2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey

That's also the sound of simply changing the gain control on a camera.
The videos were recorded with a Canon GL1.
1720800469658.png

It use an exposure wheel, I don't think you'd get a stepped fading with a clicking sound during with that.

This stepped fading happens at the same time as a zoom out, while the camera is handheld. This sounds hard to manage with only two hands.
 
I've gone back to PaulofNZ video. I copied the transcript so I could go through it more quickly. And I have to tell you, it's quite a slog.

I have something like 2,000 words properly transcribed with no timestamps, and more on the way. I will go through that sometime soon. I'm convinced he's talking about internal lens reflections and ghost images of parts inside the lens. He even briefly speculates that Yalcin may have put a light source inside the lens, but then quickly says he doesn't think that's what happened.

But this particular bit right here should be enough.

Of course no one's going to believe it, right? Cuz if you can't match it 100%
1:21:34
they're not going to believe it still. Even though common sense [mumble] says it's
1:21:39
internal lens reflection




There are two bits of equipment he has on screen. The one in the top left corner is this:
Meike Adapter.png

It's a control ring adapter - with a filter holder. It goes between the lens and the camera body.

It looks like this
filter.jpg



Here it is on the camera body, but without the lens.
filter 2.jpg


Here it is with the lens. A lens that would not ordinarily be able to fit on this camera body.

filter 3.jpg


About this item
【Compatibility:】For Canon EF/ EF-S Mount lens to fits on Sony E Mount mirrorless Cameras.
【Accessories:】Equipped with a drop-in variable neutral density filter (ND3-ND500, equals to 1.5 to 9 stops), a UV-filter and a Drop-in Filter Storage Box.
【Additional Function: 】Support PDAF and CDAF Modes
【AF support and Aperture control:】 Support auto focus function ;the built-in electronic contact allows you to control the aperture of the lens directly through the camera.
【EXIF Transmission: 】The design of gold plated PIN brings excellent signal transmission.

I know most people associate filters with something that goes on the front of the lens. This is the kind of weird stuff you know about only when you're deep into cameras.
as I said I think he uses the filter slot to insert
the ring..after the rectangle thats used to clip bottom out of the video capturing going to sensor so its on a slight angle.. and potential to be
knocked and blurred. and 2007 he was practicing
and learning how to make it better to fool people
That's what he's referring to here, I think. In the video he muses on how Yalcin was able to mess around with the internal workings of the lens to produce a ghost image of internal parts.

The other one I can't identify. He's choosing photos he has previously downloaded and this one has a generic name.

He's just looking around to see if he can match the parts on these things to the features on a particular Yalcin flying saucer.

He promiscuously looks at both teleconverters and control ring adapters without discriminating between the two.
 
Last edited:
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?
The secondary light on the right side of the two objects made me think of water droplets.
If you go with the bangle theory, they could be glass beads off center from the spine.
This is what I get if I reproduce the scene in 3D with blender.

rendered view :
1720803901331.png

geometry :
1720804197042.png


(the orange line is the direction of the light)
 
Where was the light source for these images in relation to the camera?
The light source is a mini-flashlight. Masked by a sheet of black construction paper with a small hole in the center. I also experimented with various tubes. But I'm forgetting the details now. The light source is above and to our left.
 
This is the bit that destroys the internal lens reflection theory - why does the internal reflection move with the moon? How can an internal reflection be zoomed into, then out from, and then the moon be zoomed into? With the object moving relative to the moon as the camera is moved. Please explain this.

Time coded video link...

Source: https://youtu.be/BX3VTg1uQrw?t=372
 
Last edited:
There's something I've run across - in the PaulofNZ video and in the comments section of the SneezingMonkey video - that should be addressed.

Long ago MW identified this as the sodium-vapor lamps on a cargo ship.
Metabunk 2018-07-17 13-31-33.jpg


A similar ship. Not the same ship.
Metabunk 2018-07-17 13-36-20.jpg



Original video here


and later in the morning here


People are saying that the far shore is visible. Marked with green arrow. Because the lights are well above the far shore, they must be at high altitude. Therefore... flying saucer not cargo ship. "And it's not a mirage effect!"
sodium lights A.png


That dark band is not the far shore. It's a layer of mist lying just above the surface of the ocean. It's closer to the camera than the more distant ship. There's no mirage effect.

If we could see the far shore, we would also see ground lights. We're looking toward Izmat Bay - a heavily populated area southeast of Istanbul.

There's also a question of the distances involved and the curvature of the Earth. Would the far shore even be above the camera's horizon? Either way it remains... If we could see the far shore, we'd see the ground lights on the far shore.

A layer of mist above the surface of the ocean is commonly called "sea mist" or "sea fog." This phenomenon occurs when warm, moist air moves over cooler ocean waters, causing the moisture in the air to condense into tiny droplets, creating a mist or fog that hovers above the water's surface. It's a form of advection fog, when warm, moist air moves horizontally over a cooler surface.


https://spectrumnews1.com/wi/milwaukee/weather/2020/08/12/what-is-fog-and-how-does-it-form
fog a.png



Fog Advection.png
img_0673-1.png
ship-sails.jpg
 
Last edited:
That, indeed, could not explain what's seen, you're right. Anything partially inserted there would (a) be smeared all over the frame; and (b) flood the body with unwanted light.

(Regarding the text - aren't there automatically generated subtitles available? I've never used them myself, as my interface to youtube is more than a bit clunky, but I'm sure that I've heard others refer to AI generated subs.)
 
The secondary light on the right side of the two objects made me think of water droplets.
If you go with the bangle theory, they could be glass beads off center from the spine.
This is what I get if I reproduce the scene in 3D with blender.

rendered view :
View attachment 70067
geometry :
View attachment 70069

(the orange line is the direction of the light)
The rendering doest appear to have the dowel running through the centre of it - if it was there ... wouldnt that obscure the bead?
 
The secondary light on the right side of the two objects made me think of water droplets.
If you go with the bangle theory, they could be glass beads off center from the spine.
This is what I get if I reproduce the scene in 3D with blender.

rendered view :
View attachment 70067
geometry :
View attachment 70069

(the orange line is the direction of the light)
This orange line is not correct. It should be at an angle.

Forget beads of water. The highlights are from raised decorative features on the bangle which is made of brass, bronze or copper and has a smooth surface. The highlights are specular reflections angled directly into the camera lens. That's why they are so bright.
 
This orange line is not correct. It should be at an angle.

Forget beads of water. The highlights are from raised decorative features on the bangle which is made of brass, bronze or copper and has a smooth surface. The highlights are specular reflections angled directly into the camera lens. That's why they are so bright.
Unless there is a weird 3d shape I can't visualise involved, you can't have bright reflective highlights on the right side of the decorative features without the right side of the bangle being also illuminated if both are made of roughly the same material.
 
