2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey

[JAFO]

I say that the UFO models, the bracelets, were either in the widnow directly behind the glass, or were reflected in the glass in the manner of a Pepper's Ghost illusion.

Why couldn't a CRT monitor be in or behind the window? There is some type of dish antenna right next to that window. I would argue that it would be very difficult to stage a few different bracelets in practically the same place over multiple occasions over several months. Between the two theories I think the CRT has a higher probability.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

It's the same bangle bracelet as in this video from six days later. Different lighting, and the bracelet here is rotated a bit as Yalcin wasn't keeping exact track as to how he put it on the jewelry stand/bracelet T-Bar.

The lighting - and/or exposure setting - in this video makes the surface of the wooden dowel of the bracelet T-Bar it's sitting on much more visible and recognizable.

The over exposed image in the June 12 video gives the bracelet an otherworldly shimmery glow. Perhaps the mysterious energy of an alien technology.

The tighter beam of light and the underexposed nature of this image give the same bracelet a more mysterious lurking quality. The "bollard" is a part of the surface decoration. A raised "fin" with a groove next to it.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Close up of the June 6 bangle. Red arrow is pointing to groove with the fin just to our right.

Green arrow is pointing to the top of wooden dowel of the jewelry rack/bracelet T-Bar.

 

[flarkey]

Close up of the June 6 bangle. Red arrow is pointing to groove with the fin just to our right.
View attachment 69922
Green arrow is pointing to the top of wooden dowel of the jewelry rack/bracelet T-Bar.

1. I disagree that the red arrow is pointing to a groove. I think it's pointing to the shadow of the upright thing (whatever it is) that is being illuminated. The source of the light is coming from the top-right of the picture.

2. so if that's the close up of a bracelet, the illuminated region is maybe 5mm - 10mm across. I think it's unlikely that an illuminated region would be so concentrated, discrete and not diffused. To illuminate a small area in a 'hoax model set up' is very difficult. And why illuminate a small section of the 'ufo' like this?

 

[FatPhil]

It's impossible. You can't get a focused image of the surface of an internal part of the lens.

You can't mean that. It's trivial to take a photo of your lens' iris, say.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Focus is achieved by refraction. Refraction is the job of the lens elements. Since the ring of metal in question lies behind the lens elements, how could a focused image of the surface of that ring be achieved? It hurts my head to even imagine how you could zoom in and out on that metal ring.

A lens flare in the shape of the iris aperture of the iris diaphragm is due to diffraction. When light passes across the blades of the iris diaphragm, diffraction patterns occur. These patterns are influenced by the shape and number of the diaphragm blades, leading to lens flare shapes that mimic the shape of the aperture.

Those lens flares show no detail of the interior surface of the iris diaphragm.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

2. so if that's the close up of a bracelet, the illuminated region is maybe 5mm - 10mm across. I think it's unlikely that an illuminated region would be so concentrated, discrete and not diffused. To illuminate a small area in a 'hoax model set up' is very difficult. And why illuminate a small section of the 'ufo' like this?

It was easy to reproduce the lighting on these two Yalcin flying saucers... I punched a hole in a piece of construction paper and used the paper as mask for a mini-flashlight. That just leaves a spot of light coming through. The most baby of baby spotlights. My eBay bangle is the one in the middle.

I didn't try to reproduce the lighting on this one specifically.

For this one I'd use a short section of a plastic straw embedded in a mask of some sort. If the spot were still too big, I'd roll my own smaller tube. Note that the spot was still big enough that some of it spilled over onto the top of the bracelet T-Bar dowel.

For the record I believe Yalcin was using flashlights for the light source in every one of his bangle flying saucer videos. He used various masks and various placements.

Here, the spot of light is on our right instead of our left. Just for a change, I guess. Note the decorative surface features on the bangle. And the groove on the side. I think this June 12, 2008 video features the same bangle as the June 6, 2008 video above.

Note that the surface of the dowel is visible on our right, this time. It's always there.


Considering the time frame - circa 2008 - I think that he mostly used an incandescent. In one case, here, I believe he used one of those odd blue LED flashlights that were being churned out at the time.

I made this GIF long ago. The red lines highlight two decorative brass prongs with beaded tops. The so called aliens... Heh.

