Turkey UFO UPDATE Dr Roger Leir speaks about ET FOOTAGE

so did this puppy show up again this year? ..... no one went out with super zoom equipment? Like maybe Hubbles lil sister even
The turkish Defence force is pretty tough, they wouldn't think to have got the footage in year 3 or 4? They let Leir get it?

hmmm

Originally posted by subby
I would love this to be the real deal but sadly I think not.
It was not a full moon on May 15 2009 as claimed and I just don't believe all the excuses about not zooming out or using the lcd screen to save power. He knew in advance what he would be filming and easily could take extra batteries.

Well its not like it was a quarter moon that night. I think he meant it as moon was pretty bright and visible. Theres also something called Earthshine that could attribute to him thinking the moon was full and a bit brighter.

In my opinion this is one of the most important cases in Ufology and I would challenge anyone who thinks they can debunk the original footage as well as providing explanations on how the video(s) were 'made' to do so. I remember this footage making the news in Britain for a few days or so when it first appeared and I personally think this is genuine. We have a close-up of what seems to be an alien craft, we have footage of two objects (possibly aliens) who are at the controls of the craft and we have various sources that suggest this video has been analysed and over analysed by true professionals - not internet fantasist's.

I find it truly amazing how when confronted with compelling and unedited footage, people still rubbish it. I'm one of the more open-minded critics but even this case should have every skeptic thinking differently about UFO's, aliens and Ufology.

reply to post by ProfessorT


Well stated. It is one of those videos which solidified my belief in Extra terrestrials.
At times we must suspend disbelief in order to see what is right in front of us.

****Attention UFO Community****
***Save This In Your Files***


turkeyufocase.blogspot.com...

The Istanbul sightings are important for many reasons. There are more than 12 witnesses over many nights including Dr. Roger Leir. A serious attempt to debunk the video has been done by several well known photographic experts. So far nobody has been able to demonstrate that the video recordings are product of tricks or some type of manipulation. In my opinion 95% ufos can be explained and I am not a believer or a debunker.

Case Overview:
This case developed in the location of Kumburgaz, Istanbul between the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. The video was taken by a night guard named Yalcin Yalman. One singularity of this case was that the images were made with a camera that had an adaptor for close ups of 200X optical, achieving a great amount of detail of the objects. During this period several minutes of close range video were taken of metallic ufos floating or changing while in flight over the sea coast of Marmara. They seemed to change appearance into orange glowing globes in a short amount of time only several minutes. Many special effects/imaging experts tried to debunk the footage including: Prof. José Atenas, an expert in graphics and video, with more than 30 years of experience on television Prof. phD. Zeki EKER Director National Council For The Study Of Science And Technology and National Observatory, and Mario Valdes from Santiago Chile. Other analysis were done by video specialists, image edition and special effect companies from Japan, Russia and Turkey, all ending up with the same conclusions that there was no evidence of a hoax and what is being filmed is not a product of a balloon, prop, model, or special effects.

Short Documentary Video
www.youtube.com...

The National Council For The Study Of Science And Technology (sponsored by the government) and National Observatory (TUG) got interested in analyzing the original footage, with the intention of determining that the video was nothing more than a hoax, gambling on the idea of scale models or toys, or CGI. The original tape was handed to the TUBITAK representatives on live TV in their own headquarters. Once the analysis concluded, they released their report on a press release, from which I took the following quote: "The objects observed on the images have a structure made of a specific material and definitely itís no any kind of CGI animation or in any means a type of special effects used for simulation in a studio or for video effects. So the conclusion of this report is that the observations are not a model, maquette or a fraud". At the last part of the report, it’s concluded that the objects observed have a physical structure and are made of materials that do not belong to any category (airplanes, helicopters, meteors, Venus, Mars, Satellites, artificial lights, Chinese lanterns, etc.) and that it mostly fits in the category of UFO’s (Unidentified Flying Objects and of unknown origin)."

