2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey

[Z.W. Wolf]

Hard to tell if the lamp post was already there in these grainy, distorted images.

The lamp post fits the data pretty well, also in height:

View attachment 34177

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

 

[Kaen]

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

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

 

[Kaen]

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

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

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

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

 

[Spazzybug]

People have suggested a cruise ship, which seems to fit:
http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/00TURQUIA/
View attachment 33715

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

 

[Mick West]

Also in one video the dog barks at it just thought that was strange.

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

 

[deirdre]

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

 

[Kaen]

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

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

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

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

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

100 x (72/12) = 600 meters.

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

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

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

 

[Kaen]

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

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

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

View attachment 34487

Read page 2 of this thread.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Someone flew along the Kumburgaz coastline and shot a video.

This is very helpful to determine where exactly the UFO video fragment was taken that contains the moon and several lights at the bottom:

View attachment 34170

The coastline video:

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


At 4:55 in the video you can see the typical canopies of the Yeni Kent facility, where Yalcin worked the night shift (source: http://turkeyufocase.blogspot.com/, also see https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/1d647d7c091992c935952cb1f4106754.jpg for a up-close picture of these canopies).

At a distance of 28 m from the canopies (distance was determined with Google maps), a lamp post can be seen containing four lights. The top of this lamp post is visible from the closest canopy. A smaller lamp post with only one light is situated a little closer to the canopies:

View attachment 34171
View attachment 34172

If the bigger lamp post is the source of the lights in the UFO video, the position where Yalcin was filming can be reconstructed using the position and size of the moon (see post #14 for moon azimuth and altitude at 3:07 AM, I used these same values as good approximations for 3:02 AM).
(Note: As pointed out in post #66, the moon and the lights both seem to be in the depth of focus of the camera. This can be expected for a lamp post at 28 meters distance.)

It seems Yalcin was filming from one of the canopies.

Note that the smaller lamp post is outside the FOV of the camera, as illustrated by the yellow line:

View attachment 34173

Using the video fragment containing both the moon and the UFO, the azimuth and altitude of the UFO can be calculated. The UFO altitude of 6,7 degrees rules out any ships or boats:

View attachment 34174

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

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

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

The video in question:

If the bigger lamp post is the source of the lights in the UFO video, the position where Yalcin was filming can be reconstructed using the position and size of the moon (see post #14 for moon azimuth and altitude at 3:07 AM, I used these same values as good approximations for 3:02 AM).

Note that the smaller lamp post is outside the FOV of the camera, as illustrated by the yellow line:

View attachment 34173

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

 

[Kaen]

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

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

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

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

These clouds could have easily obscured Jupiter.

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

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

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

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

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

They are only 4 minutes apart, so what are the reasons these fragments cannot be analyzed using the moon's position?

 

[Kaen]

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

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

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

 

[deirdre]

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

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

 

[Kaen]

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

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

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

 

[deirdre]

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

or it is just coincidentally when he bought his camera

He recalled that earlier in 2007 there was another large sighting in Kumburgaz, but at the time he had not yet purchased a camera. http://turkeyufocase.blogspot.com/

or are you saying that AATIP sprang up because of Turkey UFO sightings? I don't understand what you are trying to imply with that observation. It's too bad AATIP didn't investigate the Turkey UFOs since the same UFO kept showing up in the same spot for 3 years. smh. shame they missed that.

 

[Kaen]

or it is just coincidentally when he bought his camera

He recalled that earlier in 2007 there was another large sighting in Kumburgaz, but at the time he had not yet purchased a camera. http://turkeyufocase.blogspot.com/

Yes, I'm just speculating.

or are you saying that AATIP sprang up because of Turkey UFO sightings? I don't understand what you are trying to imply with that observation.

Just another speculation.

It's too bad AATIP didn't investigate the Turkey UFOs since the same UFO kept showing up in the same spot for 3 years. smh. shame they missed that.

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

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

 

[Kaen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pictures below show the approximate location:

 

[Whitebeard]

If one assumes that the 'head' in the footage is that of a human (or humanoid) being,

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

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

 

[Kaen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[deirdre]

If you keep confronting it with the available data

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

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

 

[Whitebeard]

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

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

 

[Kaen]

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

I'll give you some quotes from the videos in post #44:

First video:

Yalcin: "I have seen it seven times in three years. I have recorded several times with witnesses who were there, and I calculate they are around 20 people."

