The infamous Turkey UFO a yacht?

Originally posted by necati
Would have liked to edit the subtitles on the video but that would have taken too much time. I will try to translate the on-screen text as good as I can and add some comments if I feel the need to (italics).

Don't apologise, necati - all the stuff you contribute is very useful. You're going well beyond the call of duty.. I'll just toss in a few comments..

The TÜBITAK report says that the camera used was a Canon GL1. It actually was a Canon DM GR1 A...
The conclusion made is that thus the TUBITAK report has lost its validity in a technical (??) sense.
(I must admit that I can’t understand the sense of that objection since the TÜBITAK did not use the same type of camera for any further analysis. To me it only looks like a formal error.

Correct. Simply observing that they may have got the model wrong is a completely worthless observation, unless it affects the obseravtion claims or quality of image. They have not linked the two, so that is just meaningless handwaving. A bit like the initial stupid waffle about using f1.8 - these are attempts by people to sound like they know what they are doing. But the content of the videos shows that they don't, from Yalcin to Akdogan to Ekers.

During the press conference it was said that the distance to the objects which were filmed was about 6 to 7 kilometres. It was claimed that the footage which was taken at a distance of 7km showed creatures in the space craft.

How did they get those distances???? And as for the inference that those fuzzy blobs are heads of anything, let alone aliens... Absolutely ridiculous.

It is questioned if a camera of the (same) type is able to resolve a 16m² big area at that distance showing the same detail. If the owners of the footage want to prove that the camera is capable of this..

This stuff is easy to determine - by knowing the lens/es used and the zoom settings, the angles are easy to calculate. but that does NOT give you the distances. There IS a chance that the distance could be pinned down somewhat from examination of the original footage, but the youtubed versiosn are just too poor for that. And by smply examining the footage you can see how well (or in ths case badly) the lens and sensor are resolving the image. That process would all be part of a proper examination, yet obviously was not done.

In all recordings the objects look like being filmed not from below but from the same height. The objects (allegedly) 60 degrees above look actually like objects at the same height (0 degree).

It seems to be an ongoing habit with these folk - they make comments about what stuff 'looks like', based on their opinions. Worthless opinions, imo! You HAVE to provide supporting details for these claims, or they are baseless. And there are so many here, that the entire case is destroyed by their own incompetence and obvious desire to mislead and misdirect.

We should be able to see parts from the front (sides) as well as from the belly (underside) of a vehicle at an angle of 60 degrees above.

AGAIN! Who the hell said it was a vehicle??? That type of assertion is simply ridiculous.

4. The pixilation which occurs momentarily (on certain frames).
The footage was recorded on digital tape so what is the reason for the pixilation? (Some examples from the footage [6:03-6:27])
Could this be due to errors of a device which was used to play back (previously) recorded film?

Again, this stuff is just stupefyingly ignorant. ALL pixellation causes are VERY well known and understood, and a simple PROPER examination of the original media will INSTANTLY reveal the cause.

5. Suspicious dialogues while filming.
Reminder! Keep in mind that the camera (its zooming) was needed to see the craft which appeared like a bright star to the (unaided) eye. Hence someone who wasn’t observing the object through a camera would only perceive the object as a (point of) light with no detail.
The person named Salih seems to be able to see everything with the naked eye, though.
Yalman says that there is something in front of it (the ‘space craft’).
Salih immediately asks: ‘Are there two of them?’ What he might have meant? That he’d seen the two aliens with the naked eye?
(I have to add that Yalman responds: ‘No only one!’, so I think there is something else which they both referred to. Perhaps the number of objects

Agreed. Even taking into account different styles of language, the dialogue is very 'strange' and casts further doubt on the footage.

6. Moments when the object disappears from view [8:34].
The objects always disappear from view (image section) with a zoom out and a reduction of the object’s brightness/shininess first, accompanied by a rasping noise.

Is this a reference to the little rapid clicks? That is very likely someone adjusting the aperture - again, easy to verify by simply examing the camera and .. er.. listening. Tricky stuff for these folk...

The glass of a teleprompter is different from ordinary glass.

Actually, most teleprompters use quite ordinary glass, shrouded to give the effect. It seems they don't even know tele-prompters.
This is ANOTHER example of them using diversions to sound complicated and important, as if they have properly investigated and know their topic. But any old window reflects things just fine, and can be used in this way at night. Why on earth raise the tele-prompter?

(here’s another example of a sirius forums member humprey making use of an ordinary kitchen window: www.vimeo.com... you might like to check out some of his other examples as well)

Prefect example of what I mean.