Sirius UFO Space Science Research Center
At first, the videos were analyzed and made public by the SIRIUS UFO organization, directed by the researcher Haktan Akdogan. Sirius UFO Space Science Research Center firstly, spoke with all the witnesses separately then did the detailed analysis of the full footage of 2 hours 30 mn. long with the participation of the members of a science board. They enlarged the video images, did all the detailed analysis, checked their pixels, and went through the all footage frame by frame. After doing all the necessary analysis which went on for several weeks. SIRIUS released the following statement:
Haktan Aktagan, SIRIUS Space Research:--"the objects sighted in the aforementioned footage that have a structure that is made of specific material are definitely not made up by any kind of computer animation nor are they any form of special effects used for simulation in a studio or for a video effect therefore in conclusion it was decided that the sightings were neither a mock up or hoax. And it is concluded that these objects in the sightings that have physical and material structures do not belong in any category such as; planes, helicopters, meteors, Venus, Mars, satellites, fire balls, Chinese lantern, fire balls, weather balloons, natural or atmospheric phenomenon. etc. and but rather fall into the category of UFO’s. The incident went on several times intermittently before the very eyes of the residents of "Yeni Kent Compound", filmed by a night guard named Yalcin Yalman. The detailed analysis of a certain portion of these extraordinary videos showed that three different objects were captured at the same time."

Haktan Akdagan Video Explanation Part 1
www.youtube.com...
Haktan Akdagan Video Explanation Part 2
www.youtube.com...
TUBIAK Report by Prof. phD Zeki EKER
turkeyufocase.blogspot.com...
The Scientific and Technological Council of Turkey Website
www.tubitak.gov.tr...;jsessionid=B7809E5C0656F9DA6ED197EF343F23BB (Audio) Dr. Roger Leir Describes Turkey UFO
www.youtube.com...
Mario Valdes Image Analysis
www.archivosovni.com...
33 Minute Segment
www.youtube.com...
Istanbul Sighting
www.youtube.com...

Camera Details
The camera was based on the NTSC System with a diaphragm set at the maximum of 1.8. Canon DM-GRI-A. It's a 3CCD 20x optic 100x with a tele-converter mounted on a 58mm adapter. Tele-objective is a Sony brand vci hgd 1758 model lens, x 1.7.

Yalcin Explaining the Camera Details
www.youtube.com...

This case made big news in Turkey and in other countries as well. It also started a great debate between the official members of the Turkish scientific community. Other analysis were done by video specialists and special effect companies from Japan, Russia and Turkey, all ending up with the same conclusions that it remains unexplained. In Chile, professor José Atenas, an expert in graphics and video with more than 30 years of experience on television, was asked to technically examine the videos. In his appreciation, José Atenas also came to the same conclusions that the images are authentic. So far nobody has been able to demonstrate that the recordings are product of tricks or some type of manipulation. Therefore, the debate has concentrated more over the nature and origin of the objects filmed by Yalcin Yalman.
During 2007 the first video was taken on a beach on the coast of Istanbul. The lack of background and horizon made it difficult to verify one way or the other. What the witnesses needed to do was capture the horizon reference point so the video can analyzed with greater detail on the exact location of the object.
In 2008, in what seems to be a regular occurrence in Turkey alot of ufos were reported to Haktan Akdagan the chairman of Sirius UFO Research, Turkey's version of MUFON. Yalcin, who was still armed with his 200x optical lens camera kept a watch at a facility known as the "Yeni Kent Compound" located near the Sea of Marmara. The 2008 video includes video from the day and at night, however most of the footage was taken at night. Nobody has done an accurate measurement of the distance, however my rough guess is several hundred feet away.
2008 Original Footage Video
www.youtube.com...
During 2009 between May and June, several glowing objects and a metallic ufos were seen again by over a dozen witnesses hovering over the Sea of Marmara. Several credible people, such as Roger Leir, were at a ufo conference in Turkey at the time and happened to attend Yalcin to one of his video taping sessions. According to those witnesses who have come forward with their story they saw a ufo in the air that Yalcin was filming. They did not see any evidence of a staged prop, model, or a hoax. A 33 minute segment of the video starting at (night) 4:59 a.m., until after (sunrise) at 5:32 a.m., it becomes clear that we are looking at an object several hundred yards away in the horizon over the sea. This is important because some people, including myself, thought at first it could be a model or prop very close to the camera, but the object is a real authentic metallic ufo several feet away over the sea.
2009 Original Footage Video
www.youtube.com...