Same bangle lit with a warmer incandescent flashlight.

My long ago primitive drawing of this bangle... without proper perspective. I included a gap in the middle. There's no gap. It's just a deep shadow.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I'm going to return to my often expressed plea to remember that we don't see reality. What we see is produced by the brain moment by moment. Perception is at question here. I insist that my perception is the better model and you insist that your perception is the better model. All things being equal, that's a logical impasse.

However, I have to say that by bringing it back to your perception, you're hiding away from the fact that your scenario doesn't fit the facts of the case. Every detail of your scenario is at odds with every detail we know about where Yalcin was when he made his videos and the physical layout of that environment. I've been to great pains to account for every detail. To avoid needless repetition I'll point back to posts 354 and 356.


In short, you're so confident of your perception that you're ignoring everything about your scenario that doesn't fit. As if your perception were the final proof, no matter what.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

For those new to the game, I should point to page 7 and posts 256

Post in thread '2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey'

Jun 20, 2023

I bought a collection of vintage gold tone/brass bangle bracelets and a wooden T-bar jewelry holder.

I'm going to show you my first proof of concept photos.



I suspect Yalcin used a flashlight to light his bangle bracelet. So these are my first attempts with a shaded flashlight.

This is the set up I used for the above earlier shots. Just a blue folder I had around and a black sock (with too much lint). I'll get some black foam board and try again.

I used a different set up to shoot these next test photos...

• Z.W. Wolf

• 
• 
• 

...and 257

Post in thread '2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey'

Jun 20, 2023

From Apr 3, 2021

This is the same bangle on different days.

View attachment 43734
It has a flat inner surface, so it's sitting flat on the wooden dowel (Red arrow - you can even see the grain in the wood). This bangle has flat sides and a curved top.
Green arrow - a fine (decorative) groove.
Blue - decorative indentations.

Because of the flat inner surface it's sitting flush on the wooden dowel. And because it also has flat sides, it doesn't cast a shadow on the surface of the dowel.

The same one on a different day.
View attachment 43735
Green - the same fine groove.
Red - the same wooden...

• Z.W. Wolf

• 

EDIT: Why is this putting an "EMBED" code around the links? I just wanted to post the links.

 

[flarkey]

I'm going to return to my often expressed plea to remember that we don't see reality. What we see is produced by the brain moment by moment. Perception is at question here. I insist that my perception is the better model and you insist that your perception is the better model. All things being equal, that's a logical impasse.

Yeah, totally get your points about perception 100%. That is the crux of the UFO phenomenon (see Aguadilla, Starlink Flares, Phoenix Lights, Go Fast etc etc ). Interesting that it also applies to the debunk hypotheses too.

However, I have to say that by bringing it back to your perception, you're hiding away from the fact that your scenario doesn't fit the facts of the case. Every detail of your scenario is at odds with every detail we know about where Yalcin was when he made his videos and the physical layout of that environment.

Completely disagree with this. I'd say that my scenario does accommodate all the facts of the case and the evidence presented, although I admit (just like your hypothesis) much of it is conjecture. That's the problem with 'unidentified' objects in the LIZ - any feature can be explained with conjecture and a 'well, maybe he did X' such as 'maybe the CCTV screen was in remote monitoring centre away from the marina near the beach' or 'for this one I'd use a short section of a plastic straw embedded in a mask of some sort", but will never be able to be verified as actual fact.

I've been to great pains to account for every detail. To avoid needless repetition I'll point back to posts 354 and 356.

In short, you're so confident of your perception that you're ignoring everything about your scenario that doesn't fit. As if your perception were the final proof, no matter what.

Erm... these two sentences are highly ironic. Your (valid) criticism of my hypothesis could equally apply to your own.

It seems that we agree in that we are both right in our assessments of our own work, and our assessments of each others . Confirmation bias is difficult to avoid.

 

[FatPhil]

Focus is achieved by refraction. Refraction is the job of the lens elements. Since the ring of metal in question lies behind the lens elements, how could a focused image of the surface of that ring be achieved? It hurts my head to even imagine how you could zoom in and out on that metal ring.

A lens flare in the shape of the iris aperture of the iris diaphragm is due to diffraction. When light passes across the blades of the iris diaphragm, diffraction patterns occur. These patterns are influenced by the shape and number of the diaphragm blades, leading to lens flare shapes that mimic the shape of the aperture.