8. The missing four minutes[11:42].
In this clip there is a missing time of 4 minutes. Furthermore there is a suspicious light reflection in the lower half of the view. This part with the missing 4 minutes should be made public.

Well, duh. So there is a strong indication that Yalman or his publicity agent/s are refusing to allow access to the original media. DAMNING information.


PS - in case it isn't clear, my comments above are directed at the purveyors of this debacle, not Necati. Necati -thanks again for all this!

reply to post by CHRLZ


Well CHRLZ, you could have at least sugar coated your comments on the video a little. I think these guys or (that guy) at least tried to oppose the almost unison opinion at Sirius-UFO.org that the TÜBITAK report has proven and sealed the authenticity of the Yalman footage beyond any doubt. If you could read through the many pages of the Kumburgaz threads at Sirius-UFO.org you would know that they’ve even been bashed for uttering any doubts at all.

A bit like the initial stupid waffle about using f1.8 - these are attempts by people to sound like they know what they are doing.

I don’t understand what you’re referring to here. Could you give me a hint were you read/heard that? I can’t remember any f-stop issue being addressed (except your former objections).

How did they get those distances???? And as for the inference that those fuzzy blobs are heads of anything, let alone aliens... Absolutely ridiculous.

I think that they merely took the figures which were given during the press conference and are referring to that.
Do you have any means to determine if an object the size of 25-30cm could be resolved using a Canon DM GR1 A at a distance of let’s say 6 to 7 kilometres (with similar or same lenses)? Unfortunately the burden of proof again lies with those who doubt and not with the claimant.

It seems to be an ongoing habit with these folk - they make comments about what stuff 'looks like', based on their opinions. Worthless opinions, imo! You HAVE to provide supporting details for these claims, or they are baseless. And there are so many here, that the entire case is destroyed by their own incompetence and obvious desire to mislead and misdirect.

I think the maker(s) of the video (I’m talking about the one I translated) really didn’t want to mislead or misdirect anything but assumed that a space craft (this is what Yalman, Akdogan and others claim) should be three-dimensional by nature and therefore raised the question why certain portions of it cannot be seen if it hovers above in the sky at an angle of 60 degrees (lit up only from above would be a good objection, though).

If you ask me it is pretty obvious that the lower half of the ‘space craft’ is always hidden behind a visual obstruction. Especially when compared to its (the craft’s) position in relation to the moon (the one with the cut/notch). The object is close to the horizon if not at the same height of the videographer.

AGAIN! Who the hell said it was a vehicle??? That type of assertion is simply ridiculous.

I again can’t understand your objection. That’s what Akdogan and others have claimed again and again. The makers of the video are only referring to that. They might have put the word in quotes, though.
I more and more begin to think that you might have got the wrong end of the stick. Yes, of course English isn’t obviously my first language and I should apologise in advance if it’s me who has misunderstood something here.

Again, this stuff is just stupefyingly ignorant. ALL pixellation causes are VERY well known and understood, and a simple PROPER examination of the original media will INSTANTLY reveal the cause.

Like us they would wait until the cows come home. I think that they very much stick to their initial idea that the whole hoax is made using a teleprompter and therefore attribute the pixilation to the playback device below the teleprompter glass.

Is this a reference to the little rapid clicks? That is very likely someone adjusting the aperture - again, easy to verify by simply examing the camera and .. er.. listening. Tricky stuff for these folk...

Think you’re right. However, again some sugar coating please..............

Actually, most teleprompters use quite ordinary glass, shrouded to give the effect. It seems they don't even know tele-prompters. This is ANOTHER example of them using diversions to sound complicated and important, as if they have properly investigated and know their topic. But any old window reflects things just fine, and can be used in this way at night. Why on earth raise the tele-prompter?

Probably because it would be a convenient but in this case not so likely way to hoax the footage. I don’t know either, perhaps they thought that the ‘special glass’ is non-reflective or something.

Well, duh. So there is a strong indication that Yalman or his publicity agent/s are refusing to allow access to the original media. DAMNING information.

CHRLZ there were bigmouthed announcements that they would share the original media with any organisation that asks for further examination. I think, they meant people with ‘credentials’, yet (here’s a little wink at you free_spirit).

That’s what the UFO-Big-Fast-Buck business is about: flood the media with the most outlandish claims and little proof, attracting public attention for big congress events and raise the rating of TV-shows. You can always rely on the gullibility of the masses.