Reporter: "Four more people spotted UFO's with you when it was recorded – is that true?"
Witness, standing next to Yalcin: "Yes, I saw it there is no doubt it was real."

Third video:

Dr Roger Leir: "I was there when it was filmed. […] We were looking at a monitor through the camera. […] At that point we must have had between 6 and 8 people."


In post #47 you refer to a guy in the first video who says he "saw them with their lights on".

There is one occasion where the UFO was carrying lights:

 

[deirdre]

I'll give you some quotes from the videos in post #44:

independently. meaning someone who is not Yalcin or someone allegedly standing beside Yalcin.

 

[Mick West]

It's not hard to find people who see lights in the sky. There's lights in the sky (or near the ocean horizon) all the time.

But if this were real, then other people would have been able to duplicate the images. Since they have not, the only sensible conclusion is that it's a hoax.

 

[Kaen]

It's not hard to find people who see lights in the sky. There's lights in the sky (or near the ocean horizon) all the time.

It's not hard to find airplanes in the sky either but what does that have to do with this footage? These are not lights but an object with structure, including a substructure that takes on poses independently from the main structure – poses that are very similar to a head of a humanoid figure.

But if this were real, then other people would have been able to duplicate the images. Since they have not, the only sensible conclusion is that it's a hoax.

You are jumping from 'would have been able to' to 'would have' to 'they have not' in two sentences.

Would have been able to: Only if they had the camera with tele converter that Yalcin had.
Would have: Only if they stayed up in the middle of the night to use such camera.
Have not: Only if you assume they decided to publish their images.

Along the same lines: If this was a hoax, then other people would have been able to duplicate the images.

Since they have not, the only sensible conclusion is that it's not a hoax.

This reasoning is even stronger since the number of people able to duplicate this alleged hoax and the amount of time they had to duplicate it is orders of magnitude larger that the number of people and time available to duplicate the original images at the original time and location.

And by 'duplicate' I mean: An assessment by Tubitak plus the kinds of changes in pose in post #96 and #99, not some vague image of a ship window.

 

[Mick West]

Would have been able to: Only if they had the camera with tele converter that Yalcin had.

This is just nonsense. He's got an ordinary video camera with a long zoom and a teleconverter. Plenty of cameras could provide better footage. Many thousands of people have been in that area.

This thread has descended into speculation. Without images from another source it's just a bunch of images one guy made.

 

[Trailblazer]

These are not lights but an object with structure, including a substructure that takes on poses independently from the main structure – poses that are very similar to a head of a humanoid figure.

I don't think there's any evidence of that from the videos we have seen. It looks to me far more like some very out-of-focus images that could be anything at all. They look far more like blurred reflections of some sort than any physical object.

 

[ChrLzs]

...The animated gif below was made with the original footage by the way...

Kaen, surely that imagery is highly (& digitally?) over-zoomed, or in layperson's terms, over-magnified to all hell. A lot of the 'detail' in such imagery is jpeg compression and quantisation artefacts, pixels that are generated (aka guessed) by whatever enlargement algorithms were used, and possibly contrast and sharpening artefacts... all of which are then being emphasised (aka made worse) by the micro-movements in the camera, tripod and mount plus all the intervening atmospherics between camera and subject...

In other words the vast majority of the data you are trying to analyse is distorted, made up or otherwise 'unreal' and has only a vague relationship to the actual detail on the object. While there are techniques that might help a little with clarifying such imagery, you haven't shown any sign of that, and I've gotta say, that 'movement' looks much more like artefacting / false detail to me - it's just what such over-zoomed images do..

The fact that you didn't mention any of the above, is a bit of a worry. Can you show an example where you have used that approach on something that you have then verified?

When added to your leap to an assumption that this might be a human....? well, let's just say .. no.


Sorry I'm a bit late to the party but I just signed up, having noticed this thread. I got quite involved in investigating Yalcin's stuff a long while back at another forum... so I'm not exactly new to that footage, even though it was all a long time back...

 

[Charles]

Kaen, surely that imagery is highly (& digitally?) over-zoomed, or in layperson's terms, over-magnified to all hell. A lot of the 'detail' in such imagery is jpeg compression and quantisation artefacts, pixels that are generated (aka guessed) by whatever enlargement algorithms were used, and possibly contrast and sharpening artefacts... all of which are then being emphasised (aka made worse) by the micro-movements in the camera, tripod and mount plus all the intervening atmospherics between camera and subject...

