yet got to the interesting bits, and this merely lays some groundwork. Some of what I have said means little - YET, but the reason I raise some of these points will become clear when I get to the later videos.

In regard to the camera not being his, so what? He borrowed it over a THREE year period, the sightings were clearly not rushed, and the borrowee didn't give him any tips or loan him a tripod? Why then did he get given a tele-extender?? Why was he (badly) using advanced techniques like manual focus and manual exposure, if it was borrowed? How come he is seen waving the GL1 around at Maussan conferences? Like I said, some of these issues will make more sense later and in the wider context of all three videos, and subsequent hype. If it was me, after 3 years I'd expect a bit of an improvement on the quality I could produce. Guess that's just me...

In regard to the object being a uFo, can you be specific and name the video and time sequence where you claim it is high and 'flying'?

And as for the 'professional agency'. I have only seen a horribly flawed and completely inadequate, NON-AUTHORISED translation. And then highly embellished 'summaries' from others like Sirius and Maussan. Such translations are close to useless for reasons I have already outlined. And why wasn't it followed up? If you can find me a copy of a report by a CREDIBLE organisation, in English and signed off as such, with citations and references to appropriate qualifications of the investigators, and one that does not contain INCORRECT and UNWARRANTED interpretations (I'll get back to that later too! - maybe it's just the poor translation..), then I'll be prepared to give it more credence.

Anyway, do you dispute any of the numbers I have given, or my comments on the quality of the footage? My comments about the ridiculously low dynamic range, the resolution?

If you want to dispute my final 'conclusions' (such that anything could actually be concluded from footage like this), please have the courtesy to wait until I give them...

Originally posted by fleabit
... what does knowledge of cameras do for THIS case?

I'm a little stunned by that comment... It would be better if we knew less, would it???

I'm sorry but it has a LOT to do with this case. The Canon GL1 is a VERY good camera, capable of FAR better results than shown in these videos, and by knowing its capabilities and features we can get a very accurate picture of how this camera may have been wrongly used and/or mis-configured, either accidentally.. or deliberately. (Not to mention that such information allows photogrammetric analysis, eg the potential for determining sizes and distances)

There are SEVERAL technical aspects, not just one, where I will be suggesting that the camera was not being used properly, and that if it was simply left on automatic, or un-'modified', would have given far better results. Then there's the question of post-processing and how much damage that has done to the footage - again - accidentally?

The more we know about the camera and the way it was used/misused, the better. Unless you just want a good ufo story...

Another thing that strikes me about the footage is this. Everybody says "this was filmed over a 3 year period" etc...

If the UFO was making frequent enough visitations that the camera man could film it thus, why did he never film it in the context of the shore etc... My problems are thus:

1) He never shows how far he has to zoom to get the objects in focus. Are they close at hand or far away?

2) He never tries to make the footage clear. He never sorts out the light settings in his footage, so it is as if (to a cynic) he does not want the footage to be clearer. Maybe he himself realised what he was filming and then tried to obscure it.

Maybe we are seeing something illegal here. Could be people or drug traffiking. Maybe it is illegal fishing using bright lights or something.

However to jump straight to the UFO case seems a bit strange imho. Unidentified, yes, Flying, Maybe but scant evidence to suggest this is an object in the air, Object... hmm I personally have my doubts it is a solid object we are seeing and not a distortion of a more mundane object.

Ok, firstly. The phases of the moon present a few small problems. They seem to be a few days off:

Here is the moon shown on the 23rd May 2008:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a7c4a811bdd0.jpg[/atsimg]
It may be fuzzy and indistinct, but you'd have to agree that it seems to be full. It shouldn't have been. See here:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/493a48cacc77.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is the moon from the 27th May 2008:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/500fba87f88c.jpg[/atsimg]
It shows the moon as it was on the 25th May. On the 27th it was one day off third quarter.

Here is the moon shown on the 4th July:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1d9965f3e94e.jpg[/atsimg]
It is only shown for a couple of frames, but it should not have been visible at all. It was a new moon on the 4th. Look:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/174966ff1a2a.jpg[/atsimg]

***************************************************************

Here are a couple of problems I have with the yacht explanation.

If the videos show the interior lighting of a yacht, why the difference between these two images?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8c568463dd03.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/31ef398804aa.jpg[/atsimg]
Both images seem to show reflected light bouncing off a curved dome-like surface. The BIG problem with the second one is the specular highlight which is what convinced me that the blob I showed above on July 4th is the full moon. If that isn't the moon, which it shouldn't have been, where is the light coming from?