Even if someone (stupidly) takes on the burden of proof and debunks the so-called sensational proof for extraterrestrial visitation he or she will never have the same platform and attention like those protagonists of UFO-BS (I have to point out that I mean the hoaxers and their stuff not the UFO-phenomenon itself. I actually do believe that there is something behind my own experience and the many cases in the past).
How often Maussan and his little helpers have been debunked? Has it harmed his business? The well-known Santiago Yturria Garza will go on counting stars, flags and especially money; twisting the truth (your words), blur the facts and defaming those whom he feels himself and his master to be endangered by. Alejandro Franz and others are doing a Sisyphos job to reveal their true faces.
Akdogan has perfectly learned from his Mexican hero, I can’t imagine that neither you nor anybody else will ever get hold of the original tapes.

@Maybe...maybe not
No Sir you got it wrong. No sail, they have to start-push that darn thing...............

edit: spelling, as always.................

[edit on 15-8-2010 by necati]

reply to post by necati


reply to post by CHRLZ


Necati, CHRLZ.....

I just want to let you know I am finding your discussion very interesting & enjoyable.

Your high quality analysis & dialogue is a highlight in this forum.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by necati
Well CHRLZ, you could have at least sugar coated your comments on the video a little. I think these guys or (that guy) at least tried to oppose the almost unison opinion at Sirius-UFO.org that the TÜBITAK report has proven and sealed the authenticity of the Yalman footage beyond any doubt. If you could read through the many pages of the Kumburgaz threads at Sirius-UFO.org you would know that they’ve even been bashed for uttering any doubts at all.

Fair enough. But I'm not having a go at the forum members, I'm just struck by the comments that are being made by pretty much everyone who *promotes* this - they claim expertise, but show none.. Given all the translation going on, it is unclear to me exactly which parts of the video are being analysed - my comments were mainly directed at the Akdogan interview.

A bit like the initial stupid waffle about using f1.8 - these are attempts by people to sound like they know what they are doing.

I don’t understand what you’re referring to here. Could you give me a hint were you read/heard that? I can’t remember any f-stop issue being addressed (except your former objections).

Near the beginning of the video you posted:
video.yahoo.com...
at around -12:35 (?) he refers to the 'diaphragm' (=aperture). It's at the same time as they refer to the camera as a GR1, and say the tubitak report is wrong. But there is no GR1 in the Canon range as far as I am aware - I'm getting very confused, as it looks exactly like a GL1 to me..

Do you have any means to determine if an object the size of 25-30cm could be resolved using a Canon DM GR1 A at a distance of let’s say 6 to 7 kilometres (with similar or same lenses)? Unfortunately the burden of proof again lies with those who doubt and not with the claimant.

My immediate and off-the-cuff guess is NO, it couldn't be that small at that distance!! , but that's just a guess - Yes, it's certainly possible to work this out properly. I would need to know what the mag ratio of his teleconverter is, and the REAL model of the camera.

If you ask me it is pretty obvious that the lower half of the ‘space craft’ is always hidden behind a visual obstruction.

Agreed, but I don't want to eliminate anything, or do what i am criticising others for, namely guessing at what it 'looks like'.

Especially when compared to its (the craft’s) position in relation to the moon (the one with the cut/notch). The object is close to the horizon if not at the same height of the videographer.

Agreed, as above.. I'd like to see the original footage of those bits that include the Moon, as i think they may include some giveaway information...

AGAIN! Who the hell said it was a vehicle??? That type of assertion is simply ridiculous.

I again can’t understand your objection. That’s what Akdogan and others have claimed again and again.

You misunderstand - *they* are who I am criticising, not the subsequent analysis! I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer.

I more and more begin to think that you might have got the wrong end of the stick. Yes, of course English isn’t obviously my first language and I should apologise in advance if it’s me who has misunderstood something here.

Yes, I think we are at crossed purposes here! I agree with you, and I am criticisng Yalman, Akdogan, Ekers/Tubitak (and maussan and his cronies). I am not criticising the later analysis - I have the same problem as you, in reverse - it is hard to know exactly who is doing/saying what!

Like us they would wait until the cows come home. I think that they very much stick to their initial idea that the whole hoax is made using a teleprompter and therefore attribute the pixilation to the playback device below the teleprompter glass.

All they need is any old pane of glass, and you can then use any household object as your ufo, given a darkened room.. But I am of the opinion that this may indeed be an object some distance away - I'd love to spend a bit of time wandering around this area at night...

Is this a reference to the little rapid clicks? That is very likely someone adjusting the aperture - again, easy to verify by simply examing the camera and .. er.. listening. Tricky stuff for these folk...