In other words the vast majority of the data you are trying to analyse is distorted, made up or otherwise 'unreal' and has only a vague relationship to the actual detail on the object. While there are techniques that might help a little with clarifying such imagery, you haven't shown any sign of that, and I've gotta say, that 'movement' looks much more like artefacting / false detail to me - it's just what such over-zoomed images do..

The fact that you didn't mention any of the above, is a bit of a worry. Can you show an example where you have used that approach on something that you have then verified?

When added to your leap to an assumption that this might be a human....? well, let's just say .. no.


Sorry I'm a bit late to the party but I just signed up, having noticed this thread. I got quite involved in investigating Yalcin's stuff a long while back at another forum... so I'm not exactly new to that footage, even though it was all a long time back...

I agee with Chrlzs and Mr West I am a UFO skywatcher and I use Night vision , HD camcorders, and I had telescopes in the past since astronomy was a big thing for me until I saw a UFO 10 years ago..Today I have one of the best ORB and spheres UFO videos in night vision anywhere, but this is not about me. OK I'm also very late to the party but I must say I am also very suspicious of this footage and likley perpetuated hoaxe by a few poeple, Yalcin is just a fall guy and he also bought a new camera or someone bought for him.??hmm.. THe fact he captured the UFO same spot on multiple years, where are the other Ufologists, (DR Leir is not a UFologist , he's just a pseudo believer of UFO's because of his apparent findings of implants which Im not a big fan either). I am also a videographer and photographer. The camera Yalcin used would not provide this kind of detail unless the object had quite a bit of light on it, or self illuminated...The moon would not have been sufficient. , just look at the video..super black sky but half moon, there is something not correct here....Just look at his night time shots of orange objects in the sky, super noisy and this is what you would expect from his camera. His camera ISO settings where never discussed, nor anything else and I don't beleive they would provide the truth anyways...The UFO was very close , like within 100 feet...HOw do I know this, I have 100x optical camcorder and when I zoom at something at 100 feet or thereabouts , this is how fast I can get up close and personal. Now lets say Im zooming at a plane at maybe 1500 feet, to get this close , the zoom no matter how fast I have the zoom...it will not look like this at all, sorry little subjective but its an experienced night time videographers instinct.The UFO here was very small, then zoomed and wow he was close in no time at all and in focus, the speed of the zoom did not correlate to the apparent distance and size of the object..THis is sooo difficult at night and his camera is not very good at all for low light..This was the biggest red flag for me and also the object looks very small..., has anyone considered possibly something positioned on a wire...I see them all over from light post to light post. , or even on top of a flag post,...Clearly there is artificial light on the object , and lets forget about the moon, that is not the source. ., or very unlikely ...The only footage makes me have an ounce of belief this might be an actual ufo, is when it seems to "cloak" from side to side ...that's very interesting...Cloud going over the moon, would not account for right to left and then left to right cloak..This is the only piece that would be difficult to replicate but I believe if we find the object and location where it was filmed, it wouldn't take long to figure this out...Like I had mentioned, I film predominately at night and with light pollution from city lights, you would have to have a Sony A7S with high ISO setting to get these great shots but also have background noise of the sky due to the moon light..The only way he was able to do so, object was very close and lit up...The audio is also echoing, so they are not on the beach but on a patio or area covered ..almost like they are in a studio but we know that is not the case..that being said if they are way back away from the beach, the UFO could have easily been just about anything in the area.. Since he's a security guard , he knows the area quite well.!! My 2 cents for now..

 

[martin bradshaw]

Hi all newcomer here, Just want to point out what looks to be leafs blowing in the wind over the moon on this enhanced version of the 2009 turkey ufo video at 5:53 , which to me would indicate the ufo is indeed on the ground and close and likely in the window as someone else suggested. Also at 6:24 it looks like you can see a roof or similar structure. whatcha think



Source: https://youtu.be/BX3VTg1uQrw

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

You're right. There's a back and forth movement, which rules out clouds. Could you make a GIF of this?

So far, I don't see the roof.