Personally I think the 'UFO' can be quite easily explained with a fish-eye lens. One is simply seeing a distant road, docks, etc and cars or boats on it, curved by the lens.....something like this...which I simply turned upside down as with a night image who's going to know anyway...

Has anyone tried 'uncurving' the image in the video ? Is there even software that could do that ?

istockphoto-680850804-612x612.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is a test shot. The dark fabric behind the bangle is a black sock. This arrangement was unsucessful because the sock is visible. To fix that, I moved it back.
I also controlled all other light sources better. It was a dark room, but there was still outside light coming in through the Livingroom windows. I set up barriers to get the area in the photo really dark.

But this should give everyone a better idea of what's going on.
Sock Visible a.png

I think people are getting too hung up on picturing a single line pointing back to the light source. Light spreads. This isn't a laser beam.

I experimented with different exposures. This exposure is too bright and doesn't reproduce the look of the Yalcin flying saucers.

The metal (copper, bronze or brass) is smooth. And prone to producing specular reflections. But only when the angles are just right to send the reflected light into the camera lens do you get the strongest specular reflections.

The sock has a rough surface so we are seeing diffuse reflections from the sock. (With a few weak specular reflections from some threads.)

The darker areas on the bangle are a mixture of diffuse and weak specular reflections from the lit areas. And more muted diffuse reflections from the areas that are in shadow.

The strong highlights from the bangle are strong specular reflections. Where the angles on the surface features reflect the rays from light source directly into the camera lens.

Same bangle, same lighting, different exposures. The strong specular reflections are more noticeable because of relative brightness.
DSC_0344.JPG

DSC_0419.JPG

Notice the sparkles off to the right. Just the same specular reflections. But more mysterious. And perhaps less natural looking to the untrained eye. (Artists and photographers talk about having an "eye" the way musicians talk about having an "ear.")

Understanding how light acts isn't so easy. That's why photographers have study guides.
b1878f183b821d1f12f9521d3d68ad21.jpg
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0344.JPG
    DSC_0344.JPG
    39 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:
Personally I think the 'UFO' can be quite easily explained with a fish-eye lens. One is simply seeing a distant road, docks, etc and cars or boats on it, curved by the lens.....something like this...which I simply turned upside down as with a night image who's going to know anyway...

What I think we are actually seeing is the output from one or more 360 degree panoramic security cameras. The overall image from the camera would look like this:

1720880769387.png


But the camera output is cropped and rotated to provide surveillance over a particular area such as an entry, a gate or road. The cropped and rotated image is easier for the mind to comprehend. These images below have the same tell-tale curve as in the UFO video.

1720880839128.png

If this was done for a number of scenes & cameras - (black & white at night), and the CRT screen showed each image for ~60 seconds before switching to the next one then you'd have something that resembles the UFO video very closely. Plus I think this is a much simpler and rational explanation that a hoaxed model using bangles, dowels, obscuring bits of paper and hand held flashlights

This feature is often offered on security cameras. Modern versions can remove the fisheye distortion, but back in 2009 I dont think this was a standard feature.
External Quote:

A reminder of the scenes in the video:

1720881436508.png




Has anyone tried 'uncurving' the image in the video ? Is there even software that could do that ?
Yes, I have tried manually doing this using GIMP, but unfortunately the quality of the image is the problem - we cant see much more in the un-curved image.
 
Last edited:
The rendering doest appear to have the dowel running through the centre of it - if it was there ... wouldnt that obscure the bead?
It depends on the position, orientation and size of the light source, but there are configurations that allow a raised bead to catch some light.
with a dowel :
dowel.png

without a dowel :
no_dowel.png

top view :
1720881735203.png
 
What I think we are actually seeing is the output from one or more 360 degree panoramic security cameras. The overall image from the camera would look like this:
It's time for you to do some test shots. CRT TVs on eBay aren't that expensive.

Best to use the real deal camera. Here's one for $195.00
https://www.ebay.com/itm/3261504757...Ep9EH_6IK1PpHtUrjawMJxffS2QogbgxoCaxwQAvD_BwE

You can get untested ones for cheaper.

If you want to start a GoFundMe, I'll kick in 3 figures. Then when you're done you can resell the equipment on eBay again. I, for one, wouldn't ask for my money back. So you could make a profit on this.
 
Last edited:
The other one I can't identify. He's choosing photos he has previously downloaded and this one has a generic name.

He's just looking around to see if he can match the parts on these things to the features on a particular Yalcin flying saucer.

He promiscuously looks at both teleconverters and control ring adapters without discriminating between the two.
BTW, I didn't mention that the equipment PaulofNZ is looking at isn't even remotely compatible with Yalcin's camera.
 
Last edited:
I think people are underestimating the technical problems inherent in using a camcorder of this type to video a CRT screen.

I had GTP help me, first with the specs of Yalcin's camera.
The Canon GL1 is a MiniDV camcorder that was popular for its compact size and high-quality video recording capabilities. Below are the technical specifications for the Canon GL1, including its refresh rate and frame rate:

Video Frame Rate: The Canon GL1 records video at the standard NTSC frame rate of 29.97 frames per second (fps).

Refresh Rate: The concept of refresh rate is more applicable to display devices like CRTs and monitors. For the Canon GL1, the key specification is the frame rate, which aligns with the NTSC standard of 29.97 fps. (I learned something there.)

Canon GL1 Technical Specifications

General:

  • Type: MiniDV Camcorder
  • Lens: 20x Optical Zoom, 100x Digital Zoom
  • Image Sensor: 1/4-inch CCD, 3 CCD system
  • Total Pixels: Approximately 410,000 pixels per CCD
Recording:

  • Recording Format: DV (Digital Video)
  • Video System: NTSC
  • Recording Media: MiniDV tape
  • Maximum Recording Time: Up to 80 minutes (SP mode) or 120 minutes (LP mode) on a 60-minute tape
Frame Rate:

  • Frame Rate: 29.97 fps (standard NTSC frame rate)
  • Shutter Speed: Variable, ranging from 1/60 to 1/15,000 second
  • Progressive Scan Mode: Frame Movie Mode (not true progressive but mimics progressive scan for a film-like look)
Audio:

  • Audio Recording System: 16-bit/48 kHz or 12-bit/32 kHz
  • Microphone: Built-in stereo microphone
  • Audio Inputs: External microphone jack
Display:

  • Viewfinder: 0.44-inch color LCD
  • LCD Screen: 2.5-inch flip-out LCD monitor
Connectivity:

  • DV Input/Output: IEEE 1394 (FireWire)
  • Analog Input/Output: Composite video, S-Video
  • Audio Input/Output: RCA audio jacks
  • Headphone Jack: Yes
  • Microphone Input: Yes
Power:

  • Battery Type: Lithium-ion
  • Battery Life: Varies depending on usage; typically around 1-2 hours with the standard battery pack
  • Power Supply: AC adapter
Physical:

  • Dimensions: 4.6 x 4.6 x 9.8 inches (116 x 116 x 249 mm)
  • Weight: Approximately 2.2 lbs (1 kg)

Refresh Rate and Frame Rate Details

  • Video Frame Rate: The Canon GL1 records video at the standard NTSC frame rate of 29.97 frames per second (fps).
  • Refresh Rate: The concept of refresh rate is more applicable to display devices like CRTs and monitors. For the Canon GL1, the key specification is the frame rate, which aligns with the NTSC standard of 29.97 fps.