Roger Leir on Coast to Coast:
"it was two years in a row. I was there both times looking through the viewfinder of the camera. Now the camera was mounted on sticks and it had a 200 mil lens and an electronic doubler so we were able to push very very close on the craft. Now just as a background the craft was lit by a moon that was very very bright in the sky and so that illuminated the exterior portion of the craft" "it was sent in an proven that it was not a hoax and what was being seen was reality"

Listen to Roger Leir’s Witness Testimony:

(Audio)Dr. Roger Leir Describes Turkey UFO
www.youtube.com...
Dr. Roger Leir Lecture on Turkey UFO Video
www.youtube.com...

More Information:

2008 Daylight Video
www.youtube.com...
2009 Daylight Video
www.youtube.com...
SIRIUS UFO and Space Research (english website)
SIRIUS UFO and Space Research
Turkey UFO Blog
turkeyufocase.blogspot.com...
Contact:
[email protected]
www.alienscalpel.com...

Spread the Word
Thank You

My only question is, and this may be a stupid one, but why does it appear like the person taking the videos just so happen to be in the exact same spot as last time?

Originally posted by beauty from pain
My only question is, and this may be a stupid one, but why does it appear like the person taking the videos just so happen to be in the exact same spot as last time?

Because Yalcin Yalman was a security guard working for that resort and he had
a department there provided by the administrators as part of his job. Unfortunately
Mr. Yalman got fired when the case became very famous causing stir among the
people in Kumburgaz, Mr. Yalman suspended his skywatch due to an emotional
depression.

reply to post by VtaUFO




S&F This is the same video I think - focusing on the occupants, pretty incredible.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by VtaUFO

 

I don't ever recall hearing anything about Roger Leir filming this object himself in 2009.

Apart from that revelation, I don't see anything new being presented here.

edit on 26/1/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

You and me both brotha, I don't recall Leir ever mentioning he was the guy who took the pictures of the craft.
Just another guy who is going off the deep end. It's becoming a Sad Sad story, actually it's getting pretty damn annoying if you ask me

How can the truth ever be found when desperation creates people to lie and make up or exaggerate stories.

I have always believed we were not alone but I have never seen anything with my own eyes to validate the feeling

Originally posted by free_spirit

Originally posted by beauty from pain
My only question is, and this may be a stupid one, but why does it appear like the person taking the videos just so happen to be in the exact same spot as last time?

Because Yalcin Yalman was a security guard working for that resort and he had
a department there provided by the administrators as part of his job. Unfortunately
Mr. Yalman got fired when the case became very famous causing stir among the
people in Kumburgaz, Mr. Yalman suspended his skywatch due to an emotional
depression.

Were did you learn this about Yalman? Please contact me I want to learn more about Yalman's experience.

Hi,
since i'm really interested in this case and try to find ont the net if it's a fake, i found this forum.

For now, i didn't found a clear evidence that is a fake (it's not meaning it's not a fake!)

I just want to add some precision about some question :

-"I find it a bit of a coincidence that ths video was shot by a ufo foundation, who runs a website.What are the chances?and three times . "
Some of people her already said it : it's a guard (not a cost guard!) who shot this footage. He seems not related to the Sirius. He worked at the same place.

"Why there no other people seing it ?"
In one of the footage, we have a dog which is 'barking' (sorry, i'm not sure about this word) after the thing. In another, the man asking to his friends information about the location of the video. I'm speaking turkish and there's a least to people speaking about the UFO

"There's no star! Dark background, it's fake"
Did you even try to film at night ? Furthermore, near a big town (it's near Istanbul!!) you can't even see a star.
Even today, with best camera (like Canon 5D), you must let open few seconds your shutter in order to have a star. So, taking a star with a cheep equipment. Go try with a equivalent equipment in order to known what your are speaking about and we can discuss. If you don't have equipment. Go on flickr an search for night shooting. Check the exposure time or ask to someone who know!