Those lens flares show no detail of the interior surface of the iris diaphragm.

Yebbut a focused image of the surface of an internal part of the lens:

 

[DavidB66]

It's noise that you see as alien heads because of suggestion and pareidolia.

I accept that pareidolia is often an issue, but even pareidolia needs something to work on. The pic at #350 appears to show a blurry featureless blob being 'enlarged' into something which definitely has features, even if it is pareidolia to interpret these as an alien head! Maybe I'm misunderstanding what is actually claimed in the original video, which I'll admit I haven't watched in full. But if not - if it is actually claimed that the blob is enlarged or 'enhanced' into the 'head' - I'm curious to know if this could be the result of some legitimate process. (There could be some debate about what is or isn't legitimate. I have in mind Marik (@MvonRen)'s tortuous attempts to get the FLIR1 object to look something like a TicTac with legs.)

As far as I know, mere enlargement of an image, such as might be obtained by viewing a photograph or print through a magnifying glass, has only a very limited power to reveal details that are not discernible to the naked eye. Obviously in an image formed of pixels or grains of pigment, like a pointilliste painting, it cannot reveal any details that are smaller than the individual pixels or grains.

On the other hand, where the original image itself is the result of processing a digital file, there is more scope for new details to emerge. When I take a digital photo with my phone camera, using default settings (not zoomed), I often find that the resulting image can be enlarged, either on the phone's screen or in my laptop, to show much more detail than is visible to the naked eye, either in the external scene or in the 'standard' image. I guess that in this case the standard image is not using all the information in the digital file, but when it is 'enlarged', the image-processing software is accessing the full set of data in the file and using more of it to show more detail of some part of the image (usually with a trade-off as regards the area covered, e.g. with a picture of a person it might show an enlarged version of the face alone.)

So my question is whether this is what is happening with the 'alien head'. Could it be the result of legitimate processing of a digital file? Or could it only be produced by some kind of deliberate manipulation, a.k.a. fakery?

 

[flarkey]

Ok, @Z.W. Wolf so I'll bite. I'll respond to your questions you posted yesterday individually, although some of them seem less than genuine.

And that detail of where it was is fatal. The marina you speak of is miles away. Was he skipping out on his security job, on a regular basis, to go over there? Why would he have any special access to the security cams of that marina? Just because he's a brother security guard? That seems like very superficial reasoning.

I'm not 100% decided that it was the marina, just that the Guzlece Marina layout is similar to what we see in the image. The aim was to get across my 'perception' ( ) that the 'ufo' image has depth. There is more than one scene seen over the years, which suggest multiple locations, maybe at the marina maybe not.

And the monitor was outdoors? Security monitors are indoors, aren't they? Or they allowed him to move it outdoors for awhile? And he he wired it up outdoors?

No - I think he was outdoors, recording something indoors - either seen through a window, or reflected in a window. @Gom's post #205 demonstrates that it was through or reflected in a window,

G

Post in thread '2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey'

Apr 2, 2022

I think I have categorically debunked the arc shaped craft zoom sections of the Kumburgaz UFO video, I haven't seen this posted anywhere before.

Using this stabilised footage Kumburgaz UFO footage posted on YouTube
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhsz1Wkkp18
,
the sequence in question starts at 24:57 and finishes at 26:34, you can clearly see that the "craft" image is being reflected onto a rainy window, with the drips of the rain on the glass clearly visible. Perhaps this is achieved by the cameraman by him using the pepper's ghost effect to project the...

• Gom

• 

And he was able to sneak around the marina without anyone asking what he was up to? Or he explained that he was making hoax UFO videos and "Please help me out here, Brother Security Guard." And no one at the marina blabbed?

No, he didn't have to sneak around the marina, or necessarily be near the TV. He has a telephoto lens on his camera.

Show me one particle of evidence that Yalcin shot any video footage anywhere else than the Yeni Kent Apts.

This is Yalcin on the Marine Princess Hotel Jetty.

This was recorded from inside the YeniKent apartments, not on the beach.

Show me one bit of evidence that the camera for this CRT monitor was anywhere on the grounds of the Yeni Kent Apts.