Additional Features:

  • Image Stabilization: Optical Image Stabilizer (OIS)
  • White Balance: Auto, Preset (Daylight, Tungsten), and Manual
  • Exposure Modes: Auto, Manual, Shutter-priority, and Aperture-priority
  • Focus: Manual and Auto
  • Custom Presets: Adjustable settings for sharpness, color gain, and setup level
The Canon GL1, with its 3-CCD system and manual control options, was favored by amateur filmmakers and videographers looking for high-quality video in a compact and relatively affordable package.


Then I asked about possible artifacts when recording from a CRT screen:

Given that the Canon GL1 records video at the standard NTSC frame rate of 29.97 frames per second (fps), let's expand on the potential artifacts you might encounter when using the Canon GL1 camcorder to record images from a CRT TV screen:

Refresh Rate Mismatch

Cause:

  • Differences between the TV's refresh rate and the camcorder's frame rate.
Appearance:

  • Periodic Bands: Dark or light horizontal bands that scroll through the image. These are caused by the refresh rate of the CRT TV (typically 60 Hz in NTSC regions) not perfectly matching the camcorder's frame rate of 29.97 fps. The mismatch creates a strobing effect as the camera captures different parts of the screen refresh cycle in each frame.
  • Out-of-Sync Sections: Portions of the screen may appear to be out of sync with each other. This is due to the interlaced nature of CRT displays combined with the progressive scan recording of the camcorder.

Technical Details:

CRT TV Refresh Rate:

  • Standard NTSC CRT TVs refresh at 60 Hz, meaning the screen updates 60 times per second.
  • This is an interlaced refresh rate, meaning it updates half the lines (one field) in one 60th of a second and the other half in the next 60th of a second, effectively giving 30 complete frames per second.
Camcorder Frame Rate:

  • The Canon GL1 records at 29.97 fps, which is close to but not exactly the same as the CRT TV's effective frame rate of 30 fps.

Artifacts Explanation:

1. Periodic Bands (Rolling Bars):

  • Why It Happens: The camcorder captures video frames at a slightly different rate than the CRT's refresh rate. Each frame of video from the camcorder captures a slightly different portion of the TV's refresh cycle, causing visible rolling bars.
  • Appearance: Horizontal bands that move up or down the screen. Their speed and thickness can vary depending on the exact refresh rate mismatch.
2. Out-of-Sync Sections:

  • Why It Happens: CRT TVs use interlaced scanning, where each frame is split into two fields. The camcorder, which uses progressive scanning, might capture the transition between these fields.
  • Appearance: This can result in one part of the frame appearing to lag behind or be ahead of another part, causing a tearing effect.

Mitigating These Artifacts:

  1. Adjust Shutter Speed:
    • Adjusting the camcorder's shutter speed to 1/60th of a second can sometimes reduce the visibility of rolling bands, as it aligns better with the TV's refresh rate.
  2. Sync with TV Refresh Rate:
    • Some professional camcorders have features that allow them to sync with the refresh rate of a TV, though this might not be available on the Canon GL1.
  3. Use an External Monitor:
    • If available, using a digital flat-panel display (LCD, LED) with a refresh rate matching the camcorder's frame rate can eliminate these artifacts, as these displays don't use the same refresh method as CRTs.
  4. Post-Production Correction:
    • If recording with artifacts is unavoidable, software tools in post-production can sometimes reduce or mask these issues.

This is the part that I'm most concerned about:
Some professional camcorders have features that allow them to sync with the refresh rate of a TV, though this might not be available on the Canon GL1.

Spec for Canon GL1
Shutter Speed: Variable, ranging from 1/60 to 1/15,000 second
Okay, the shutter speed is adjustable. But can you really eliminate all Refresh Rate Mismatch? I have to see that demonstrated. I doubt that the shutter speed is infinitely variable. The settings are going to be incremental. I can't believe that there's going to be no refresh rate mismatch between the camera and the CRT screen.


To reduce refresh rate mismatch between a digital camera and a CRT screen, you can adjust the camera's frame rate to match the refresh rate of the CRT. Here's how it works:

Understanding Refresh Rate and Frame Rate:

The refresh rate of the CRT screen is the number of times per second the display refreshes its image. Common refresh rates are 50 Hz, 60 Hz, etc.
The frame rate of the camera is the number of frames it captures per second. Common frame rates are 24 fps, 30 fps, 60 fps, etc.
Synchronization:

When the camera's frame rate matches the CRT's refresh rate, the camera captures the screen image at the same rate that the screen refreshes.
For example, if the CRT refreshes at 60 Hz (60 times per second), and the camera also captures at 60 fps (frames per second), each frame the camera captures will align with the refresh cycle of the CRT.
Reducing Artifacts:

Mismatched Rates: If the camera's frame rate and the CRT's refresh rate do not match, the camera may capture parts of different refresh cycles. This results in artifacts such as flickering, banding, or tearing, where parts of the screen appear to be at different brightness levels or positions.
Matched Rates: By setting the camera's frame rate to match the CRT's refresh rate, the camera captures a full refresh cycle of the screen in each frame. This reduces or eliminates artifacts because the camera is in sync with the screen's updates.
Practical Adjustment:

Check the CRT's refresh rate (e.g., 50 Hz, 60 Hz).
Set the camera's frame rate to the same value (e.g., 50 fps, 60 fps).
Many cameras allow you to adjust the frame rate in the settings menu. Ensure the setting is precise to match the CRT's refresh rate exactly.
Additional Considerations:

Shutter Speed: In addition to frame rate, adjusting the camera's shutter speed to an appropriate value (e.g., 1/60 second for a 60 Hz refresh rate) can further reduce artifacts.
Lighting Conditions: Ensure that the room lighting does not introduce additional flicker, especially if the lights operate at a frequency that interferes with the camera's frame rate.
By aligning the camera's frame rate with the CRT's refresh rate, you ensure that each frame captured by the camera corresponds to a complete refresh cycle of the CRT, minimizing visual artifacts and providing a clearer, more stable image.