"There nothing in the backgound".
Sometime, the man is shooting the moon in order to "know" where to shoot. If you ever try to take a picture with a long rang objo (like a 300mm) with autofocus and stabilizer, you'll know how it's hard to pick up a little thing which is far away without a point of reference. Someone already mention it.

"The man don't seem to be exited, even the people around him"
Yaclin didn't see exactly what he is film as he said in one of the video. It's only after seing it on his television. The people around him only see a light in the sky (it has been said in one of the video when he is talking with the Hakan called guy)

"Why there is no more people seeing the event!"
I readed somewhere that they found 12 peoples who confirmed that.

"What a cheap camera"
This guy is working as guard. A guard in Turkey don't earn enought money to buy the last model of everything. In this case, a chance the guy didn't buy a cheap chinese clone.

"he did it with a handle held camera with a lens that has a mere 200mm focal length? NONSENSE."
Hey man, i never read anything like this. Where did you read it ?
What can i say and it has been mentionned : "It's a 3CCD 20x optic 100x with a tele-converter mounted on a 58mm adapter"
Yalcin mentionned it during his interview. He gave a description of his equipment.

"He knew in advance what he would be filming and easily could take extra batteries"
Again, it's not America. This man is not going everyday to McDonald and have the last iPhone. Furthermore, since he is not earning to much money, he probably prefere to buy some bred and cigarettes. Imagine you have a conversation with your children who want some stuff for school : "sorry kid, i need to film ET, need to buy battery"

The Dr Leir
During the interview, Yalcin never ever mentionned this guy.

The boat:
Yalcin, in one of the footage, take the moon as point of reference (as said by someone). The object seems to not being on the water.

The moon
You can't say it's a full moon. If you take any light source with a camera having a shutter at 1.8 (as it is mentionned in one video) the light source will be unprecise and in this case, you will not be able to say if it's a full moon or not. Just take a look on NASA's shoot of distance star. It's just a point. Even better, try your self to take a picture of the moon with something. Either you will have a gret full moon but your thing will be very dark, either your thing will be distinguishable but you will only have a big light source as a Moon. The only way i know to have both : HDR (at least 3 shoot with 3 different exposure) or a gradiant filter

Why the ET is not acting like this or like that.
Hey man, you should work at NASA if you know how ET is thinking

Radar signature
I think, if they exist, they know the definition of 'furtive' beter than us

So guys, before commenting, take a look on all videos. Don't look just what you want to look. The interview is subtitled in english!

I'm not saying this is ET :p. But for now, i did't found any proof (with a study and arguments) that is a fake.

But, the post about having a camera in a telescope seems to be interessting. I'll go to read his link.

In a video, the Hakan called guy from Sirius mention that he can provide the source for analysis. Someone requested it ?

PS : sorry for my poor english. A turkish native who leave western Europe now.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
You sound like the Clint Eastwood of ATS!

"A man has got to know his limitations"

What would make you a believer in this case Zorgon?

Already covered that but for you...

A good close up photo and eyewitness account by more than one person Considering that this is a recurring sighting in a popular resort area with hundreds of fancy speed boats available this should be an easy task

Points against.

The reappearance at the same location around the same time for three years
The same angle of the UFO... always the same,
The location, always the same location. It never moves, just hovers... when does it leave? No footage of it flying off?
The fact that no one else seems interested in confirming this despite the claims of actual aliens visible doing experiments in plain view. No UFO hunting crews, no military even curious about this. No other tourist going to the area waiting for the next appearance, yet all around the world UFO buffs flock to UFU 'hot spots'
Little things like the claim that the dog was barking at the UFO when it clearly shows the dog barking at the swimmer just in front of him...

