ATS Exclusive - Turkey UFO Incident - New Details - A Fresh Look At The Kumburgaz Case 2007 to 2009

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by CigaretteMan

 

So far nobody has come close to matching the following dates to a cruise ship

And who cares? What is it? It could be anything because there is no context to the images whatsoever. And if it is an alien craft, they are some boring ass aliens and I still don't care. My quad copter can out perform their sorry ass space ship. And it looks waaaay cooler too.

edit on 31-7-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

And I only count 4 days where are the other 22?

edit on 31-7-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

I have put you on ignore because you have refused to have an intelligent discussion and or present any research you have done. It has become obvious that you are only interested in trolling for attention.

I will talk to any skeptical folks or debunkers just please present at least some evidence or some information that can contribute to the discussion.

Now moving along.

I checked the moon phases and matched them to the several moons that are seen in the video.

I used Moonconnection.com Phase Calendar

May 23, 2008 Moon Phase


May 27, 2008 Moon Phase


May 17, 2009 Moon Phase

reply to post by CigaretteMan


Good job, only 22 more to go!

What is the purpose of confirming the moons match up?

How is this going to help you identify the unknown stationary objects?

Originally posted by CigaretteMan

I have put you on ignore because you have refused to have an intelligent discussion and or present any research you have done. It has become obvious that you are only interested in trolling for attention.

I will talk to any skeptical folks or debunkers just please present at least some evidence or some information that can contribute to the discussion.

Now moving along.

I hate bumping this thread...

I have looked at all your clips and analysis of the footage and I have heard every possible explanation from all sides and I have narrowed it down to one fundamental thing that is completely lacking with this case and that is evidence of something in the air.

YOU have pointed out that there are several days of footage that defies debunking and yet with all of that footage, you can not produce one bit of evidence that this is something in the air. Not only have you failed to show that this object is in the air you cant even demonstrate that it moves from its position or that its the same object from night until it "morphs" into some lights in the morning. All of this footage and no clean transitions and no evidence of movement.

Just about every "UFO" photo or video at least looks like its in the air....flying, Hence the term "Flying Object". Quite frankly, this really cant be considered a UFO because its missing the "F" part and I am on the fence if there is an actual Object or not. So it should just be considered a "U"

I have asked several times for anything that shows this is flying. with so many days of footage, there should be something that we can agree on that suggests its flying but there is not.

The total LACK of evidence of it doing ANYTHING that is claimed by the film maker together with the ABUNDANCE of footage that shows nothing, suggests HOAX. are you the hoaxer or the hoaxed?

THAT is why you ignore me and the questions I have raised. You have repeatedly ignored several of my sincere questions and it is obvious you do not wish to discuss the most basic points. I have no interest in debunking this, but the footage and analysis are obviously designed to mislead people.

So lets have an intelligent discussion.

In 2007 one of the earliest series of video from the coast of Turkey was June 22, 2007. Although quality would improve later on in 2008 and 2009, this part has some curious aspects to it that need to be studied.

Murat Yalcin was working night shift at the Yeni Kent Complex in city of Kumburgaz pictured below. When he realized that there was something out of the normal taking place, and that others were reporting seeing something strange over the sea, he did what most people do and that is begin to film.













It is almost impossible to determine the exact color due to the various factors, however grey or silver. It also resembles the object captured in the June 8, May 27 footage of 2008 and August 7, August 12 footage of 2007.

LordAdef
EXPERIMENT #2: VIDEO REPLICATION

I invite everyone to watch to movie below. I made it in order to check if I could replicate some of the night ufo shots.
It took me 10 minutes!
As an approximation I believe it´s very clarifying....
Could it be done with pristine accuracy? Surely.
Enjoy the video.

..You know, it´s so fake, so fake, that sometimes it seems as thou my replication is more real..

edit on 26-3-2013 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2013 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)

This looks EXACTLY like the video. By far the best explanation yet. Good work.

reply to post by CigaretteMan

Murat Yalcin was working night shift at the Yeni Kent Complex in city of Kumburgaz pictured below. When he realized that there was something out of the normal taking place, and that others were reporting seeing something strange over the sea, he did what most people do and that is begin to film.

There is something that really troubles me about the video segment and that is there is no way to tell if this was indeed filmed over the sea. What video clip can you present that would clarify this? I can't decide if this is a model that was filmed inside or the inside of his camera apparatus thing. I think you are correct that this particular segment is not a boat although I haven't ruled that out. I still don't see any evidence that its flying but I will keep looking. Thanks in advance for the intelligent discussion.

These videos were filmed on MiniDV cassettes which completely makes the above posters attempt to debunk useless.

1. In order to prove this is a hoax you must show how he could have or how you added this footage to a MiniDV cassette.

2. You have to show us how this was done for 26 seprate dates with various shapes of objects and also during the daylight with the element of sunlight.

So far the above poster has done none of that.

Again these are not digital only video files. They are on cassette!

nice try but again not done well

So you're saying it's not possible to record onto MiniDv cassettes?
I wonder how the footage got on the tape then...

CigaretteMan
These videos were filmed on MiniDV cassettes which completely makes the above posters attempt to debunk useless.

1. In order to prove this is a hoax you must show how he could have or how you added this footage to a MiniDV cassette.

I'm not a video expert, but wouldn't you hit the stop button and than simply move your location and hit record again? But that would mean there would be a gap in the footage....
So here if you look closely at this segment, it's a night time shot of the model @4:59 AM and then it suddenly jumps to 5:20 AM for the day light shots! You have to pay attention though to spot it.