I then asked GPT to assess the chances of getting artifacts when recording a CRT screen with a Canon GL1. Inevitable, very likely, somewhat likely:

Given the Canon GL1's NTSC frame rate of 29.97 fps and the typical 60 Hz refresh rate of CRT TVs, the potential artifacts can be assessed as follows:

Periodic Bands

Description: Dark or light horizontal bands that scroll through the image. These are caused by the refresh rate of the CRT TV (typically 60 Hz in NTSC regions) not perfectly matching the camcorder's frame rate of 29.97 fps. The mismatch creates a strobing effect as the camera captures different parts of the screen refresh cycle in each frame.

Likelihood: Very Likely

  • Reason: The refresh rate of 60 Hz means the screen refreshes 60 times per second, while the camera captures at 29.97 fps, resulting in a significant mismatch. This difference commonly causes periodic bands as the camera picks up different parts of the screen's refresh cycle in each frame. While not absolutely inevitable, this artifact is very likely to appear under typical recording conditions.

Out-of-Sync Sections

Description: Portions of the screen may appear to be out of sync with each other. This is due to the interlaced nature of CRT displays combined with the progressive scan recording of the camcorder.

Likelihood: Somewhat Likely

  • Reason: CRT TVs use interlaced scanning, displaying each frame in two fields (odd and even lines). The Canon GL1 records in progressive scan, capturing the entire frame in one go. If the camcorder records during the transition between these interlaced fields, it can cause sections of the screen to appear out of sync. However, the extent of this artifact depends on the exact timing of the recording relative to the TV's refresh cycle. Therefore, while somewhat likely, it is not as consistently present as periodic bands.

Summary

  • Periodic Bands: Very Likely due to the inherent mismatch between the 60 Hz CRT refresh rate and the 29.97 fps camcorder frame rate. This artifact is common and often noticeable when recording CRT screens with digital cameras.
  • Out-of-Sync Sections: Somewhat Likely because of the interlaced display of CRTs and the progressive capture of the camcorder. The occurrence and visibility of this artifact depend on the synchronization of the recording process.
To mitigate these issues, adjustments to the camcorder settings (such as shutter speed) or the use of external tools may help, but some level of artifact is generally unavoidable due to the fundamental differences in display and capture technology.

This bit of this video shows what periodic banding looks like and what hum bars look like:


Let me get the refresh rate going. Interesting, it seems to be at 50 hertz for the moment... But yeah, that's a shutter speed of 60 on my camera. And there's [a shutter speed of] 50 [on my camera].
The refresh rate of the CRT is 50 hertz when it starts up and his camera's shutter speed is set to 60 fps. We see bad periodic banding when the TV first starts up.

Then he fools around with his camera's shutter speed to make sure what the TV's refresh rate is.

Quickly...

-He switches his camera's shutter speed to 50 ... the periodic banding gets less noticeable. (Reduced to hum bars.)
-Switches back to 60. Banding gets worse again.
-Switches his camera back to 50.

This reduces the periodic banding, but it's still noticeable. I suspect that's because the refresh rate on the TV is not exactly 50 hertz or the camera's shutter speed is not exactly a 50th of a second. Or both. Anyway, there's still a problem with them being slightly out of phase. The artifacts we see at this point are "hum bars."

Rolling Bars:
Appearance: Dark or light bars that roll up or down the screen. These bars are sometimes referred to as "hum bars."
Cause: Rolling bars occur due to a slight difference between the camera's frame rate and the CRT's refresh rate, causing the camera to capture the refresh process moving across the screen over time.

Even with a modern digital camera, with an adjustable frame rate, you still get noticeable hum bars.

We're also seeing at times...
Moiré Patterns:
Cause: The fine dot pitch of the CRT screen can interfere with the pixel grid of the digital camera's sensor.
  • Appearance: A wavy or rippled pattern overlaying the image, which is not present on the original screen.



I don't find it credible that Yalcin was using this camera to video a CRT screen (or more than one?) and never once do we see typical artifacts, especially hum bars, in his flying saucer videos.
 
Last edited:
The video-sync issue is something I have thought about. An interesting example is one involving Yalcin himeself. In the video below he talks at length about how he recored the ufo. One thing I found interesting was the three CRTs in the video - one showing the ufo at the top is in-sync with the camera recording, but the two below show significant flickering and banding. I'm not sure what conclusion to take from this other than 'sometimes there's banding and flickering, sometimes not', but I totally accept that it is an issue that needs to be considered.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb7YJdEnhpE&t=633s&ab_channel=TurkeyUFOIncident


What are your thoughts on the flickering & banding seen & not seen in that video?

Edit: @Z.W. Wolf - I think this video of the UFO shows flickering as you suggested we should expect , although only for about 2 seconds. It seems to become noticeable when the exposure is adjusted. (Time linked youtube video below)


Source: https://youtu.be/ZHOp5oMkmL0?t=63
 
Last edited:
I think people are underestimating the technical problems inherent in using a camcorder of this type to video a CRT screen.
The camera specs you've provided do not mention a sync or genlock input, so it probably does not have one. But a sync signal can be derived from the video output of the camera, and a professional video source (such as a professional videotape machine) could be locked to it to provide a stable picture without artefacts.

However, security cameras do not need this feature, and it would surprise me if they had it, especially if the location of the camera was remote. I imagine it might make sense in an analog system that displays several cameras simultaneously.
 
In 2007, Turkey would most likely be using the PAL (Phase Alternating Line) system for its security cameras and CRT monitors. Here are the key reasons:

  1. Regional Standard:
    • Turkey is in the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region, where PAL is the predominant television standard.
  2. Technical Specifications:
    • PAL has a frame rate of 25 frames per second (fps) with 625 lines of resolution, which is commonly used in countries within this region.
  3. Historical Context:
    • During that time, the NTSC (National Television System Committee) standard, which operates at 30 fps with 525 lines of resolution, was primarily used in North America and parts of South America, Japan, and a few other countries.
Given these factors, a security camera system in Turkey in 2007 would very likely adhere to the PAL standard.


My question: Does the Canon GL1 have a PAL mode? Would this camera produce more or fewer artifacts or about the same than capturing crt using NTSC?
No, the Canon GL1 does not have a PAL mode. The Canon GL1 is designed to operate in the NTSC format, which is standard in North America and Japan. It records video at 29.97 frames per second with a resolution of 720 x 480 pixels.

For capturing video in PAL format, which is standard in Europe and many other parts of the world, you would need a camera specifically designed for PAL, such as the Canon XM1, which is the PAL equivalent of the Canon GL1.

Implications for Capturing PAL CRT Screen:

If you use the Canon GL1 (NTSC) to capture a PAL CRT screen, you will likely encounter more artifacts due to the mismatch between the camera's frame rate (29.97 fps) and the PAL CRT's refresh rate (50 Hz). These artifacts can include flickering, rolling bars, and other synchronization issues.