That ought to be enough...

But doesn't matter what I say... I will likely be called a disinfo agent by the noobs soon anyway

As I said on another forum, people are not really after the truth, they want the story... and most UFOlogists have recognized this fact and figured "What the heck, might as well cash in on that... have I got a story for you" Dr Lier just now comes forward after 2 years? Really?

You know Karl12 made a thread on the old good UFO reports disappearing from record... the Charlatans are gaining favor and despite all the high tech photo equipment we have these days, we get more and more pics of blobs and lights than anything even close to a flying disc like the old photos taken 30 plus years ago.

There will be no disclosure... UFOlogy is making sure of that

edit on 26-1-2011 by zorgon because: CLASSIFIED

I agree with everything you said there, Zorgon.

I'm leaning towards hoax, because of reasons similar to what Zorgon brought up.

What does it matter if Lier has got involved? One thing has got nothing to do with the other. Yalcin got into all kinds of #e about this, He certainly didnt make any money (that i am aware of). I have been following this case since it emerged and it has not been debunked. I dont think it every will be.It stands as the most important UFO video ever recorded.

All the best
Elvis
Thankyouverymuch

Nobody has been able to debunk this case. There is no solid evidence that its a hoax. So far its still one of the best ufo video footages ever.
www.turkeyufocase.blogspot.com

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
What does it matter if Lier has got involved? One thing has got nothing to do with the other. Yalcin got into all kinds of #e about this, He certainly didnt make any money (that i am aware of). I have been following this case since it emerged and it has not been debunked. I dont think it every will be.It stands as the most important UFO video ever recorded.

All the best
Elvis
Thankyouverymuch

edit on 25-7-2011 by Elvis Hendrix because: important (spelling)

Because Roger Leir has a long reputation in the ufo field and has never been involved in any hoaxing. Leir has a good reputation in ufology.

Here is a collection of photograph still images from the Turkey UFO videos. You can download them and use them anytime you want. s1104.photobucket.com...

Hi,

after few researchs about this case, i found a very interesting study about it : www.alcione.org...

This is the only serious and interesting article i found. He didn't write juste a line to say "Fake!".

This article explain it's not a fake (as model or CGI). It's just boats. I think that the man who shoot the video probably wasn't aware of this.

reply to post by zorgon



That is the worst match in the world,1st your matching objects at 2 different distances,view points,camera lenses, etc... there is an extreme vertical arch to the windows, there is not a vertical arch to the cruise ship windows. If it was a cruise ship It would have been very easily checked by records of ships especially that ship with that bridge that matches it. If there were in that area at that time.Why wasn't that information obtained ?
The one piece of evidence to might prove that theory they don't have.
The experts would have taken the possibly of a boat into consideration and the person that made the cruise
ship explanation would have just used that instead of posting flight paths and tower communications with
pilots as another possibility.
So he didn't prove that it's a ship,he is suggesting it could be a ship.
That is one of the problems with skeptics,they find a possible explanation and run with it.
If skeptic's reasoning were used in our justice system,there wouldn't be an innocent person in the country.



article from ufo digest
www.ufodigest.com...





REGARDING UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
FILMED OVER KUMBURGAZ, TURKEY,
BETWEEN 2007 AND 2009
(SUMMARY)

ANALYSED BY MARIO VALDES
SANTIAGO - CHILE



SUMMARY OF THE CASE

This case developed in the location of Kumburgaz between the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. Its main witness was a night guard named Yalcin Yalman, while on duty who registered on video these estrange objects that appeared at sunrise like floating or changing while in flight over the sea coast of Marmara. Yalman was able to film many video segments, some during day light accompanied by witnesses with whom he spoke to while he was filming.

One singularity of this case was that de images were made with a camera that had an adaptor for close ups of 200X, achieving a great amount of details of the objects.