I don't have any evidence for this, but it doesnt have to be. It could be in any of the apartment block around the Yeni Kent Apts. Google Streetview around the YeniKent Apts is restricted (I think because there is a police station nearby) but this image shows a security camera at the apartments. So presumably it would be monitored somewhere nearby.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.036...01T000000!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu

This one is at Site-49 next door

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0365128,28.4407515,3a,15.9y,227.2h,90.85t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sEi9QuKDi8bSAkwean007mQ!2e0!5s20210501T000000!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=Ei9QuKDi8bSAkwean007mQ&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=152.57425&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu

Yandex maps has better coverage for that particular street.

https://yandex.com/maps/?l=stv,sta&...sspn=0.164209,0.121792&text=kumburgaz&z=17.35

Show me how he stood so far away from the CRT to show such a small image when the camera is zoomed out, and yet we see no reflected light from the CRT screen on anything. Also, no stars, no ground lights, no aircraft lights are ever visible in any of these model UFO videos.

The exposure of the camera was set so low in the UFO scenes that nothing else could be seen surrounding the object. Note the following:

This is the moon under normal exposure...

This is the moon and UFO in the same shot. The UFO was at least as bright as the full moon. Exposure was turned way down.

Source: https://youtu.be/BX3VTg1uQrw?t=338

Was it it in a custom built shelter?

I don't know. I don't think it was in a specific shelter. I'll not speculate.

Its hard to answer your questions without conjecture. So much of this is guesswork at what might have happened. I doubt if we're ever going to solve this one, and i dont think we'll ever change the general ufo-fan's opinion on this case.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Yebbut a focused image of the surface of an internal part of the lens:

Wut

 

[tobigtofool]

https://uapf.substack.com/p/trackin...he?r=3avcjy&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

Tracking Down the Man Behind the Greatest UFO Footage in History: Yalçin Yalman | How We Did It and What He Said

Yalcin revealed unexpected details, including that he had been "chosen" to capture the footage and was essentially a practitioner of CE5.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Wut

I honestly couldn't tell whether or not this was a self-deprecating joke on your part.

Since it isn't I'll address this...

Clarifying some terms.
The iris of the eye is the physical structure, the pupil is the hole.
The iris diaphragm of a camera lens is the physical structure, the aperture is the hole.

So you're arguing that this image is formed by the camera pointing at a mirror and capturing a focused image of its own iris diaphragm? Is that right?

Therefore Yalcin's camera, pointed at ordinary glass, or a mirror, could accidently capture a focused image of an internal element of its own lens. Right, so far? Obviously the lens is focusing the light into an image, as usual.

But that's not what PaulofNZ is claiming in post 314. He's claiming that these Yalcin flying saucer images are caused by an internal reflection of the back surface of the "lens adapter for the tele-converter."

It's actually a control ring adapter: a specialized accessory for cameras that allows the attachment of lenses from one mount system to a camera body of a different mount system, while providing additional control functionality. He picks one out at random from an online catalog because he thinks some its mechanisms look about right to match details on a Yalcin flying saucer.

Here I did a live debunk on it.. and feel I have solved it
as internal camera artifact,, a reflection of a part of the
lens adapter for the tele-converter

He's arguing that we are seeing a reflection of the back part of the thing ('lens adapter for the tele-converter") we see in this excerpt from his longer video. He's trying to match up details of a Yalcin flying saucer image with focused surface details on the back side of this metallic structure.

...but yeah look... Square bit matches up with that bit there.. That hole there, if you unscrew a
couple of screw hits [?]. and you wiggle it around, they're going to look like they're moving...

A teleconverter, also known as an extender, is an optical device used to increase the focal length of a lens. Essentially a secondary lens that is mounted between the camera body and the primary lens.

A focused image is formed by a glass lens through the process of refraction. Refraction is the bending of light as it passes through the lens. When light rays pass from one medium to another (e.g., from air to glass), their speed changes, causing them to bend. The amount of bending depends on the refractive index of the materials involved and the angle at which the light hits the surface of the lens.

Evidently, he's trying to argue that internal reflections are hitting the back surfaces of the control ring adapter - which is between the back of the lens and the front of the teleconverter - and these reflections are somehow focused onto the sensor. Impossible. How could the elements of a teleconverter produce a focused image with that kind of light path? There's such a thing as minimum focusing distance.

