2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey

[Z.W. Wolf]

This one seems to have multiple illumination points
View attachment 70198

An this scene just one...
View attachment 70199

I've already explained the illumination in these two images. In the second one there is only one light source. The highlights are specular reflections off the surface features of the copper, bronze or brass surface.

I showed you my recreation of the illumination. Are you ignoring what I'm showing you? Do you understand what I'm showing you?

 

[flarkey]

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.

No. I understand the changes in brightness are due to what Yalçin is doing, and how that relates to aperture and exposure. If you look closely at the image at the times I referenced the image is definitely flickering.

 

[flarkey]

I showed you my recreation of the illumination. Are you ignoring what I'm showing you? Do you understand what I'm showing you?

I'm not ignoring your explanation - I'm just not convinced by it.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Are you talking about the compression artifacts, then? There is no flickering in this video that looks like

I'm not ignoring your explanation - I'm just not convinced by it.

Please look at Post 412

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

Jul 13, 2024

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.

Spoiler: More detail

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.

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...

• Z.W. Wolf

 

[flarkey]

This video shows the flickering.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

And Post 367

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

Jul 10, 2024

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...

• Z.W. Wolf

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This video shows the flickering.

Are you looking at the compression artifacts?

There's nothing that looks like the flickering we see in the video in Post 440

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

Jul 15, 2024

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...

• Z.W. Wolf

 

[flarkey]

Are you looking at the compression artifacts?

There's nothing that looks like the flickering we see in the video in Post 440

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

Jul 15, 2024

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...

• Z.W. Wolf

Nope - not the compression artefacts. The flickering. It even seems to be at a similar frequency to the flickering at aroung 0m06s in that video. I'll see if I can do a screen grab of them both at the same for you so that it is clear.

 

[flarkey]

Hopefully this will illustrate what I mean - the flickering seen briefly in the Kumburgaz video has at least a passing similarity to the monitor flickering seen in the colour YouTube video. I dont know if they have the same cause - but they, to me, at least, look very similar. Anyone else see it?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

A passing similarity in one part of one video? So what's the significance?

 

[flarkey]

A passing similarity in one part of one video? So what's the significance?

The significance is that the answer to your prompt to ChatGPT said that effects like that would be inevitable when using a video camera to record a CRT. So it's just another small piece of evidence that supports the CCTV theory.

Nothing concrete yet, maybe there never will be.

 

[flarkey]

Here's an interesting coincidence... So I was trawling through this thread trying to see if I could identify the point that Yalcin was filming, and @Z.W. Wolf 's suggestion in post #129 that the object was somewhere not too far up the coastline. This was determined by looking at this part of the video: The moon and ufo in the same shot, with date & time stamp...

From the date & time we can determine the direction of the data from the timestamped video and the assumed filing location

Overlaying themoon/ufo photo with the location we think Yalcin was recording from....

So this was suggesting that the point being filmed was maybe in the local buildings. Checking that out in GoogleEarth gives the following image - note the silver roofed building....

On a property website I found a photo of the silver-roofed building.....

https://www.sahibinden.com/listing/...plus1-site-icerisinde-villa-1175689751/detail

It has an uncanny resemblance to the UFO footage:

Now I don't think its possible or likely that this is what's in the video - but if anyone else thinks it could be then it might be a rabbit-hole to go down. I wonder how this building would have affected the potential-debunks had we discovered it a few years ago!

 

[Mendel]

On a property website I found a photo of the silver-roofed building.....

Was the building there in 2008?

 

[flarkey]

Was the building there in 2008?

Google Earth imagery for the area hasnt been frequently updated, but it is not there in 2003 imagery...

... but is there in 2009 imagery.

 

[Mendel]

The proportions do about match if you get the right viewing angle; draw in the chord, and the height of that section is about twice the thickness of the arc. The rest is a matter of perspective.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

No clear line of sight that would also include the Moon to the left of the building in the frame.

Remember that the azimuth of the Moon doesn't change when you move.