At first, the videos were analyzed and made public by the SIRIUS UFO organization, directed by the researcher Haktan Akdogan. This case made big news in Turkey and in other countries as well. It also started a great debate between the official members of the Turkish scientific community. Specifically the NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE STUDY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (TUBITAK) got interested in analyzing the original footage, with the intention of determining that the video was nothing more than a hoax, gambling on the idea of scale models or toys, or CGI.

The original tape was handed to the TUBITAK representatives on live TV in their own headquarters. Once the analysis concluded, they gave an official report, from which we took the following fragment:

"The objects observed on the images have a structure made of a specific material and definitely itís no any kind of CGI animation or in any means a type of special effects used for simulation in a studio or for video effects. So the conclusion of this report is that the observations are not a model, maquette or a fraud".
At the last part of the report, it's concluded that the objects observed have a physical structure and are made of materials that donít belong to any category (airplanes, helicopters, meteors, Venus, Mars, Satellites, artificial lights, Chinese lanterns, etc.) and that it mostly fits in the category of UFO's (Unidentified Flying Objects and of unknown origin).

Other analysis were done by video specialist, image edition and special effect companies from Japan, Russia and Turky, all ending up with the same conclusions. In Chile, I ask professor José Atenas for his cooperation, expert in graphics and video edition, with more than 30 years of experience on television, to technically examine the videos. In his appreciation, José Atenas also came to the same conclusions that the images are authentic.

So far nobody has been able to demonstrate that the recordings are product of tricks or some type of manipulation. Therefore, the debate has concentrated more over the nature and origin of the objects filmed by Yalcin Yalman.

SOME CONSIDERATIONS

To be honest, at the beginning my idea was to analyze this videos hopping to find some elements in then that would evidence a possible fraud, taking in count the espectacularity in which the case was labled (announced that for the very first time a UFO was videotaped with its occupants, precisely inside one of this objects, not a minor issue for those of us who are obsessed with these themes). It was like that, from skepticism, and ¿ why not say it ?, with a quote of prejudgment , I decided to take some time and checkout the fragments of the movie. You could say that the expectations were "to find the string of the puppet".

To make the analysis, I used electronic copies of the original videos, given to me by the Turkish investigator Haktan Akdogan, who picked up this case, first handed. I met with Haktan personally to comment this incident and I very grateful of him handing me a copy of the original tape, with which I could accomplish this work.

The analysis will be exposed in chronological and sequential way, in the same order that the research and results came.

Finally, what I present here is only a portion of all that was extracted from the videos and from the image analysis. It's a lot of material and when the moment comes I will complete this publication with more findings.

FIRST APPRECIATIONS RELATED TO THE VIDEOS

There is always a first impression, and it even can be subjective, and by the way, preliminary, I find it interesting to comment.

At first look, it called my attention the honesty of the takes (to say it some way). That is, you canít observe any kind of tendency or intention of hiding something. Itís clear that the filmman does everything possible to configure his camera the best way to capture the objects; he makes constant changes in light entry and zoom, trying to show as clearly possible what is happening while he films. He also worries on registering different reference points and at the same time making very powerful close-ups

Even at first if the appreciation can be subjective, as I mentioned before, must be considered in the context of an attitude and disposition totally open of the witness, who has shown his face and delivered all the background of this case, including the video camera and the original tapes.

After the first look, the hole (IMAGE: film grain, illumination, close ups and reference points.- AUDIO: ambient sound, narration and witness attitude
agrees totally with an authentic recording of objects at a great distance, filmed at night time (the ones used in this work). There are also daytime recordings with interesting details, but in this analysis will be only the night ones.

Having these observations in account, plus the reports from TUBITAK and the opinion of professor José Atenas, is that I'm willing to do and expose the following graphic analysis.

THE BEGINNING OF THE ANALYSIS AND THE FIRST OBTAINED PHOTOGRAMS

As I mentioned before, the objective of this review was to find elements that would reveal a fraud or a setup in the sequences of the video. For this I realized and exhaustive observation of the images, with a considerable close up and frame by frame process. The video segments used in this part correspond to the June 8th 2008 and May 13th 2009 (1 and 2).