And all sorts of other things... My head is hurting thinking about it.

-Multiple paths can cause light to focus at different points within the lens system. How do you get this single, in focus, detailed image?
-How could you zoom in and out on this image?
-This would require a really powerful external light source. Which would cause all sorts of other ghosting flare artifacts.

Or... He's saying the control ring adapter is between the teleconverter and the camera body. I'm not sure. Slogging through that almost 3 hour long video is a tiresome chore. In this case there would be no lens elements between the mounting bracket and the sensor.

In either case... Focus doesn't just magically happen. It relies on very specific conditions.

Besides... is there even a light path at all? A ring adapter should fit the lens flush to the lens mount flange. So how is there a light path? Not going into that. I've done enough work. If someone else wants to address that, go ahead.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

You can get ghosts of outside objects like this. It's the left headlight of the car. But this image is already focused. And it's a lot dimmer. (Also inverted and mirror imaged.)

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Focus is achieved by refraction. Refraction is the job of the lens elements. Since the ring of metal in question lies behind the lens elements, how could a focused image of the surface of that ring be achieved? It hurts my head to even imagine how you could zoom in and out on that metal ring.

A lens flare in the shape of the iris aperture of the iris diaphragm is due to diffraction. When light passes across the blades of the iris diaphragm, diffraction patterns occur. These patterns are influenced by the shape and number of the diaphragm blades, leading to lens flare shapes that mimic the shape of the aperture.

Those lens flares show no detail of the interior surface of the iris diaphragm.

Some errors of my own here. I went back and reviewed. Ghosting flare artifacts in the shape of the aperture are caused by light reflecting off the thin edges of the blades, not by being diffracted by the blades. (But you're never going to get a focused image of the back side of the iris diaphragm.) Diffraction spikes in a photo are caused by the interaction of light with the iris diaphragm blades.

 

[JMartJr]

Camera-knowledgeable people: without cropping, is it possible to get an image with the ghost headlight as shown in this image with the actual headlight being out of frame? My impression is no, at least not by this "method," but my impression is not a well-informed one...

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Camera-knowledgeable people: without cropping, is it possible to get an image with the ghost headlight as shown in this image with the actual headlight being out of frame? My impression is no, at least not by this "method," but my impression is not a well-informed one...

No, it's not possible. This ghost is a focused image. The effect is Sensor-induced Ghosting. (MW calls these ghosts "sensor reflections.")

This starts as a reflection off the surface of the sensor, so the image of the headlight must be focused on the sensor. I'm a film guy, not a digital guy, so my knowledge of sensors is limited, but my understanding is that the top of the sensor is smooth and reflective. So prone to causing specular reflections.

You could get veiling flare from the non-image forming light coming from a light source out of the frame. It would look like glare in various forms, but never a focused, recognizable image. That's what lens hoods are for. To keep that stray light out.

 

[flarkey]

Our friend UAP Jimmy has responded to our debunks.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhfLQpc8WxY

First takeaway he likes to use the word 'clearly' to describe the blurry, pixelated, moving, black & white video. I think the most obvious thing about the video is that it is not clear! Thats why it is still UNIDENTIFED, unproven and not yet debunked!

Yeah, I feel like this watching him trying his best to debunk the debunk.

 

[Ravi]

Camera-knowledgeable people: without cropping, is it possible to get an image with the ghost headlight as shown in this image with the actual headlight being out of frame? My impression is no, at least not by this "method," but my impression is not a well-informed one...

No. When te light would be out of frame, the mirrored position can't be on the sensor too because the axis of symmetry is in the centre of the optics, and thus in the centre of the CCD.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Our friend UAP Jimmy has responded to our debunks.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhfLQpc8WxY

First takeaway he likes to use the word 'clearly' to describe the blurry, pixelated, moving, black & white video. I think the most obvious thing about the video is that it is not clear! Thats why it is still UNIDENTIFED, unproven and not yet debunked!
View attachment 70020

Yeah, I feel like this watching him trying his best to debunk the debunk.
View attachment 70021

He's not addressing our MB thread directly. He's addressing the SneezingMonkey video about our thread.