To capture a PAL CRT screen with minimal artifacts, you would need a camera that operates in the PAL format, such as the Canon XM1, which would better match the 25 fps frame rate with the 50 Hz refresh rate of the PAL system.
 
In that part of the world wouldn't a native security system monitor be PAL instead of NTSC? What does GTP have to say about that?
Good question. Something I wasn't considering.


This came from page one, post 14 of this thread. Which is where I got the camera model.
upload_2018-7-17_15-31-54.png

The oldest version of this photo that Tineye can find is from 2012: https://alcione.org/FRAUDES/00TURQUIA/

Clicking on this link gives a 404 error


After your question, I wondered how Yalcin could look at his own recordings if there's a standard mismatch.

So I double checked.

Screenshot
camera.png


From this YT video


GPT
The Canon DM-GR1-A uses the PAL (Phase Alternating Line) system. This model is designed for markets where the PAL system is the standard television format, offering 25 frames per second (fps) with a resolution of 720 x 576 pixels.

The Canon DM-GR1-A, also known as the Canon GL1 in some markets, is a MiniDV camcorder known for its high-quality video recording capabilities. Below are the technical specifications:

Canon DM-GR1-A (GL1) Technical Specifications

General:

  • Model Name: Canon DM-GR1-A (GL1)
  • Media Type: MiniDV cassette
  • System: PAL
  • Color: White
Image Sensor:

  • Type: 3 CCD (Charge-Coupled Device)
  • Size: 1/4 inch
  • Total Pixels: 270,000 pixels per CCD
  • Effective Pixels: 270,000 pixels per CCD
Lens:

  • Zoom: 20x Optical, 100x Digital
  • Focal Length: 4.2 - 84 mm (equivalent to 39.5 - 790 mm on a 35mm camera)
  • Aperture: f/1.6 to f/2.9
  • Filter Diameter: 58 mm
Viewfinder & LCD:

  • Viewfinder: 0.44 inch, 180,000 pixels
  • LCD Monitor: 2.5 inch, 200,000 pixels, flip-out, and rotate
Recording:

  • Video Format: DV (Digital Video), PAL
  • Recording Speed: SP (Standard Play), LP (Long Play)
  • Audio: 16-bit (48 kHz, 2 channels) or 12-bit (32 kHz, 4 channels)
  • Time Code: Rec Run, Free Run
Inputs and Outputs:

  • Video Inputs: None
  • Video Outputs: Composite (RCA), S-Video
  • Audio Inputs: 3.5 mm microphone input
  • Audio Outputs: RCA stereo output
  • Digital Input/Output: IEEE 1394 (FireWire)
  • Headphone Jack: Yes
  • Accessory Shoe: Yes (hot shoe)
Exposure Control:

  • White Balance: Auto, Manual (Indoor, Outdoor, and Set)
  • Exposure Modes: Auto, Manual
  • Shutter Speed: 1/50 to 1/15,000 second
Power:

  • Battery Type: BP-930, BP-945 (Lithium-Ion)
  • Power Supply: DC 7.2V
  • Battery Life: Varies depending on usage and battery type
Dimensions & Weight:

  • Dimensions: 146 x 181 x 358 mm (5.7 x 7.1 x 14.1 inches)
  • Weight: 1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) (without battery and lens cap)
Special Features:

  • Image Stabilization: Optical Image Stabilization (OIS)
  • Digital Effects: Faders, Special Effects
  • Built-in Speaker: Yes
  • Custom Presets: Yes



The PAL (Phase Alternating Line) and NTSC (National Television System Committee) systems are two different television broadcasting standards used in various parts of the world. They differ in several technical aspects, which impact the quality and characteristics of the video displayed. Here are the main differences:

1. Frame Rate and Resolution

  • PAL:
    • Frame Rate: 25 frames per second (fps)
    • Field Rate: 50 fields per second (interlaced)
    • Resolution: 720 x 576 pixels (standard definition)
  • NTSC:
    • Frame Rate: 30 frames per second (fps) (actually 29.97 fps)
    • Field Rate: 60 fields per second (interlaced)
    • Resolution: 720 x 480 pixels (standard definition)

2. Color Encoding

  • PAL:
    • Color Subcarrier Frequency: 4.43 MHz
    • Color Encoding: Uses phase alternation to reduce color errors. The phase of the color signal alternates with each line, which helps to cancel out color distortion.
  • NTSC:
    • Color Subcarrier Frequency: 3.58 MHz
    • Color Encoding: More susceptible to color shifts and hue errors. Requires a tint control on the television to correct color issues.

3. Regions of Use

  • PAL:
    • Used mainly in Europe, Australia, parts of Africa, and parts of Asia.
  • NTSC:
    • Used mainly in North America, parts of South America, Japan, South Korea, and some Pacific Islands.

4. Picture Quality

  • PAL:
    • Generally considered to have better color stability and accuracy due to phase alternation.
    • Higher resolution compared to NTSC, which provides slightly better picture quality.
  • NTSC:
    • More prone to color shifts and hue errors.
    • Slightly lower resolution compared to PAL, resulting in marginally less detail.

5. Audio Encoding

  • PAL:
    • The audio system is typically integrated with the video system, using a separate carrier frequency for sound.
  • NTSC:
    • The audio system is also integrated, with a separate carrier frequency. NTSC often has more audio variations depending on the region (e.g., MTS in the US for stereo sound).

6. Bandwidth

  • PAL:
    • Uses a wider channel bandwidth of 7 to 8 MHz, which allows for the higher resolution.
  • NTSC:
    • Uses a narrower channel bandwidth of 6 MHz.

7. Power Frequency Compatibility

  • PAL:
    • Compatible with the 50 Hz power frequency used in PAL regions, which matches the 50 fields per second field rate.
  • NTSC:
    • Compatible with the 60 Hz power frequency used in NTSC regions, matching the 60 fields per second field rate.

Summary

In summary, PAL and NTSC are two distinct video standards that differ primarily in frame rate, resolution, color encoding, and regional usage. PAL offers higher resolution and better color stability, while NTSC has a higher frame rate, making it more suited for capturing fast motion. These differences are crucial for compatibility and performance in television broadcasting and video recording.


In PAL (Phase Alternating Line) video standard, the relationship between frames per second (fps) and hertz (Hz) is as follows:

  1. Frame Rate (fps): PAL typically operates at 25 frames per second. This means that 25 individual frames or images are displayed per second of video footage.
  2. Frequency (Hz): The mains electricity frequency in PAL regions is 50 Hz. This refers to the alternating current (AC) power cycle, where the current alternates direction 50 times per second.
The relationship is such that in PAL systems:

  • Each frame (fps) is displayed twice during each cycle of the alternating current (50 Hz).
  • Therefore, each frame is displayed for 1/50th of a second (20 milliseconds).
This synchronization helps prevent interference or flickering that could occur if the frame rate and electrical cycle were not aligned properly.
 