If Yalcin moved his camera from the front porch onto the beach, he might be able to get a line of sight to the building, but the Moon wouldn't change it's position on the horizon. Yalcin would have to pan left, and as he's doing that the Moon would move to the right in the frame.

So the Moon would be to the right of the building, not to the left.

Mirror image? Let's not forget the most important thing. Where are all the ground lights?

In my scenario, the structure of the wall, the awning, and the tree hide all other lights, including Jupiter.

 

[Mendel]

No clear line of sight that would also include the Moon to the left of the building in the frame.

Remember that the azimuth of the Moon doesn't change when you move.

so the camera position would need to be more northerly

Mirror image?

can we see the moon moving?
the phase of the moon is correct, therefore it's not mirrored

 

[Ravi]

There are lots more shiny things visible in the direction of the metal roof. Making it unlikely he was able to only see the roof, and the rest of the view was pitch black. I don't agree with this theory..

 

[flarkey]

There are lots more shiny things visible in the direction of the metal roof. Making it unlikely he was able to only see the roof, and the rest of the view was pitch black. I don't agree with this theory..

I don't think it is a valid theory either, because it doesn't match all the other 'ufo' shapes (see below) - but I think it is worth explaining and showing the reasons why it isn't valid. I just surprised that no-one has picked it up before.

The villa roof doesnt explain these shapes.

 

[JWrightBrain]

I don't think it is a valid theory either, because it doesn't match all the other 'ufo' shapes (see below) - but I think it is worth explaining and showing the reasons why it isn't valid. I just surprised that no-one has picked it up before.

The villa roof doesnt explain these shapes.
View attachment 70323

It bothers me that you don't see an underside nor any stars. I see nothing that actually places the UFO into the environment. It might as well be on a velvet covered stage.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

That's because it is placed in a velvet covered stage.

Or the equivalent.

I've already shown how I replicated these flying saucer images. I didn't use velvet. I used three black socks, with a (powered off) computer monitor as a background inside a dark living room. With a portrait background placed to shield the stage (a cardboard box) from some light coming from the windows.

See posts 256 and 257 on Page 7

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

• 
• 
• 

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I'm going to add one more thing.

It's always bothered me how these bangle bracelets were positioned behind the window, and how the Pepper's Ghost illusion was accomplished.

See Post 244 on Page 7

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

May 29, 2023

Of course I think my scenario is right. Btw this is a friendly argument, not a fight. But I think I have all the evidence on my side.

... features seen in the video are illuminated objects, scan lines, CRT bleeding, TV screen occultation and improved imagery quality due to LCD screen replacement?

Can you really tell any of that from these YT videos? These were taken with a camcorder and have been through innumerable generations since then. I think Captain Disillusion would say not, since he's made similar points about multi-generational videos.

Everything points to Yalcin...

• Z.W. Wolf

• 

I recently thought of something rather obvious. I'm kind of ashamed of myself for not realizing it instantly.

It was a two step process. Yalcin produced his flying saucer photos in much the same way I did. He used color slide film in a regular 35mm camera to produce still images.

A slide projector was placed behind the window and projected the slides on the glass. Which produced a still image of these things on the glass. This image could be shot using a camcorder. The image would be optically equivalent to any ordinarty object. You could focus the image and zoom in and out on the image as normal.

Projectors leak light, so it was shielded to maintain light discipline. (Keep things dark without highlights and shadows on the surrounding surfaces.) A simple cardboard box would do, with a hole in the front to let the lens jut through. The projector was below the level of the bottom window sill and tilted upward a bit. It wouldn't be directly visible.

All the zooming in, and focusing... and shaking. That comes from Yalcin's camcorder. Note that these flying saucers never move. That's because they are still images.

There are no artifacts, as would be produced by shooting a CRT screen, because a slide projector, needless to say, doesn't have things like refresh rates and phosphor dot grids.

 

[JMartJr]

I think the nail in the coffin of the curved roof idea would be how smooth and featureless it is. The "UFO" has some pretty notable bumps, rivets and indented spots. This seems consistent with the bangles, or with the lighted area of a beach/road/whatever bent into a curve by a security camera or something similar. It is not consistent with the roof.