Given that the most spectacular aspects of the case rest on the alleged presence of UFO occupants in the footage, the observation point was centered primarily in the center zone of the object, that's where, according to the witness; there was "someone", what has been interpreted as the occupants or crew. In summary, the records of the case indicate that in the center of the object would be found some type of door or window that at times remains opened and from where it's possible to see two "heads", which would correspond to the slippery occupants.

So well, a short time after reviewing, I could observe a couple of photogram's that caused me strangeness and amazement. My first reaction was to say, “ì Bingo! Here there's something”... After a second view of the fragment, I was able to isolate a sequence that seems, to say the less, interesting. Not just because of the clarity of the takes, also because the investigation started to turn more complex from the point of view of the different explanation theories possible. In fact, at this point is where a series of questions appear, that later on I will comment.

In concrete, the sequence shows with acceptable clarity the moment in which one of the figures, apparently of humanoids characteristics, raises the look (for saying it somehow) and it remains for a fraction of time looking rightly at the front. The appearance is that of a head with two relatively big and dark eyes. Also it is possible to interpret what part of the body of the figure is left to see as a body or small torso in relation to the head. (3 and 4).


One of the photograms of the sequence. This is the original image, just as it appears on the recording.


In this image only one level filter was applied, increasing the luminosity of the scene. This allows the extraction of the most data possible that the camera could capture, without modifying the image quality.

After checking uncountable times this photogram sequence (5), I got the conviction that the figure in question is not static; by the contrary, it's in permanent movement, in general with the “view” looking down, with the exception of this segment, in which the figure happens from this position to look fixedly at the front, to then lower the “view” again.



In the first, the figure starts to raise its head, while
the image start to lower in relation to the settings.
(more ahead I will explain the importance of this detail).

In the second frame, the figure has its head straight, in “look front” position.

In the third photogram the figure keeps its position.

Finally, in the fourth frame, the figure returns to its original position.

HERE IS THE COMPLETE SEQUENCE IN SLOW MOTION
AND WITH AN EMBOSSMENT OF THE LIGHT LEVEL
(the sequence will loop every 2 seconds)

To compensate for the differences between displays, the two options.

.

This sequence is produced while the image, that is to say, the object, begins to lower in relation to the setting, which in my opinion owes to an ascending movement of the camera. This movement in general produces a distortion of sweep in the image, a species of out of focus in movement. Well then, simultaneously, while this happens, the figure realizes the action to raise the head, being opposed to the decrease of the image and annulling the sweep of distortion. That is to say, a synchrony of the image takes place in the zone where both opposite movements are, producing clarity and sharpness in the zone. When the figure returns to lower the head, it does it in the same descending sense of the image, returning to generate the out of focus of movement.

In the following close up sequence, (6) it's possible to see that the "humanoid" figure is visible even without the need to apply zoom.



Though it is true that the previous images are clearer that I could have obtained of the central figure, there are great the sequences and stills of interest that I have selected. Nevertheless, for motives of space and time for explaining them, I have chosen the following three stills (7, 8, and 9)that support the hypothesis of which the figure in analysis is really in the recording and is not product of games of lights and shades or a bad interpretation of any another element. In my opinion, the figure humanoid is in the filming and is in constant movement.

Hi zigoapex;

thanks for your reply.

check my last post (www.abovetopsecret.com...) you'll understand that i'm not sceptic

I readed the Tubitak report (i'm turkish native) and Tubitak didn't check boat's schedule in this area. They only check the authenticity of the images which is seem's to be authentic : No CGI, not a star or something like that.
We can say that those image are not fake. I readed some posts which clame it's CGI or model but they can't prove it because it's not. Even the study i mentioned is saying images are authentic just by analysing it seriously.
So, we can say that we have succesfully burried the "it's fake!" step

If someone near Istanbul can check those schedules we will be able to reject the study i mention

It's strange that this Kumburgaz case is not mentionned in any documentary like ones we have on history channel. Why Ufo hunters didn't try to debunk this case by going to Istanbul and check every thing ?