 

[martin bradshaw]

here is a gif but in the video i think its more clear and obvious that its a leaf and trees, as you can see the spring like motion of the leafs . The ufo looks close to me on the beech

 

[ParanoidSkeptic2]

I came across this recently and also thought it was a cruise ship, however within a video by Be Amazed between 1:29 and 2:12 attempted to discredit that.

This has been said:

Skeptics theorised the video merely captured footage of a human-made ships on the ocean at the very edge of the horizon with just top parts of the ship visible and the lower decks concealed just over the horizon.

Yet, by calculating the altitude of the UFO using the relative position of the moon, analysts were able to prove the actual elevation was too high for it to have been a boat on the water.

Eerily, the best skeptics were able to respond to that is was that a mirage must have caused an illusion of the boat being higher on the horizon than it really was, which sounds more like something a crazed UFO enthusiast might say to justify a far fetched-theory than it does like a sober analysis.

To summarise, they claim that the elevation of the UFO was too high for it to be a boat, using moon as a reference point and that the mirage explanation is simply an ad hoc by skeptics (ironically using an ad hominem to further discredit skeptics).

Is there any credence to that supposed rebuttal and is the mirage theory applicable scientifically?

Sorry to dig up an old thread, just the attitude of the narrator being so dismissive of the more mundane theory really got to me for some reason

 

[deirdre]

they claim that the elevation of the UFO was too high for it to be a boat,

i claim it isn't.

claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[ParanoidSkeptic2]

i claim it isn't.

claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Haha true, I couldn't find where this alleged claim was but I actually found a claim against this refutation.

Article:

Now, the first objection one could raise is that the "UFOs" are over the horizon. In fact, that is almost certainly not the case. Duarte points that in the May 17 2009 video, 23:32UT, the Moon would be at an azimuth of 113.8 degrees and just 6.8 degrees of elevation.

And you can see that the object is to the right of the Moon (in the direction of the sea), and several degrees below it.

Duarte also notices that the cameraman seems to deliberately play with a nearby tree to obstruct the lights of buildings that should be visible to the left, as well as with the camera exposure to have only the object and the Moon appear in the footage.

Source: http://forgetomori.com/2010/ufos/kumburgaz-turkey-ufo-yacht-window-reflections/#more-1527

 

[flarkey]

Hi,

I've been researching this UFO event and came across this old thread. Did it ever occur to you guys that the image of the UFO looked like an arc which, when repeated to make 360° looks very like the interface of a 58mm telephoto adapter. The guy that filmed the event used a similar device.

 

[Mick West]

Hi,

I've ben researching this UFO event and came across this old thread. Did it ever occur to you guys that the image of the UFO looked like an arc which, when repeated to make 360° looks very like the interface of a 58mm telephoto adapter. The guy that filmed the event used a similar device.


View attachment 43585

It did, yes.

View attachment 33915

"Enhance"
View attachment 33916

"Zoom out"
View attachment 33917

I think we need to be careful in fitting things to the image. If something looks a bit like a particular thing (like a camera lens, a ring, or a cruise ship) then it can relatively easy to move things around until you get a roughly matching image. While it raises that thing as a possibility, it does not mean it is that thing.

 

[flarkey]

Did you get anywhere with this idea? It seems plausible on the surface but there are times in the video that the "UFO" appears to move within the field of view, but at other times it seems to move with the other objects in the scene. I'd have expected an internal reflection to mirror any movement against the bright light source (moon) rather then follow it.

 

[flarkey]

It did, yes.

Reading through the thread it seems as though a few people had suggested that the close-up I the UFO was actually the reflection of a smaller object. I've been thinking it could be a reflection, but off a curved surface. ...

To me, this looks like someone's driveway and fence when viewed on a wide angle camera. Could it be the reflection of someone standing in a lit driveway viewing it in a rectangular convex mirror...?

When I look at all the Pictures of the close-up UFOs could be viewed as this....

What do you think?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

My contention. which I still stand by, is that the images are of small objects. What they are exactly is not important - because this was a deliberate hoax and not an accident.

This is the critical piece of evidence. The Moon in the May 17, 2009 video would have been in this place in the sky, from Yalcin's viewpoint. Not above the surface of of the sea. I have overlaid it on a daylight image taken from very near where he habitually stood to take his nighttime videos over the months.

At that time - and now demolished - there was an odd wall with a window that looked out into a courtyard with a tree. I speculate that the wall and window were the remaining parts of a previous structure that itself had been partially removed at the time (2009).