But dang, it is tempting, a bright metal curve being right there and NOT being the UFO just feels unfair! ^_^

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

If you're having a hard time visualizing this. This YT video should make it clear.



This guy is spraying a "Rear Projection Coating" of his own invention on the glass. But that's to make the image bright enough to see in daylight. In the dark the image would be easily visible and bright. But if the image wasn't satisfactory you could mist the window with ordinary water.

Some of the strangeness in these flying saucer videos may come from the optical effects produced by a film of water slowly moving down the surface of the glass.

The image might be so bright that you'd have to stop down the camcorder a bit. Which may be why the Moon is a dull yellow in that infamous Yalcin video.

You could make the image any size.


Yalcin's images obviously wouldn't take up the entire window. Just a small rectangle on the window glass.

 

[JAFO]

If you're having a hard time visualizing this. This YT video should make it clear.



This guy is spraying a "Rear Projection Coating" of his own invention on the glass. But that's to make the image bright enough to see in daylight. In the dark the image would be easily visible and bright. But if the image wasn't satisfactory you could mist the window with ordinary water.

Some of the strangeness in these flying saucer videos may come from the optical effects produced by a film of water slowly moving down the surface of the glass.

The image might be so bright that you'd have to stop down the camcorder a bit. Which may be why the Moon is a dull yellow in that infamous Yalcin video.

You could make the image any size.


Yalcin's images obviously wouldn't take up the entire window. Just a small rectangle on the window glass.

How could the subtle lighting changes of the object in the video be explained if it is a static projection from a 35mm slide?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Yalcin was messing with the aperture setting on his camcorder. The lighting isn't changing. The camcorder exposure setting was changing. So the video gets darker and lighter.

Every change in focus, exposure, zoom level, the movement, the jittering... comes from the camcorder.

And Yalcin was always a busy little bee with his camera. He just couldn't take his hands off it. Even though it was mounted on a quality tripod. He should have had a fidget toy in his hands instead. Two fidget toys.

Woof

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Case in point. This video shows some ordinary things that Yalcin videoed because he thought they looked mysterious.





The mysterious thing in this segment is an ordinary boat with this kind of thing on the port bow.

The steady light above and to the right is the masthead light. And you can see little sparkles which I think are specular reflections of the blue LEDs off wavelets. A boat, not all that far offshore, gently rocking on a calm sea.

The immediate point: Yalcin is constantly fidgeting with the doggone camera. Even when he's not adjusting the focus or panning, he's holding the camera... even though it's on a tripod. All the jitter is coming from the tiny movements of his hands and the oscillations of the camera/tripod from those movements.

Spoiler: Pro camera tip

Hey, Yalcin! Here's a tip. You don't have to hold a camera that's on a tripod. The tripod holds the camera up. It won't fall.

If he just got the boat in frame and got the focus correct... and let go of the darned camera, and let it settle down on the tripod... he would have got a steady image. He does just that, for a few seconds at around 43:50... then his hands are right back on the camera. Fidgeting.

He does the same thing during all of his classic flying saucer videos. The jittering, the focusing, the panning, the zooming, the aperture changes... Woof

 

[JMartJr]

To strike off in a slightly different direction, it seems to me that:

IF Mr. Yalman saw the same or very similar UFOs over a protracted period of time, UFOs that were prone to just hover there and not be difficult to get a picture of, then other people in the same or other areas during the same or adjacent time frames might be expected to see the same "make and model" of UFO tooling around. In other words, though UFO design seems to change a lot over time, here was one that persisted for some time -- if it's a real spaceship design it might be expected to have been photographed by others, somewhere in its flying around over the years.

IF he faked his videos, there is no real reason to expect anybody else making fake UFOs would necessarily hit on the same technique and generate the same style of UFO image. A hoax might rely on local or even personally available materials, and there would be a number of ways to set them up and utilize them.

My memory from looking at a lot of UFO pictures and videos over the years is that I never saw anything else that looked like what Mr. Yalman videoed. But my memory is not perfect -- does anybody recall seeing Kumburgaz-style UFOs photographed by anyone else, there or anywhere else?