He also stops at "theory three" in the SneezingMonkey video and doesn't go on to theory four... because he knows he'll be crushed.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

We can agree that Theory Two - PaulofNZ's internal lens reflection artifact notion - is DOA.
We eliminated Theory Three - the cruise ship thing - years ago. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Ravi]

There are some shots in the videos, showing strong vignetting. This indicates the mismatch between the two lenses (objectives) he uses to zoom. It is not clear what other optical impacts this mismatch would have. One can imagine the optical ability to resolve at high zooms being affected..

 

[UAPF]

Our friend UAP Jimmy has responded to our debunks.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhfLQpc8WxY

First takeaway he likes to use the word 'clearly' to describe the blurry, pixelated, moving, black & white video. I think the most obvious thing about the video is that it is not clear! Thats why it is still UNIDENTIFED, unproven and not yet debunked!
View attachment 70020

Yeah, I feel like this watching him trying his best to debunk the debunk.
View attachment 70021

Harsh, but fair.
I'll be honest, it was 3am. Was just hoping I'd find some more data in the debunk video and it was a little too much of' it looks a bit like this and that' etc.

The cruse ship theory would have been interesting had there been some data attached to it, like horizon calculations, shipping details and so forth. Instead we got a blurry image that half matched a fat bit on a cruise ship - not even any evidence that particular ship would have been in that area or was in operation at the time. And the camera lens theory would work if we could just find a closely matching camera lens and if we didn't have Professor Zeki EKER's report that pretty much put that one to bed.

Genuinely I love the work you all do here and I'm certainly not saying it's aliens. But I don't believe anything The Sneezing Monkey said was compelling. Great case to dig-in to, though!

 

[UAPF]

He's not addressing our MB thread directly. He's addressing the SneezingMonkey video about our thread.

He also stops at "theory three" in the SneezingMonkey video and doesn't go on to theory four... because he knows he'll be crushed.

Wasn't Theory 3 the cruse ship? I tried to cover that with the clear sharp edge that didn't match, the lack of lights on any of the many videos, despite that being against maritime law and him zooming in and out multiple times. Not to mention not finding any ships that matched anything other than a slightly blurry single frame from one of the dozens of clips available. Plus I used an explanation of the height above the horizon from one of your very own members on this forum. Attached the screenshot with credit to Metabunk. Is this the one you say I've missed or was there a different one I missed? Genuine questions as I'd love to dig-in to it.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Harsh, but fair.
I'll be honest, it was 3am. Was just hoping I'd find some more data in the debunk video and it was a little too much of' it looks a bit like this and that' etc.

The cruse ship theory would have been interesting had there been some data attached to it, like horizon calculations, shipping details and so forth. Instead we got a blurry image that half matched a fat bit on a cruise ship - not even any evidence that particular ship would have been in that area or was in operation at the time. And the camera lens theory would work if we could just find a closely matching camera lens and if we didn't have Professor Zeki EKER's report that pretty much put that one to bed.

Genuinely I love the work you all do here and I'm certainly not saying it's aliens. But I don't believe anything The Sneezing Monkey said was compelling. Great case to dig-in to, though!

The cruise ship theory is seductive as an explanation for some of the flying saucer images. This is especially true if you are looking at just some still frames from selected videos. But this notion falls apart when you get into the details of this case.

Go back to start of this thread to see how our understanding of this case evolved.

Metabunk threads have pros and cons.

Pro: A long thread preserves the evolution of how we worked toward an understanding of an issue or event.

Con: Ideas get fragmented across the thread.

Con: People jump into the thread without knowing and/or understanding what has gone on in previous parts of the thread.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

It is not my fault if ZW doesn't express what he actually means. As I mentioned before, I gave him the "you can't mean that" out, which *he did not take*.

Give us your take on PaulofNZ's idea.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

There are some shots in the videos, showing strong vignetting. This indicates the mismatch between the two lenses (objectives) he uses to zoom. It is not clear what other optical impacts this mismatch would have. One can imagine the optical ability to resolve at high zooms being affected..

Have we established that Yalcin's camera actually was fitted with a teleconverter? If so, what are the details?

I could start from square one, but if someone has already worked this out, I don't want to put in that effort.

 

[Mendel]

It is not my fault if ZW doesn't express what he actually means. As I mentioned before, I gave him the "you can't mean that" out, which *he did not take*.