Think you’re right. However, again some sugar coating please...

Again, I'm referring to yalman/akdogan/maussan. I'm afraid I am well-past being nice to *them*.. And it seems I am not alone..

CHRLZ there were bigmouthed announcements that they would share the original media with any organisation that asks for further examination. I think, they meant people with ‘credentials’, yet (here’s a little wink at you free_spirit).

That’s what the UFO-Big-Fast-Buck business is about: flood the media with the most outlandish claims and little proof, attracting public attention for big congress events and raise the rating of TV-shows. You can always rely on the gullibility of the masses.

Even if someone (stupidly) takes on the burden of proof and debunks the so-called sensational proof for extraterrestrial visitation he or she will never have the same platform and attention like those protagonists of UFO-BS (I have to point out that I mean the hoaxers and their stuff not the UFO-phenomenon itself. I actually do believe that there is something behind my own experience and the many cases in the past).
How often Maussan and his little helpers have been debunked? Has it harmed his business? The well-known Santiago Yturria Garza will go on counting stars, flags and especially money; twisting the truth (your words), blur the facts and defaming those whom he feels himself and his master to be endangered by. Alejandro Franz and others are doing a Sisyphos job to reveal their true faces.
Akdogan has perfectly learned from his Mexican hero, I can’t imagine that neither you nor anybody else will ever get hold of the original tapes.

APPLAUSE!!! Well said, Necati!!

(And you tell ME off for not sugar coating...? )



[edit on 15-8-2010 by CHRLZ]

[edit on 15-8-2010 by CHRLZ]

Little bit of topic, but we also have to see the bigger picture.
Something is changing in Turkey for sure. The BS stuffs like new age philosophy, quantum and change your life etc. getting more and more popular. And almost everyday on TV and the tabloid online newspaperes are showing old hoax or very bad ufo pictures. This whole change is an object of sociological analyses in itself. And it is for sure that some people are profiting from it.
3 days ago, there was a guy, claiming that 13 August will be judgement day and the end of the world will come. Believe or not, but he was in many tv channels and many people were scared. I hope this madness will stop one day.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by deccal]

After looking over these pages for the past few week's i feel you guys should also check out this analysis -
www.alcione.org...

After looking over these pages for the past few week's i feel you guys should also check out this analysis -
www.alcione.org...

Originally posted by mondo99kt
After looking over these pages for the past few week's i feel you guys should also check out this analysis -
www.alcione.org...

This site is fantastic, thx

reply to post by mondo99kt


I think most of us already did, he is also a member here (alfafox). His work deserves a lot more attention.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
(And you tell ME off for not sugar coating...?

)

That's what I call an appropriate coating: Tar and feathers!!!

Originally posted by mondo99kt
After looking over these pages for the past few week's i feel you guys should also check out this analysis -
www.alcione.org...

While most of us have indeed seen that site, Cap'n Alejandro has been busy!!

It has now had many additions, inc. a lot of stuff from ATS (appropriately acknowledged) and is an extremely good resource on this..

If you are following this thread and haven't visited it recently, I suggest you take another look...

NECATI & CHRLZ


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4a6e2628f3e3.gif[/atsimg]


Gentlemen, very impressive work. Thank you for all your efforts!

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

YOUR OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG AGAIN

Ummm no the dog IS on the beach true...

But the dog is barking at someone swimming in the water right in the foreground

This image showing the angle of photography...



Matches the angle he was shooting... this is zoomed out, you can see he is shooting along the shoreline. This is towards the orange lights, marked in area



Next level zoom...



Third level zoom... sure looks like a shoreline in the video



As to the cruise ship...

This whole thing has bugged me... the repeated sightings, the same angle of the craft, Just doesn't feel right on so many levels

Clips below are screen captures from video linked below that has been stabalized

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b2956b28da2e.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0ffcf35657eb.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/28e3f581d955.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a3fc2c2d7c71.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/327bdba688e1.png[/atsimg]

So Chad's OP shows us the shot was towards some large docks... and here we have a cruise ship DOCKED that the upper bridge sure matches bout the angle and the shape.. almost perfectly in fact.

The video...

Kumburgaz Turkey UFO stabilized video looks like a ship

Originally posted by free_spirit
First of all your source Andres Duarte is not a ufo researcher but a second grade
skeptic a classic “Can't debunk this , will invent” who may be called also armchair.
I'm very surprised you brought this individual here with nothing but 100% speculation,
your dissapointed me. Now about your extremely weak imported theory.

Hmmm well how about this chap? Alejandro Franz?