I'm leaning more towards this being an outright hoax. The only "interesting" objects are only seen with the moon, not in relation to any background detail and show no movement. Distance is impossible to judge. I'm thinking a perspex dome not that large and not that far away. The cameraman even mentions a problem with his tripot [sic] which is obviously a lie.

Both images seem to show reflected light bouncing off a curved dome-like surface. The BIG problem with the second one is the specular highlight which is what convinced me that the blob I showed above on July 4th is the full moon. If that isn't the moon, which it shouldn't have been, where is the light coming from?

The light does not disperse correctly for it to be a dome surely. The light stays in a band round the top of the shape, and other bands of light appear on the surface of the shape. It reminds me more of light shining down on a flat disk like an LP record or a CD at a strange angle. The object you posted a picture of looks strangely 3D.

I'm leaning more towards this being an outright hoax. The only "interesting" objects are only seen with the moon, not in relation to any background detail and show no movement. Distance is impossible to judge. I'm thinking a perspex dome not that large and not that far away. The cameraman even mentions a problem with his tripot [sic] which is obviously a lie.

Here's why I think its domed:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2c58b038cd43.png[/atsimg]

Although the lighting is from a slightly different angle. I could be wrong.

Thanks! I see your point.

On youtube somebody suggested that it was a capsized vessel, so I've just been hunting around.

Firstly, I guess roughly the shape is right. Here are a few capsized hulls:







Now I searched around for any boats that might have been reported as having sunk or capsized in the Sea of Marmara in 2007. Notably, a vessel was involved in a collision in the Sea of Marmara on the 3rd of August 2007. Information was lacking (in English atleast), but I was able to hunt down some photos of the vessel, named the Salih Reis 4.




It does not look a million miles away from those yachts earlier in the thread!


As for capsized vessels, whenever I Have visited small ports here in Scotland I have noticed that at low tide plenty of vessels end up lying on sand banks in shallow water. Some of them tip over at an allarming angle, and do so for quite some time.

The problem with this argument is that the Sea of Marmara is hardly tidal, and a vessel stranded at such an angle would remain there indefinitely. This might atleast explain the multiple sightings on multiple nights. Perhaps the daylight footage shows just red lights around the perimeter of the hull of a stranded fishing boat at an unusual angle.

Fishing boat accidents are not apparently reported to any degree.

Here is a photograph of the Sea of Marmara at night with fishing boats opperating. Note that some vessels appear to have multiple lights onboard.

Continued...

So instead of chasing up ships, I've also looked into that island, Imrali Adasi, as helpfully pointed out previously in this thread.

The Island is South of Kumburgaz, and is longer than it is wide.

Here is a top-down view of it.




Now the point marked Imrali Cezaey is the point closest to our camera man at Kumburgaz.

I located a photo of Imrali Adasi as viewed from the East, and it appears that the highest point of the island is at Imrali Cezaey, as seen in this photo:




Therefore our camera man, if he could see the island at all, would see this point only.

I found another photograph, reporting to be of Imrali Adasi and it looks like this:




I believe this photograph to have been taken from North of the Island looking South directly at the point Imrali Cezaey and look at that topography! Notice the curve. Does it remind you of something?




Note that both the Island and the UFO have darkened areas on the left hand side.

Another argument I would put forward AGAINST the Yacht idea is that now mooring is permitted on Imrali Adasi. The place is a prison island, so pleasure vessels would not be lying around. Therefore it would either be vessels in open ocean (doing what? Night after night?), or something else.

On a side note, have you seen this footage of a guy reproducing the UFO footage using a metal tray?



Youtube link not wanting to work? Here is the raw youtube link:

www.youtube.com...

Its not perfect but it is something.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Manolete]

All this talk of the object being a boat is nonsense that should be dropped. The video as posted by fleabit earlier on in this thread clearly should end the very silly boat specualtion. 1. the object is much higher than the sea level. 2. The lights being displayed are most un-boat like. 3. The object is driving the dog crazy as it can be seen barking directly at it. Animals have been known to react to these things in excatly the same way as the dog does in the clip. Why would it go mad at a boat on the distant horizon? No, this clips is of a real alien craft.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by david444]