If other people were imaging that style of UFO in the same time frame, that would be a point in favor of him and his vids. If not, I don't suppose it is a very compelling bit of evidence against him, certainly not to the level of proof. But it would maybe SUPPORT the idea that his vids are not real, or at least are not of real spaceships flying through Earth's atmosphere...

 

[Scaramanga]

Here's an interesting coincidence... So I was trawling through this thread trying to see if I could identify the point that Yalcin was filming

I think I already pointed out this other one....right on the Guzelce Marina, which is right in the line of sight.....

 

[JAFO]

Every change in focus, exposure, zoom level, the movement, the jittering... comes from the camcorder.

How does this change in lighting come from the camcorder?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

That's a good one. Are there any more like this. Or is this unique?

 

[MapperGuy]

To strike off in a slightly different direction, it seems to me that:

IF Mr. Yalman saw the same or very similar UFOs over a protracted period of time, UFOs that were prone to just hover there and not be difficult to get a picture of, then other people in the same or other areas during the same or adjacent time frames might be expected to see the same "make and model" of UFO tooling around. In other words, though UFO design seems to change a lot over time, here was one that persisted for some time -- if it's a real spaceship design it might be expected to have been photographed by others, somewhere in its flying around over the years.

IF he faked his videos, there is no real reason to expect anybody else making fake UFOs would necessarily hit on the same technique and generate the same style of UFO image. A hoax might rely on local or even personally available materials, and there would be a number of ways to set them up and utilize them.

My memory from looking at a lot of UFO pictures and videos over the years is that I never saw anything else that looked like what Mr. Yalman videoed. But my memory is not perfect -- does anybody recall seeing Kumburgaz-style UFOs photographed by anyone else, there or anywhere else?

If other people were imaging that style of UFO in the same time frame, that would be a point in favor of him and his vids. If not, I don't suppose it is a very compelling bit of evidence against him, certainly not to the level of proof. But it would maybe SUPPORT the idea that his vids are not real, or at least are not of real spaceships flying through Earth's atmosphere...

Did he ever invite a friend to accompany him while he was taking these photos/video? Tell a neighbor, the military??
Did he ever zoom back to show the context in which he was seeing the saucer? All we see is saucer and blackness.
The tone of the video bothers me, the saucer is black to almost white, what is the source of illumination?
All of the saucer video appears to me to be a close-up of a wristwatch from a matter of inches away, with shaking added to make it look like "realistic".

Has he ever taken others to the exact locations he was filming from, during the day, with the visit on video?

 

[Matt33]

Did he ever zoom back to show the context in which he was seeing the saucer?

There is one instance in the video where he pans to the moon, zooms in, and then pans back to the "saucer" in the distance. Moon and "saucer" are in the same frame. The crescent moon seems to be consistent with the date and time displayed.

 

[Mendel]

I think the nail in the coffin of the curved roof idea would be how smooth and featureless it is. The "UFO" has some pretty notable bumps, rivets and indented spots.

We don't see that. All we see is an unevenly lit surface. This could be caused by the surface being uneven, but it could also be caused by the light being uneven.

 

[Hougenai]

I don't think it is a valid theory either, because it doesn't match all the other 'ufo' shapes (see below)

Multiple sources and techniques could've been used to produce similar 'ufo' images.

Perhaps we should be considering the possibility that multiple methods were used to produce the original images.

 

[JMartJr]

We don't see that. All we see is an unevenly lit surface. This could be caused by the surface being uneven, but it could also be caused by the light being uneven.

I concede the point that the effect COULD be achieved by uneven lighting, especially if there was an attempt to make the curved roof edge look less like a curved roof edge. It still looks to me like a bumpy surface with objects or features disrupting the curve, but "it looks to me like..." is not proof of anything. Still, there are cases where there seem to be projections above the curve, those seem hard to achieve with lighting alone. Seems unlikely, but not impossible I suppose.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

How does this change in lighting come from the camcorder?

That's a good one. Are there any more like this. Or is this unique?

I'll go ahead and give my explanation. If more like this are found I'll look at them.