I gotta say I was a little shocked by this... perhaps you can explain it?

Originally posted by alfafox
Hello antibren and dear members,

I would like to invite you to take a look at my investigation theories page,
(NO ADDS, NO COMMERCIALS, NO POPPING UP SELLING OFFERS)
also at the top of the page is the missing link from this OP


www.alcione.org...

Kind regards
Cap. Alejandro Franz

Santiago Yturria Garza
A CYBER "GANGSTER" and "TROLL"
Jaime Maussán's partner and associate
in the most shameful scammer UFO business

Santiago Yturria Garza aka free_spirit

A rancorous and frustrated embittered individual, a coward "gangster"
at Jaime Maussán's service who defamed Capt. Alejandro Franz at many
places like Radio programs, conferences, TV shows, video interviews,
and several times anonymously using many pseudonyms like free_spirit
in the forum Abovetopsecret because he was and still is incapable to
demonstrate nothing against the Oil Well Flames Theory of the famous
"UFO's" sighting of March 05, 2004 where the Mexican Air Force personnel
as the RADAR and FLIR operator's did many infamous recognition mistakes.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

YOUR OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG AGAIN

Ummm no the dog IS on the beach true...

But the dog is barking at someone swimming in the water right in the foreground

you can't really tell if that is a person or not...and if it is the dog starts barking when the supposed swimmer in the ocean is not visible...so the dog must be blind or something cause he doesn't face the supposed swimmer when barking and the swimmer isn't even in the picture..dogs face what they are barking at

Originally posted by zorgon
This image showing the angle of photography...

Matches the angle he was shooting... this is zoomed out, you can see he is shooting along the shoreline. This is towards the orange lights, marked in area

Next level zoom...

Third level zoom... sure looks like a shoreline in the video

As to the cruise ship...

This whole thing has bugged me... the repeated sightings, the same angle of the craft, Just doesn't feel right on so many levels

Clips below are screen captures from video linked below that has been stabalized

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b2956b28da2e.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0ffcf35657eb.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/28e3f581d955.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a3fc2c2d7c71.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/327bdba688e1.png[/atsimg]

So Chad's OP shows us the shot was towards some large docks... and here we have a cruise ship DOCKED that the upper bridge sure matches bout the angle and the shape.. almost perfectly in fact.

The video...

Kumburgaz Turkey UFO stabilized video looks like a ship

edit on 19-12-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

I could superimpose that ufo picture on anything make it look it is part of it...and the one you did is the kinda-sorta-not really variety..and at other angles the UFO looks not even remotely close to that

Originally posted by primetime2123
I could superimpose that ufo picture on anything make it look it is part of it...

No... you can't

and the one you did is the kinda-sorta-not really variety...

I didn't do it If you read my post I CLEARLY stated the source of those clips and analysis. I merely agree with it

and at other angles the UFO looks not even remotely close to that

What 'other angles'? The 'UFO' has been at the same angle in the same location three years in a row. And no one else on a busy tourist beachfront has seen it... explain the logic of that to me and we might reconsider

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by primetime2123
I could superimpose that ufo picture on anything make it look it is part of it...

No... you can't

and the one you did is the kinda-sorta-not really variety...

I didn't do it If you read my post I CLEARLY stated the source of those clips and analysis. I merely agree with it

and at other angles the UFO looks not even remotely close to that

What 'other angles'? The 'UFO' has been at the same angle in the same location three years in a row. And no one else on a busy tourist beachfront has seen it... explain the logic of that to me and we might reconsider

this is what a cruise ship looks like at night



see it is clearly discernible from the lights alone...I don't think ships only turn on a couple of lights at night...and it is stationary so a cruise ship at night with 2 lights on .makes no sense....that is if you go with the cruise ship theory which I don't cause that looks nothing like a prow of a ship to me

I'm curious why, if it's been in the same place three years in a row, nobody's just gone out on the water to get a closer look?

You would think if it were really something inexplicable, there would have been plenty of closer inspections to figure out what it was. What I think is that it's something obvious, that doesn't look so obvious on video or in pictures, so there's no push to get out there for a closer look, and whoever's taking the pictures is perfectly happy with the "mystery" factor his current pictures have.

I'm starting to think it's all a hoax, in fact. It's obvious that there are means and methods to figure out what this thing is, since it repeats its appearance, and is low over the water, fairly close to shore.

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
I'm starting to think it's all a hoax, in fact. It's obvious that there are means and methods to figure out what this thing is, since it repeats its appearance, and is low over the water, fairly close to shore.

And is on a section of beach laden with boats