Last edited:
My question: If using Canon DM-GR1-A, which uses the PAL (Phase Alternating Line) system, to capture images from the screen of a CRT that also uses the PAL system, what artifacts could we expect to see? Rate the likelihood of seeing these artifacts; inevitable, very likely, somewhat likely, not likely.

When using the Canon DM-GR1-A, which uses the PAL (Phase Alternating Line) system, to capture images from a CRT that also uses the PAL system, the following artifacts can be expected. The likelihood of each artifact is rated as follows:

When using the Canon DM-GR1-A, which uses the PAL (Phase Alternating Line) system, to capture images from a CRT that also uses the PAL system, the following artifacts can be expected. The likelihood of each artifact is rated as follows:

  1. Flickering or Rolling Bars:
    • Likelihood: Inevitable
    • Reason: Despite both the camera and CRT using the PAL system (50 Hz), slight mismatches in timing and the camera's inability to perfectly sync with the CRT's refresh rate can cause flickering or rolling bars.
  2. Moire Patterns:
    • Likelihood: Very Likely
    • Reason: Moire patterns can result from the interaction between the camera's sensor and the CRT's pixel structure, leading to interference patterns.
  3. Color Banding:
    • Likelihood: Somewhat Likely
    • Reason: Color banding can occur due to the camera's color sampling and the CRT's color representation. It is less likely but possible depending on the specific camera settings and the CRT's display characteristics.
  4. Screen Glare or Reflections:
    • Likelihood: Somewhat Likely
    • Reason: This depends on external lighting conditions and the angle of the camera relative to the CRT screen. Proper positioning and lighting can minimize this artifact.
  5. Out-of-Sync Sections:
    • Likelihood: Not Likely
    • Reason: With both the camera and the CRT operating at the same refresh rate (50 Hz), the likelihood of out-of-sync sections is low. However, any slight mismatch or timing issues can still cause minor problems.
Overall, the compatibility between the PAL systems of the camera and CRT reduces the likelihood of severe artifacts, but some issues like flickering or rolling bars remain inevitable due to inherent timing mismatches.


I asked for a more detailed explanation.
  1. Timing Mismatches: The PAL system refreshes the screen at a rate of 50 times per second (50 Hz). However, exact synchronization between the camera's recording rate and the CRT's refresh rate is challenging to achieve manually. Even minor differences in timing between the camera and the CRT can lead to noticeable flickering or rolling bars in the recorded video.
  2. Interlacing Issues: PAL video typically uses interlacing, where odd and even lines of the image are refreshed alternately in two fields, resulting in a full frame every 1/25th of a second (50 Hz). If the camera's shutter speed or recording timing is not perfectly matched to this interlaced pattern, it can further exacerbate flickering or introduce rolling bars as the camera captures different parts of the frame at slightly different times.
  3. Electrical Interference: CRT monitors emit electromagnetic radiation, which can interfere with nearby electronic devices like cameras. This interference can manifest as visible lines or disturbances in the recorded video, contributing to flickering or rolling bars.
  4. Manual Timing Challenges: When manually timing video recording from a CRT monitor with the Canon DM-GR1-A, without electronic synchronization, achieving precise timing alignment is difficult. Even slight variations in when the camera starts recording relative to the CRT's refresh cycle can lead to inconsistencies that appear as flickering or rolling bars in the footage.
To minimize these artifacts, techniques such as adjusting the camera's shutter speed, experimenting with different recording angles or distances from the CRT, and ensuring stable power supplies can help. However, due to the inherent differences in timing and the nature of analog CRT technology, some degree of flickering or rolling bars may still be inevitable when recording with the Canon DM-GR1-A from a PAL CRT monitor.



What techniques could be used to avoid flickering or rolling bars:
When recording video from a PAL CRT monitor using the Canon DM-GR1-A without an electronic connection, here are techniques for the operator to avoid flickering or rolling bars:
  1. Frame Rate Settings: Ensure the camera's frame rate setting is compatible with the PAL standard (25 frames per second). This helps in synchronizing the camera's recording with the CRT's refresh rate.
  2. Stable Setup: Use a tripod or stable mounting for the camera to minimize vibrations and ensure consistent framing throughout the recording.
  3. Manual Timing Adjustment: Without electronic synchronization, manually time the start of recording to coincide with the CRT's refresh cycle. This may involve observing the CRT screen and starting the recording at the beginning of a refresh cycle.
  4. Monitor Feedback: Continuously monitor the video feed on the camera's display or an external monitor to detect any flickering or rolling bars during recording. Adjust timing if synchronization issues are observed.
  5. Avoid Rapid Movements: Smooth and gradual movements of the camera help maintain synchronization. Avoid sudden pans or tilts that can disrupt the timing alignment with the CRT's refresh rate.
  6. Consistent Lighting: Maintain consistent lighting conditions around the CRT monitor to minimize variations that could affect visibility and timing accuracy.
  7. Prevent Interference: Ensure there are no sources of electromagnetic interference (EMI) near the recording setup, as EMI can disrupt the camera's ability to capture clear, synchronized video.
  8. Test and Adjust: Conduct test recordings initially to fine-tune the timing and ensure synchronization is optimized before recording critical footage.
By implementing these techniques, the operator can enhance their ability to record video from a PAL CRT monitor using the Canon DM-GR1-A camera without experiencing flickering or rolling bars, ensuring smooth and synchronized video capture.
Note that while Yalcin uses a tripod he can never keep his doggone hands off the doggone camera and let it sit still on the tripod. The camera constantly vibrates because he's constantly touching the camera, even when he's not adjusting something. The constant zooms, pans, changes to exposure settings and focus not only cause vibrations, but themselves disrupt the framing of the image. He's doing a lot to cause problems.



Follow-up question: Manual Timing Adjustment: Without electronic synchronization, manually time the start of recording to coincide with the CRT's refresh cycle. This may involve observing the CRT screen and starting the recording at the beginning of a refresh cycle: Describe how a human operator could do this. This seems to be impossible.
You're right; manually timing video recording to coincide with a CRT's refresh cycle without electronic synchronization can be challenging but not impossible. Here's a more practical approach for a human operator to achieve this:

  1. Visual Observation: Start by observing the CRT monitor's screen closely. Look for visual cues such as the movement of content on the screen or any noticeable flickering patterns.
  2. Identify the Refresh Cycle: CRT monitors refresh at 50 Hz in PAL systems, meaning there are 50 cycles per second (or 25 frames per second in interlaced PAL). Watch for consistent patterns or movements that indicate the start of a new cycle.
  3. Predict Timing: Anticipate the timing by predicting when the screen content or flickering pattern is about to reset or start anew. This may involve observing the screen for a few seconds to discern the pattern of refresh cycles.
  4. Start Recording: Once you've identified the beginning of a refresh cycle or have a good estimate of its timing, start recording immediately. This action should ideally coincide with the start of a new refresh cycle to minimize synchronization issues.
  5. Adjust as Needed: Continuously monitor the recording to ensure that flickering or rolling bars do not appear. If issues arise, adjust the timing of when you start recording in relation to the CRT's refresh cycle.
  6. Practice and Refinement: With practice, operators can develop a sense of timing that aligns closely with the CRT's refresh rate, reducing the likelihood of synchronization problems over time.
While challenging, this method relies on the operator's ability to visually interpret the CRT monitor's behavior and make informed timing decisions. It may require several attempts and adjustments to achieve optimal synchronization, but it is feasible with practice and careful observation.
 