If we assume my projector idea:

You hold a finger in front of the projector lens. The finger close to the projector lens creates a blurry area on the image projected on the glass. Where the blur meets the image on the glass, you get that dark area where you can still see some of the features of the image projected on the glass. Move your finger carefully, and you get a moving band of darkness on the object.

During this segment Yalcin periodically also changes the aperture setting on the camcorder.


More detail:
What we see is a bright, focused image. The object is lit by a single light source. The top of the rounded object shows no details because of over exposure. On our left, a band of darkness starts moving across the object on our left. It moves until the center 2/3 of the object is obscured. It moves back to our left.

Note that in the area of darkness, details of the object can still be seen but they appear less sharply defined. That area of the image is darker, less contrasty and the image has poorer resolution.

If this image were steady, instead of characteristically jittery, I'd say this:

An object, very possibly a finger, was held close to the camcorder lens. I'm going to call it a finger.

The finger is too close for a telephoto lens to focus upon. It's distance is below the minimum focusing distance of the lens. It's night and the finger is not illuminated, so it's just a dark thing in the way of the light coming from the illuminated object. A silhouette.

Nevertheless it's an unfocused image. The unfocussed image is spread out over the focused image of the object on the sensor. Or part of it, really. Where the unfocused image of the finger and the focused image of the bright object meet, there's an area, not of total darkness, but where the two blend together.

The result: In that area we see a darker, less contrasty, lower resolution image of the the bright object. If you carefully move the finger, it looks like a dark band is moving across the object. If you perceive the object as self-illuminating, it looks like a light show on the surface of the object. Something like the chromatophores on a squid.

But... because the camera was unsteady, this finger in front of the lens scenario is impossible.

The finger in front of the projector lens is possible, and rather easy to do.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

For my projector and finger scenario to work, you'd need an accomplice.

The camera is jittery, which proves Yalcin has got his hands on the camera. There must be an accomplice to hold his finger in front of the projector lens.

Note: In this segment we hear two voices. We usually just hear Yalcin muttering to himself. So who is this second person?

We also hear waves on a beach. This isn't a CRT monitor at a marina and it isn't a distant building putting on a light show.

This is outdoors near a beach. This is a set-up on the front porch of the Yeni Kent Apts. Yalcin has turned off the lights that should normally be on.

The set-up is here. The projector is behind this window. This area provides shading from all other light sources. A dark background.

It's a special set-up for this occasion. He's standing near the window this time. Note that Yalcin doesn't zoom in or out on this particular flying saucer, which means the camcorder can be much closer to the glass than usual.

Is the projector behind the window I think so. So how can we hear a second voice so clearly? That implies a third accomplice behind the window.

Green Arrow - Where Yalcin usually stood to video the image projected on the window glass. He's far away enough to be able to zoom in and out on the projected image. The image would only be a few inches wide on the glass. Maybe six inches?

Red Arrow - Where Yalcin stood for this particular segment.

 

[Scaramanga]

Can anyone 'straighten out' the curve in the images ? I just get a feel that that would provide the biggest step forward. I know NASA can do this with gravitational lensing images of galaxies, but whether such software exists for a home PC is another matter.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Yalcin never zooms in or out on the flying saucer during this segment. So what does he do to add some drama? He pretends it zips off, too fast for the eye to see and then reappears in the distance.

How? The camera isn't on a tripod this time. He's holding it, which isn't a big problem because while the lens is zoomed in, it's not at max zoom. He may have it resting on the tripod. That's what I would do.

Yalcin's camcorder also has a five power digital zoom. He's probably got the digital zoom cranked up to max.


At 16:45 he starts walking backwards. You can hear his feet shuffling on the deck. One. Two. Three. Four steps.

While he's shuffling back he also zooms the lens out. Or the digital zoom. Or both.

A few seconds later, and X feet more distant, he reacquires the image on the glass. This time the image is small, because of the increased distance. And the change in the focal length of the lens. And the digital zoom going from max to nothing.




Red Arrow - Where he stands for most of the segment
Green Arrow - He walks backwards and winds up somewhere near this spot.