So model filming until 4:59 before the sun comes up and 21 minutes to get a cup of coffee and maybe some Turkish donuts before heading to the beach to film the weird boat effect. That certainly shows how he could have added this footage to a minidv cassette. The gap in the footage supports this.

and I seem to have met your requirements for a HOAX.

In order to prove this is a hoax you must show how he could have or how you added this footage to a MiniDV cassette

seems like we can recreate the entire video now.

2. You have to show us how this was done for 26 seprate dates with various shapes of objects and also during the daylight with the element of sunlight.

Nah, one day will suffice. Why would you trust the rest of the footage if any part of it was shown to be a hoax? Ya know the saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me 26 days in a row, I must be retarded"
And again, you are avoiding the question. What night time footage clearly shows that it is over the sea? It just doesn't add up that there is so much footage but no clear evidence of the night shots being over the sea or even flying. This certainly leaves open all kinds of possibilities especially in light of the 21 minute gap pointed out.

You ARE good at this. What various shapes? The night Shots are the same shape 3 years in a row. The only time it varies is when it's out of focus , during the day or when it's a boat.

CigaretteMan
Again these are not digital only video files. They are on cassette!

Do you know what DV means?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


I agree with Dr. Bruce Maccabee that this is not a hoax.

It may be something else of course because 90% of ufos can be identified, but not a hoax.

And BTW Jeff Ritzmann who is ATS image analyst also thinks it is NOT A HOAX and he talked about this on his weekly radio show. Now Jeff feels it needs more investigation but he again he says he thinks its not a hoax.

reply to post by CigaretteMan

Well tell Jeff Ritzman to come here and discuss it. Yo will need to provide a Link to the macabee claim.

A quick google search provided Zero information on both of your claims. Please back up your claims.

Well done on a very detailed thread but. Was the object observed to execute any high g flight performance? If not then it isn't very interesting because it could be just a model aircraft.

reply to post by JimTSpock


That is a common first impression including by myself.

There are a few elements from May 15, 2009 that point away from the direction of it being a model.

Here is a couple things from May 15, 2009



This part is interesting because of the difficulty it would be to put together this type of hoax. If it is a model he had to have switched it to 4 orange lights in just 33 minutes of time. He had to have done this in front of the entire village.











Another thing is that there were many witnesses.

Since George Knapp is featured this week as an ATS ask my anything I will post an interview Knapp did with Roger Leir who was attending a conference in Turkey at the time and witnessed this object with 7 to 8 other people.

With that logic it could be an umbrella.

reply to post by CigaretteMan

This part is interesting because of the difficulty it would be to put together this type of hoax. If it is a model he had to have switched it to 4 orange lights in just 33 minutes of time. He had to have done this in front of the entire village.

Let's not purposely confuse the issue. The night shots are the model, the day time shots are lights from a boat. the whole 26 days could be easily recreated.

I'm going to have press you on the Ritzman and Maccebee quotes. Can you at least elaborate? If not, it will have to be considered made up information to confuse the issue.

JimTSpock
Well done on a very detailed thread but. Was the object observed to execute any high g flight performance? If not then it isn't very interesting because it could be just a model aircraft.

You are correct. If you noticed, I'm pretty skeptical around these parts but you should appreciate the challenge. I am all for the really impressive cases that really make you think about what is going on. This is not the case here. I pressed this issue a while back. There is nothing showing any movement or flight whatsoever and even after 26 days of footage. How is that possible?

Even though I may be skeptical and even disagree with you on some points, this is the stuff that is truly your worst enemy

ZetaRediculian
This shows none of the characteristics of a classic UFO. Classic UFOs are typically reported to be extremely fast and able to out perform any known earth made vehicle. This thing does less than our worst helicopter..

Can you point me in the direction of where the footage is of the military planes trying to intercept this thing. It doesn't move so an attempt to intercept it must have been made. Why wouldn't civilians hop on a boat and get a closer look? I would have.

Why is this this the only spot where it was seen? There must be witnesses from other vantage points or was the psychological warfare waged on just the villagers from this one area?

CigaretteMan
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

UFOs in real life do not behave like the ones you watched in Sci-Fi movies. Just a tip for you to not expect Sci-Fi style effects in real life.

Furthermore I am preparing several more posts that will show the object moving.

This will finally put to bed the argument that the object doesn't move. It does

No posts were ever presented that showed this object moving.

ZetaRediculian
I'm talking about the ones historically described by people, captured on radar, studied by the gov't, etc. for the last 60 years. This does not have any of those characteristics. Surely you are familiar with those really "good" cases. This does not belong in that category. This more resembles the Brady Bunch episode where Greg hoaxes a UFO and fools Bobby and Peter.

So that's about it. It really does make this topic seem like a joke.

I am not longer going to read or responde to Zetarediculan (mispelled BTW) or Freelance Zanarchist

The reason why is because they are not contributing any data to the thread and are not interested in having a serious conversation.

Whenever their points are shot down they simply change topic and try again with something else.

So from now on I only am talking to serious individuals who are interested in actually being productive.

I centered the lights and tried to match it to the UFO photo. The two center lights are centered with the openings of the UFO pic with various rotating/flipping positions. The lights don't line up and is on a different arc. Plus, you can see there's no structure below with the photo in the lights. Where's the body of the "UFO" that we see with the night time photo?

The perspective of the night time "UFO" always looked strange to me. There's a cut-off line at the bottom. The semi-circle portion at the bottom clearly looks like it continues around but we can only see a part of it. I guess we are to assume aliens have convertible openings that they hang out in too? Odd.