Last edited:
What could the operator do to avoid moiré patterns?

To avoid moiré patterns when using the Canon DM-GR1-A to capture images from a CRT monitor, which is particularly prone to displaying such patterns due to its grid-like structure, operators can employ several techniques:

  1. Adjust Camera Position and Angle: Change the position and angle of the camera relative to the CRT screen. Sometimes, a slight shift in perspective can reduce or eliminate moiré patterns by altering the alignment of the camera's sensor with the CRT's pixel grid.
  2. Use Anti-Aliasing Filters: Attach an optical anti-aliasing filter to the lens of the Canon DM-GR1-A. Anti-aliasing filters are designed to reduce the effects of moiré patterns by slightly blurring the image, which helps to smooth out fine details that can cause interference patterns.
  3. Adjust Camera Settings: Experiment with different camera settings such as aperture, shutter speed, and ISO sensitivity. Sometimes, changing these settings can affect how the camera captures the CRT display, potentially reducing moiré patterns.
  4. Use a Matte Screen or Diffuser: Place a matte or diffusing material over the CRT screen. This can help to scatter light and reduce the sharpness of the pixel grid visible to the camera, thereby minimizing the occurrence of moiré patterns.
  5. Software Solutions: If possible, use post-processing software to apply a slight blur or anti-moiré filter to the captured footage. This can be effective in reducing or eliminating moiré patterns that appear in the recorded video.
  6. Opt for a Different Display or Camera: In some cases, switching to a different type of display technology (e.g., LCD instead of CRT) or using a different camera with better anti-moiré capabilities may be necessary if moiré patterns persist despite other efforts.
By employing these techniques, operators can mitigate the appearance of moiré patterns when capturing video or images from a CRT monitor using the Canon DM-GR1-A camera.
 
I would like to add another theory:

I think we are looking at several capsized ships.


First object: pretty straight forward. The underside of the ship is in the front. The ships superstructures would be pointing away from the camera and are hidden behind the ships hull.
tumburgaz_1_org.jpg
tumburgaz_1_exp.jpg


Second object: That gave me a bit of a headache until I noticed that the part in the center had quite some similarity with the shadow of a small boat, probably a tugboat. Especially the distinct form of the control cabin. The two "alien heads" would therefor be just light shining through the windows of the control cabin. The light itself is likely the searchlight of the tugboat. Also note the waves which are probably coming from the engine of the tugboat.
tumburgaz_2_org.jpg
tumburgaz_2_exp.jpg

tumburgaz_2_tugboat.jpg


Third object: Same reasoning. This image has a hint of color with a white railing, a black hull and maybe a reddish underside.
tumburgaz_3_org.jpg
tumburgaz_3_exp.jpg

tumburgaz_3_exp2.jpg
tumburgaz_3_colors.jpg


Forth object: not much details visible in the video. I think the top white part is also a railing with a searchlight pointed at it but with the searchlight pointing too high so the railing is only getting illuminated by the lower part of the light cone. It is noticeable that the light in all objects is mainly centered on the "alien heads" which would make sense if these are actually sailors waiting to be rescued. The rescue teams would most likely point the searchlights toward their location.
tumburgaz_4_org.jpg
tumburgaz_4_exp.jpg



The fact that there are several videos of seemingly capsized ships in such a short period of time surprised me a little. I was also not able to find any news of capsized ships on the dates shown in the video due to the language barrier. It would be helpful if somebody who speaks Turkish could do a search here.

However the sheer number of ships in the Marmara sea makes it seem not that unlikely that accidents appear frequently especially around Istanbul/Bosporus. I found a newspaper article mentioning hundreds of shipwrecks in the Marmara sea:

https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/turkish-government-moves-to-remove-sunken-ships-plaguing-seas/news
External Quote:

The ministry said in a statement on Tuesday that the waters are home to hundreds of shipwrecks and the number is increasing, prompting pollution and safety concerns.
[...]
Along with shipwrecks, it covers the removal of half-sunken ships that cannot be removed from their current location due to logistical reasons.

It is also worth mentioning that none of the videos shows a ship from a perspective where the superstructures are visible. All videos only show a perspective where the visible clues could be mistaken for a UFO. I think it is rather unlikely that the person filming these had not filmed a single ship from a different perspective. Which lets me suspect that the videos were picket from a larger set of videos for that exact reason.
 
Are you proposing that Yalcin was filming capsized boats from the front porch of the Yeni Kent Apartments?

Are you aware that Yalcin was recording these flying saucer videos from 2007 to 2009? This same saucer also appears in videos from 2007 and 2009. Those sailors were waiting patiently for a long time. Maybe they're still there.
tumburgaz_4_exp.jpg


I think you should start reading this thread from page 1. A lot of work has gone into this over the years.
 
Last edited:
Are you proposing that Yalcin was filming capsized boats from the front porch of the Yeni Kent Apartments?
Yes that is my theory. Capsized boats with rescue teams already in the scene to be precise. The searchlights from the rescue teams would be visible from quite the distance, noticing anybody on the beach of the incident providing a comfortable amount of time to prepare and film.

You had a similar idea in 2018 but didn't seem to have pursued it any further.


I've also toyed with the idea that some of these are nothing more than small boats lying on their side on the beach and illuminated for some reason... innocently or as part of a hoax.

I mean look at the way this one is made and compare...

8c6843b65301bedf2824c8ead4d5d9c4.jpg


a63be042dd1427061236c65a404acd8e.png




Just a boat lying on its side with a fender drooping down? A flashlight shining on it?

428333065b5f6da888ec1e97833b0394.png



Another boat with several fenders?
a657541fb67167b3ecae2959b0663fe9.png



Could be this really be just the same abandoned boat? It's got the same kind of bumps on it. And the lower horizontal strip of light... Just a keel board?