Communication is a co-operative process that requires effort on part of both the sender and receiver. This process sometimes fails for you when it fails for nobody else on this forum when you don't take the context of a statement into account to decode the intended meaning. The fact that these failures are typically limited to yourself as receiver and occur with various senders should clue you in that these people are reasonably competent at communicating, and that your expectations are shifting part of the communication work to them that you should be doing yourself.

 

[FatPhil]

We can agree that Theory Two - PaulofNZ's internal lens reflection artifact notion - is DOA.
We eliminated Theory Three - the cruise ship thing - years ago. It doesn't make any sense.

Where are you getting "internal lens reflection artefact" from?
In his
Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dFBcQBtyw78
from #314 he's clearly showing the outside back surface of the lens, as MW did years back.
And in
Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nJY3wj7hNf4
also from #314 he suggests that that "this little bracket on the outside", gesturing towards the bracket on the back of the lens, could have been unscrewed to better control it.
In #316 he states "as I said I think he uses the filter slot to insert the ring", i.e. one of these:

so this is in front of the optics, outside the camera.
I'll confess that I never watched the nearly 3 hour long vid, as Mick said, presumably no-one did, but those two "shorts of the key part" are quite clear to me, and he is not referring to internal lens reflections at all.

 

[FatPhil]

Give us your take on PaulofNZ's idea.

Whataboutism. I was giving a take on your ideas, which I consider ill-founded and badly-expressed.
Had I felt the pressing desire to respond to PaulofNZ's ideas, I'd have responded to PaulofNZ's posts.

Because you persist with what seems to be a misunderstanding of what PaulofNZ said (I will admit his written communication does lack some clarity, but he's relatively clear in the short videos), my previous post a few minutes back details where I see the mismatch between PaulofNZ's argument and your rebuttal resides. And, no, this isn't a take on PaulNZ's ideas, sorry, no matter what my opinion on that matter might be, it wouldn't change my point.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Where are you getting "internal lens reflection artefact" from?

Post 314

Here I did a live debunk on it.. and feel I have solved it
as internal camera artifact,, a reflection of a part of the
lens adapter for the tele-converter

"Internal camera artifact." The word "artifact" is normally used when talking about things you see in a photo that are the result of lens flare or ghosting.

"I have solved it as being an artifact due to internal reflection." That's the way I read it.

Not a specular reflection in a mirror, or glass pane. In that case wouldn't he say it was an image in a mirror or glass pane?

Also, PaulofNZ spends time talking about internal lens reflections in the nearly 3 hour video. For example here, where he is correlating each artifact visible in this photo to an internal part of the camera lens. He claims some of these are ghost images of glass lens elements. He points to a particular artifact and identifies the shape of the artifact as being the shape of a glass lens element.

He has at least one other video on his channel about internal lens reflections and ghost artifacts.

The part he is showing in post 314 fits a lens to the camera. It's a ring, properly called a control ring adapter. He calls it the "lens adapter for the tele-converter." The lens element we see, in the center of the ring, is the rear lens element of a camera lens. We can see the threads on back side of the camera lens, that would normally screw onto the threads of the camera's lens mount flange. He's showing the back surface of the control ring adapter.

The control ring adapter is meant to fit a lens to a camera that do not have a compatible mount system. It has a different mounting system on the front and the back - one compatible with the lens and one with the camera.

The lens mounts onto the control ring adapter, the control ring adapter then mounts onto the camera body.

This part, the control ring adapter, fits on the back of a camera lens, it can't fit to the front part.

How could you point a camera at a mirror and get a focused photo of the back part of the lens of that very camera? You could take the photos of this part with another camera, but if you pay attention, that's not what PaulofNZ is claiming. Yes, his idea is muddled, but his channel has other videos with muddled ideas.

Spoiler: More thoughts on teleconverter and adapter

In post 377, I explored the idea that he thinks this adapter is between the normal lens and the teleconverter. I don't think that ever happens, but maybe. The normal way to do things is that the teleconverter goes between the camera body and the camera's normal lens. If you needed an adapter it would go between the teleconverter and the camera body.

However, all the mechanisms he shows in his video are meant to preserve functions like auto-focus. Those mechanisms wouldn't work in either situation.

And why would you need an adapter? I'd think you'd just get a teleconverter that is compatible with both the lens and the camera. In fact, do teleconverters even exist that have one mounting system on one end and another on the other end?

