1. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Active Member

    Are you estimating the lamppost's total height as 4 meters?
  2. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    Yes, basically. To be precise: If Yalcin was standing while filming (so the camera would be approximately 1,5 meters above ground), the lamp post would be approximately 4 meters high with respect to the ground upon he was standing. (If Yalcin was standing a bit higher, upon a plateau or something, the lamp post itself would be a bit higher.)
  3. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    Using the moon’s altitude, the UFO altitude can be determined to be 7 degrees:


    This is pretty high above the horizon. The picture below shows the lamp post screenshot next to a screenshot of the moon and the UFO, with the moon brought to the same size in both screenshots. The position of the horizon is indicated (12,7 degrees below the moon) as well as an impression of the rest of the lamp post if it is 4 meters high.


    A UFO altitude of 7 degrees means that the altitude of the UFO in meters is 12% of its distance to the camera, as illustrated in the figure below:


    I made some snapshots of the center opening of the UFO, in the hope it would give some clues about what is inside this opening:

  4. Spazzybug

    Spazzybug New Member

    But why would the rest of the ship be in complete darkness. No lights etc. Just throwing it out there
    Also in one video the dog barks at it just thought that was strange.
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The dog is barking in that general direction, there's nothing strange about that. I have dogs, they bark at everything, and sometimes at nothing.
  6. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    My friend had dog who basically never barked, but whenever he saw a duck he went crazy barking. Not geese, not anything else.. just ducks. Weird weird dog.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    Note that the lights with the dog barking may have been something totally different than the object shown in message #83 above. These lights are at a different altitude, much closer to the horizon.

    The object in message #83 cannot be a cruise ship:

    The world’s largest cruise ships have a height of 72 meters above the water line. Their length is 360 meters.
    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis-class_cruise_ship

    To match the altitude of the object in message #83 above, the distance of such ship to the camera would be:

    100 x (72/12) = 600 meters.

    To put it into perspective (the scale of the cruise ship matches in both pictures):


    The cruise ship would be in shallow waters 50 meters from the beach, just 600 meters from where Yalcin was standing, with hardly any lights on. Not a very likely scenario.

    Smaller cruise ships would have to be even closer to match the UFO's altitude.
  8. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    This animated gif was made with some of the snapshots presented in post #83.
    Any ideas what we are seeing ...?

    snapshot series - Copy.
  9. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Active Member

    Read page 2 of this thread.
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2018
  10. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Active Member

    1. There's no evidence that Yalcin ever stood there. Descriptions of where he stood and Yalcin's own videos show that he habitually stood between the canopies next to the banister.

    2. In the video in question, where is Jupiter? Jupiter was only a few degrees away from the Moon at that time.

    3. In the video in question there are zoomed out - wide angle - shots in which the UFO and the Moon are shown in a black field with no other lights visible. If Yalcin were standing where you speculate, where are all the building and ground lights that would have to be visible in the frame in these wide angle shots? Including the 4 meter street light you point to. That streetlight is right next to buildings which are higher than the light. In this video the UFO, you say, is at the same height above the horizon as the streetlight, yet the streetlight and all the buildings next to it, plus every other ground light are not visible in the wide angle shots.

    The video in question:

    You are only considering that short section of the video in which the lens is zoomed in - set to a long focal length - and the streetlight is visible. What about the later sections in which the UFO and the Moon are shown in wide angle? You can't analyze these two different sections of the video in isolation from one another.
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2018
  11. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    So it’s impossible for him to stand somewhere else? The spot where he stood is right on the facility where Yalcin was a night guard. It matches exactly with the moon’s position and the lamp post position at the indicated time on the video. I see no reason to assume he did not stand under the canopy at the time indicated on the video.

    In the fragment with both the moon and the lamp post, Jupiter would be about halfway the moon and the lamp post – two brilliant sources of light that can easily outshine Jupiter.
    In the other fragments, the moon is less bright and seems to be hiding behind some haze or clouds:


    These clouds could have easily obscured Jupiter.

    The field-of-view of these wide angle shots can be calculated and is a bit smaller than you think. Note that the Youtube video is 16:9 (wide screen), but the camcorder is only 4:3 (you can see this when it zooms in on the UFO, the positions where the image is truncated indicate the actual FOV of the camcorder; these are the white vertical lines in the screenshot below).