4f6c0e76fdfd1fc02c9fdfb9987e6056.png

Are you aware that Yalcin was recording these flying saucer videos from 2007 to 2009? This same saucer also appears in videos from 2007 and 2009. Those sailors were waiting patiently for a long time. Maybe they're still there.
Yes I am aware that he recorded the videos over several years with the exception that I was not aware of the 2007 video. I just had a look and it indeed looks very much like the 2009 video filmed with a different camera or lens. Was it already verified that the 2007 video was really recorded and/or released in 2007? I did not see any information in the thread (but to be honest I might also have overlooked it. It is a lengthy thread). As far as I am aware the only information linking this video to 2007 is the time overlay of the camera which might be wrong.

But I agree that if the 2007 object and the 2008 object are identical and both timestamps are correct my theory would not hold.

I think you should start reading this thread from page 1. A lot of work has gone into this over the years.
I actually did before I initially posted to make sure that capsized ships were not already ruled out. (I might have scrolled over some bits where it got deep into the technical details of some theory.) Do you have something particular in mind that was already discussed and would rule out my theory?

Indeed there was already a lot of work put into this thread with some very interesting ideas I would never have thought of. However capsized ships would be a very easy way to explain the videos. And what we see in the videos would imho fit nicely with how capsized ship would look like from that perspective.
 
What I think we are actually seeing is the output from one or more 360 degree panoramic security cameras.
I do have one of these:
640px-Peleng_8mm_Fisheye_8225.jpg

but alas I don't have a full-frame camera to mount it on. If you want me to photograph or film some scene with it, I can give it a go.
 
I do have one of these:
640px-Peleng_8mm_Fisheye_8225.jpg

but alas I don't have a full-frame camera to mount it on. If you want me to photograph or film some scene with it, I can give it a go.
Thanks. I'm having a think about the best way to do this. Might set up a separate thread.
 
@Z.W. Wolf While I agree that Yalcin, being a resident of Turkey, would likely use PAL video equipment (camera and monitor), I believe the camera model identification is speculative.

Moire or pixellation would always be expected if filming off a CRT, but much would depend on the zoom level.

Timing artefacts are manageable through various means.
 
Edit: @Z.W. Wolf - I think this video of the UFO shows flickering as you suggested we should expect , although only for about 2 seconds. It seems to become noticeable when the exposure is adjusted. (Time linked youtube video below)


Source: https://youtu.be/ZHOp5oMkmL0?t=63


Hey @Z.W. Wolf - can I get your thoughts my comment above? Do you think that the flickering in the linked video is representative of the flickering that one might expect when recording a CRT? (from 1m08s to 1m11s)
 
The video-sync issue is something I have thought about. An interesting example is one involving Yalcin himeself. In the video below he talks at length about how he recored the ufo. One thing I found interesting was the three CRTs in the video - one showing the ufo at the top is in-sync with the camera recording, but the two below show significant flickering and banding. I'm not sure what conclusion to take from this other than 'sometimes there's banding and flickering, sometimes not', but I totally accept that it is an issue that needs to be considered.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb7YJdEnhpE&t=633s&ab_channel=TurkeyUFOIncident


What are your thoughts on the flickering & banding seen & not seen in that video?

The bottom monitors are computer monitors with significant frame rate mismatch to the camera. The top monitor is a video/TV monitor that does show a band slowly moving up or down, but it seems to also have a slow phosphorus, so it's not very noticeable.
Edit: @Z.W. Wolf - I think this video of the UFO shows flickering as you suggested we should expect , although only for about 2 seconds. It seems to become noticeable when the exposure is adjusted. (Time linked youtube video below)


Source: https://youtu.be/ZHOp5oMkmL0?t=63

It's hard to say because there's not a lot of vertical space to consider for context. I couldn't explain how it is linked to the brightness/exposure.
 
What I think we are actually seeing is the output from one or more 360 degree panoramic security cameras. The overall image from the camera would look like this:

Indeed, and I think what we are actually seeing is car headlights and other such lights. To me this is made extremely obvious by the way the lights are brighter near their source and appear as if cast on the ground and fading with distance......exactly as you'd expect with car headlights. I think people have gotten so caught up in the curved nature of the sighting that what is staring them right in the face is overlooked. To me it is quite clear this is car headlights....

...in fact you can even see that the headlights are shining onto an object ahead in the road. To me this is case closed, and everyone else is over-thinking it all.

a657541fb67167b3ecae2959b0663fe9.png
 
Last edited:
Indeed, and I think what we are actually seeing is car headlights and other such lights. To me this is made extremely obvious by the way the lights are brighter near their source and appear as if cast on the ground and fading with distance......exactly as you'd expect with car headlights. I think people have gotten so caught up in the curved nature of the sighting that what is staring them right in the face is overlooked. To me it is quite clear this is car headlights....

...in fact you can even see that the headlights are shining onto an object ahead in the road. To me this is case closed, and everyone else is over-thinking it all.
I can see the case for "it's lights shining along a surface, distorted by a wide angle security camera." I am not convinced this is the case, but I can see the argument. I think "this is car headlights on a road" is a bridge too far, though. IF the general explanation is on the right track, it could as easily be lights on a beach, lights illuminating a low wall, etc., to my eye...
 
Indeed, and I think what we are actually seeing is car headlights and other such lights. To me this is made extremely obvious by the way the lights are brighter near their source and appear as if cast on the ground and fading with distance......exactly as you'd expect with car headlights. I think people have gotten so caught up in the curved nature of the sighting that what is staring them right in the face is overlooked. To me it is quite clear this is car headlights....

...in fact you can even see that the headlights are shining onto an object ahead in the road. To me this is case closed, and everyone else is over-thinking it all.

View attachment 70191
I too see that these are lights illuminating something in the distance, but I'm not convinced that they are all car headlights.

This one could be headlights....?
1721059951626.png


This one seems to have multiple illumination points
1721060490758.png


An this scene just one...
1721060519448.png


The change in illumination in this video seems to be match the idea of a bright directional light source (headlights) moving away from the scene and then back on.

Source: https://youtu.be/zVdeM99mkMs?t=58


The video in the message above seems to have a light source to the left, and is then illuminating the objects to the right of the image. I mentioned in post 398 above, that if we are seeing a curved object then the objects on the right couldn't be illuminated because they'd be occluded. However - if it is a flat scene (such as a wall or beach) with the curve a symptom of the optics, then those objects could be illuminated in that way.
1721060191229.png
 
Last edited:
Are you talking about the image changing in brightness? That's Yalcin once again restless messing about with the camera. In this case he's messing about with the aperture setting.
The image changes in brightness because he's changing the exposure setting, is another way of putting it

Flickering would look entirely different.



If you try to film your old CRT screen with a standard camera, it usually looks like this: there's either incredible flicker or a black rolling strip. This is due to the difference in the scanning frequency between the CRT and the camera and also a different perception of the phosphor dots by the camera lens, which is much less sensitive to image persistence than our eyes.
 

Attachments

  • 5 13 2009 220.png
    5 13 2009 220.png
    62.4 KB · Views: 39
Back
Top