He doesn't own this part, btw, he's showing a photo of this part.

Here I did a live debunk on it.. and feel I have solved it
as internal camera artifact,, a reflection of a part of the
lens adapter for the tele-converter

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DdTNpD_JPA


some shorts of key part

Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dFBcQBtyw78

and

Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nJY3wj7hNf4

 

[FatPhil]

Therefore Yalcin's camera, pointed at ordinary glass, or a mirror, could accidently capture a focused image of an internal element of its own lens. Right, so far? Obviously the lens is focusing the light into an image, as usual.

But that's not what PaulofNZ is claiming in post 314. He's claiming that these Yalcin flying saucer images are caused by an internal reflection of the back surface of the "lens adapter for the tele-converter."

The statements made about what was photographable and photographed were *your own words*. It is now your own words that you are saying are irrelevant. That's why I gave you the "I didn't mean that" out. Why didn't you take it the first time?

And use of just "iris" to refer to the camera part is perfectly acceptable and unambiguous, your pedantry is this regard is completely misplaced.
"Iris" describes their mechanics and their purpose perfectly, be they in a camera or a sci-fi space station door:

And I'm not using terminology I haven't seen in common use elsewhere. E.g.:

your lens's iris controls the aperture

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/aperture-iris.html

The iris is an adjustable opening ...

https://www.mediacollege.com/video/camera/exposure/
Note that the word "iris" is used 12 times on the Adobe page, 22 times on that other page, and the word "diaphragm" isn't used even once by either. To Adobe and others, "iris diaphragm" is not the term of art, "iris" is.
Worse, calling the camera's iris a "diaphragm" is a misleading. A diaphragm should cause an actual blockage, not merely narrow an opening - diaphragms are membranes: c.f. microphones, speaker drivers, abdominal cavities, et al..

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Please start another thread if you want to pursue this.

I'll take another look at the video. Or how about if we ask the guy himself to clarify?

 

[UAPF]

Have we established that Yalcin's camera actually was fitted with a teleconverter? If so, what are the details?

I could start from square one, but if someone has already worked this out, I don't want to put in that effort.

The cruise ship theory is seductive as an explanation for some of the flying saucer images. This is especially true if you are looking at just some still frames from selected videos. But this notion falls apart when you get into the details of this case.

Go back to start of this thread to see how our understanding of this case evolved.

Metabunk threads have pros and cons.

Pro: A long thread preserves the evolution of how we worked toward an understanding of an issue or event.

Con: Ideas get fragmented across the thread.

Con: People jump into the thread without knowing and/or understanding what has gone on in previous parts of the thread.

Hiya, I've tried to post the two screenshots from Yalcin discussing his 2 different cameras used and the lenses. And also a link an to interview in which he discussed issues with the footage, the question of the AM and PM in some of the footage appearing wrong (light when it should be dark and vice versa), but the platform seems to have restricted those posts.

I'd love to stick around and talk more, but the format hurts my brain. And having to transcribe a video in order for the video link to be allowed…it's a bit much. So I'm probably going to bounce. Any more questions about this case or clarifications I can get directly from Yalcin, I'm/he's an open book, so maybe just DM me over on IG or email me. All the links are in the YT contacts page. Cheers.

 

[flarkey]

Hey @Z.W. Wolf - just been thinking about your bangle theory again and illumination. I've been trying to perceive your model and how that relates to the UFO. The video of 6 Nov 2008 (or is it 11 June?) confuses me. There is a scene in which the 'bangle' (in your model) is illuminated from the left. And there are two objects to the right hand side of the bangle that are also illuminated by the left hand light. However taking into account the position of the light on the left and the curvature of the bangle, those objects should be in shadow. I've drawn the following diagram that hopefully illustrates my thoughts - does it fit with your recreation? Can you explain why they are illuminated? This is the source video.

This is the same bangle a year later, similarly illuminated.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I made an effort to reproduce that...

They are raised decorative features on the surface. Rings and curlicues in the case of my bangle here.

 

[flarkey]

I made an effort to reproduce that...

They are raised decorative features on the surface. Rings and curlicues in the case of my bangle here.

View attachment 70056

Where was the light source for these images in relation to the camera?