The UFO's appeared in that window. Not above the surface of the sea. I contend that they were objects placed there and illuminated so that their reflection would appear in the window - but the object itself would not be directly visible. The UFO's are reflections in the window. An effect called Pepper's Ghost.


The Moon and UFO image taken from the May 17, 2009 video fit pretty well into the scenario I've laid out. I've made the overlay a bit small, so the window is still visible. I think the object was lower in the window.

The UFO was actually the reflection of an illuminated object behind the window.

This view of the Yeni Kent Apts. was taken in 2010 by someone who was interested in this case. He took this photo on the seaward side of the railing, so this does not match exactly what Yalcin saw and videographed, but it's a pretty close fit. This is pretty much where the Moon would have been from Yalcin's viewpoint.


Yalcin typically stood just about where the man in the striped shirt is, but closer to the railing. (One of the banisters was missing by the time this was taken in 2010.)

The 2010 Tourist was standing on the seaward side of the railing to take this shot, looking toward the Güzelce Marina. The taller knob is located at the spot where the bannister meets the railing. (The other banister is missing.)

This was taken by Yalcin. The tallest knobs are located where the banisters meet the railing.

I want to bring your attention to this window. You can see just the edge of it in Yalcin's video. We are seeing the bottom part of the tree through it.

The lighting is a bit strange, but I think the courtyard was illuminated by the sunlight and the wall we see is illuminated by reflected sunlight from a facing wall.


This GIF is from a video taken by Yalcin. He's zooming in on the lights of a ship at sea to our right. The light farthest to our left is either a reflection in the window; or a light seen through the window. I think it's probably a reflection of a light somewhere behind Yalcin.

From left to right: Light reflected in window, ground lights on nearer headland, two faintly seen beacons on the breakwater of the Güzelce Marina, lights of ship at sea.

Note the light where the window should be. A light seen through the window, or a reflection in the window? I think it's too high to be a distant light seen through the window.

(These two photos were not taken from exactly the same spot nor with the same lens.)

You can see this view in this video.

A. There are marks on the Moon that shouldn't be there.
The marks on the Moon are leaves.

Post #19



B. Jupiter should have been visible just to the lower left of the Moon, but it isn't there in the video. It's hidden by the tree.

C. The UFO image is not on the horizon, but several degrees above the horizon. Yes, because it's a reflection in the window, not the lights of a ship.

D. There are artificial lights visible below the Moon in a short segment of the video just four minutes before the UFO footage. These are reflections in the window of lights behind Yalcin the videographer. He simply had to move to his left and they would disappear. The missing four minutes are accounted for by that adjustment.


There are lights in the area.

But the angle is not right. The nearest light is too far to Yalcin's left.

The image of the light in the video compared to the zoomed in Moon is small - about 1/2 degree - the same as the image of the Moon. Any one of the lights in the above photo would appear much larger than 1/2 degree. They are too close.

The Moon and the light go in and out of focus in a similar manner. The Moon is in focus when the lens is set at infinity, so the light would also have to be far enough away to be in focus at infinity. There are at least two lights clustered together- possibly three - visible in the video, but there are no clustered lights visible in the above photo.

Therefore the lights are a reflection - of lights behind Yalcin. Much farther behind him than the nearby lights on the canopies. Somewhere on the beach behind the canopy on our left in the photo. And the clearest light is a tilted light, so that we see the "underside."

These lights are a reflection in the window in the wall below the tree. And the Moon is directly visible in the sky peaking out, just above the left side of the tree, with the dark marks of leaves in front of it. An accident that Yalcin reacts to in the video. He stops the video camera and moves. He resumes the video between 3 and 4 minutes later.

E. The lights in the video and the image of the UFO are the same distance below the Moon. They are reflections in the same window.

Post #24


F. There are no ground lights visible in the video. Yalcin moved far enough to his left to hide them behind the wall with the window. They are too low to be seen through the window.



The video in question:



In this video the only lights visible are the Moon and the object. Where are all the shore lights? Hidden by the wall. By the position of the Moon, he must be pointing the camera at the wall. How could he see a UFO through a wall? Only through the window. Or in the window?

Over the months he sees the same exact object 3 times in exactly the same position, at the same distance.

Quite a coincidence. Or is it the same small object placed in the same position in the window on different nights?


Ditto a couple of other objects