    Yalcin would only have to move towards the end of the canopy to keep the lamp post out of his FOV:


    What other lights should have been visible in his FOV according to your analysis? I think the trees, walls, and other obstacles in his FOV would block any other lights in the vicinity.

    They are only 4 minutes apart, so what are the reasons these fragments cannot be analyzed using the moon’s position?
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2018
  12. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    Robert Hastings is a researcher who has made a strong case for UFO’s being interested in nuclear weapons sites.
    You can find his website here: http://www.ufohastings.com/

    An interesting aspect of the Kumburgaz UFO is its 124,3 degrees direction from the witness.

    A line-of-sight of 124,3 degrees from the witness’ position leads directly to the Incirlik air force base, which housed the largest collection of US nuclear weapons in Europe at the time (source: https://fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/_images/EuroNukes.pdf )


  13. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    so.. are you now saying the UFO is like a 5 mile wide ship hovering over a nuclear site?
  14. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    Not at all. But there may be a link between the observation of UFO’s in that general area and the fact that a war was going on in Irak at that time - a war near one of Europe’s largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

    2007, the year of Yalcin’s first observations, also happens to be the year that the AATIP program was started.
  15. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    or it is just coincidentally when he bought his camera
    or are you saying that AATIP sprang up because of Turkey UFO sightings? I don't understand what you are trying to imply with that observation. It's too bad AATIP didn't investigate the Turkey UFOs since the same UFO kept showing up in the same spot for 3 years. smh. shame they missed that.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    Yes, I'm just speculating.

    Just another speculation.

    True, because the footage is much more spectacular than the ATFLIR 'tic-tac'.
    Too bad we can never be sure it is genuine, but if it is a hoax it was well done...

    (The animated gif below was made with the original footage by the way.
    I selected two images from the original footage, and enhanced the contrast and brightness. I cut out the section with the 'head' in both images and pasted these cuts to scale over an image of the craft.)

    Last edited: Oct 2, 2018
    • Funny Funny x 2
  17. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    If one assumes that the ‘head’ in the footage is that of a human (or humanoid) being, the approximate location of the UFO can be calculated. This may also explain some strange issues with the lighting of the object.

    By scaling a picture of an F18 until the head of the pilot is as large as the ‘head’ in the footage, the size of the lighted half of the UFO can be estimated to be approximately 10 meters:


    The shot with both the moon and the UFO shows that the angular size of this lighted half is about 0,2 degrees, since the angular size of the moon is about 0,5 degrees:


    From the angular size and the actual size of this object an approximate distance can be calculated:

    D = 10 / (0,2*π/180) = ± 3000 meters (10000 feet)
    The altitude of the object is 12% of its distance (see post #87 above), i.e. ± 350 meters (1200 feet)

    So, if the footage is genuine and shows a human(oid) being, the UFO was close to the coast at an altitude of just 1200 feet. This means some of the light reflecting off it probably comes from the streetlights etc. along the coast.

    The pictures below show the approximate location:



    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Assuming is a slippery slope to wild speculation, there is nothing to say it is a 'head', or even if it is what scale or size it is. If it is indeed a 'head' (looks like a couple of light pixels on the image to me) it could be the size of a gerbils head a few yards away or the bonce of something the size of a Greek Titan of Atlasian proportions tens of miles away.

    You cannot safely make such an assumption in a case like this without other supporting evidence, which here is lacking to the point of total absence.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  19. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    If you keep confronting it with the available data, an assumption does not have to lead to wild speculations. Maybe ‘hypothesis’ would be a better wording than ‘assumption’.

    I tried to test if the ‘human sized head’ hypothesis would lead to inconsistencies with the data, like the hypothesis that the UFO was a cruise ship did.

    ‘No inconsistencies’ does not automatically mean ‘proven’ of course. A tray with rodents at 60 meters distance and an altitude of 7 meters would also fit.

    But somehow this does not come across as a rodent to me, it was made with two snapshots from the original footage, with enhanced contrast and brightness:

    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    the available data
    The available data is that a UFO that reappeared in the same spot many times over a 3 year period, was never independently witnessed or photographed by anyone else living in the region.

    and what does a human size head have to do with this pic you posted?

  21. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Please do not attempt to mangle my words. I never said it WAS a rodent, I was just saying that without something also in shot tp compare it to it could be any size from very small and close up to very big a long way away