2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey

[deirdre]

No, this is a different bangle.

ok i think those few are the same "bangle" or object. (the cruise ship on page one is likely a different item of course...to me).

i get the dowel thing now i thought the dowel was vertical. thank you for clarifying that certainly helps me see what you are seeing.

they do have aluminum dowels with little groves...like some pool skimmer poles. because i dont think wood would be that color in the films.

I dont agree with what you are seeing , but i understand it better now: you are saying on a dowel (like my closet clothes pole) pic A, but from the angle of pic B (im not taking my clothes off my closet pole to use that )


pic A

pic B

 

[Ravi]

As I noted in an earlier post, and showed a few stills, there are parts in the video where the illuminated "curve" is smooth and nice. Later on "things" (tree branches?) show in front of the illuminated "curve" making it less smooth and it (I think) creates marks.

So, if we have footage of a perfectly smooth curve, IMO it cannot be a bracelet with artefacts/hinges etc.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I was looking at the OP again, at the photo collage specifically, and noticed the second image from the left, on the second row from the top. This one shows a remarkably smooth curve. When reviewing the video again, at this specific moment, I noticed it has something on the left, looking like tree branches or something.

Now I understand what you mean by remarkably smooth. The top of the hoop is reflecting the light source as a mirror would (a specular reflection), and it's over-exposed. So it looks like a featureless glow.

There's a large (in relation the size of the object) nick on the left. The fine groove on the side of the bangle is very visible in this one..

We'll call this a hoop.

White arrows - A groove in side of the hoop.
Green arrow - a nick the hoop.

Green arrows - far edge of the top of the hoop.
Blue arrows - near edge of the top of the hoop.
Red arrows - the lower edge of the hoop where it meets the wooden dowel

Probably the same nick in the same hoop, but the hoop is placed differently.

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

A little further in the video, this expands until it almost full obscures the illuminated curve.

View attachment 43727
View attachment 43729
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFuivergbXA

I still have no idea he was filming, but the artefacts seen later in the videos are likely obscurations of the (original?) illuminated curve, so I am not convinced about it being bracelets or tvs or whatnot. I think it something much more easy and obvious.

I'm sorry. I should have explained this one before. Yalcin videoed a lot of different things.

LIVE VIDEO (not a screenshot)


In this case - where you have this video cued up - these are distant lights, probably offshore on a boat. (There's a later shot of something that's definitely a boat, so...)

I can't be sure, but I think it's a small cabin cruiser at night, offshore of the Yeni Kent Apartments, probably fairly distant. I don't think it's down shore, or you would see ground lights. I think it's out offshore.

Something like this.

Or more likely an inboard like this one; with a smooth transom.

Blue arrow - navigation light on the bow.
Green arrow - lights in the windows of the cabin
Red arrow - light illuminating the surface of the transom (flat part on rear of boat)

Not certain of this one. But when you watch the video I think that's what it is. There are times when the windows are pretty clearly windows. In any case, they're just distant lights. No mystery.

By "illuminating the surface of the transom," I mean the way a license plate is illuminated. A splotch of light, not a distinct light source.

All these are from that same video.

These are lights on a distant cargo ship, on a misty early morning.

The landing lights of a distant aircraft.

This one I'm confident of. It's a boat; and I think it's closer to shore than the first one. The blue line is an LED strip on the boat.

At 43:50 Yalcin finally stops playing with the camera and let's it sit still on the tripod. At that time you can see the boat rocking gently on the waves. I'm not sure what the sparkly lights are. I think they're specular reflections of the LEDs on wavelets.
LIVE VIDEO (not a screenshot)




Lights on a ship, invisible in the mist and dim light. I think there are two lights and an inferior mirage of the same.

I just realized what this probably is. There's a green light on the left and a red light on the right which means these are navigation lights on the bow. And a flashing red masthead light in the middle, which means it's bow on to us, (facing us). And there's a bright mass of lights off the starboard side. It's a squid boat.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I suspect trying to see a lot of details in these blurry images is an invitation to pareidolia. Especially when looking at stills rather than the video.
FWIW, I don't see anything inconsistent with the bangles theory, but I can also see the "fence with a gate, and boats or something in the background through the gate." With THAT wide a range of possibilities, I'd suspect the imagery does not contain enough information to lead to a positive ID of what was being videoed.

So draw a sketch of the fence.

Pareidolia is specifically seeing faces that aren't there, but I understand what you're saying. You're talking about the ink blot thing. An ink blot can look like a lot of different things to different people.

But... and this is a big but... When it's a photo of a real thing, there's only one thing it really is. If you are still saying, "The thing in the photo could be this, or it could be that," your brain hasn't really seen the thing itself.

When you see the dog in this photo, you won't be saying, "It could be this or it could be that." You see the dog. No ambiguity. It pops out. You see it.

 

[JMartJr]

Pareidolia is specifically seeing faces that aren't there, but I understand what you're saying. You're talking about the ink blot thing. An ink blot can look like a lot of different things to different people.

Yeah -- though Merriam Webster disagrees on whether pareidolia applies exclusively to seeing faces.

But... and this is a big but... When it's a photo of a real thing, there's only one thing it really is. If you are still saying, "The thing in the photo could be this, or it could be that," your brain hasn't really seen the thing itself.

What I'm saying is that, yes, any one image in these vids is of one specific thing, but the image quality is so poor that there may not be enough information there to determine what it is. The "object" videoed was only one thing; more than one thing could have produced the images as captured.

When you see the dog in this photo, you won't be saying, "It could be this or it could be that." You see the dog. No ambiguity. It pops out. You see it.

Sure, but the dog picture has a lot better resolution than the images we are looking at -- it is one thing, AND there is enough information in the image to find the dog. The Turkish UFO vids do not have enough information to definitively "find the dog." It is possible to find more than one thing that could produce the images. (That said, watching the vids I am now seeing the bangle more than seeing the fence. In motion, it seems a small solid object, possibly reflected in glass, in several shots. But "seems" is the operative word...)

It's fun to try and come up with how it might have been done, but at the end of the day it could have been done several ways, I think. So debunking by finding out definitively what it WAS may not be possible. Possibly more useful, though still not definitive, is to look at the full vid you posted above, and see how many different things were videoed from one spot on the beach in Turkey and interpreted as UFOs. Is it really reasonable that that spot is popular with so many different flying saucer pilots, none of which were remarked on nor photographed by anybody else? Nah... he's shooting normal stuff, and possibly (almost certainly, I'd say, but I was not there) making his video better by using bangles or camera parts or a distorted view of a fence or something(s) else as a fake flying saucer. So we have an improbable story of UFO central off the coast of Turkey being noticed by only one man, and we have several ways parts of it could have been faked, and several candidates for everyday boats and things that might have been videoed which the guy might or might not have sincerely beveled were mysterious. Not a definitive debunk, but barring a death-bed confession or something, that may be all we're going to get. And that's way more long winded thatn intended, so chopping myself off there...

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

ok i think those few are the same "bangle" or object. (the cruise ship on page one is likely a different item of course...to me).

i get the dowel thing now i thought the dowel was vertical. thank you for clarifying that certainly helps me see what you are seeing.

they do have aluminum dowels with little groves...like some pool skimmer poles. because i dont think wood would be that color in the films.

I dont agree with what you are seeing , but i understand it better now: you are saying on a dowel (like my closet clothes pole) pic A, but from the angle of pic B (im not taking my clothes off my closet pole to use that )


pic A

View attachment 43842


pic B
View attachment 43843

I'm dropping the clasp idea. At first I thought the ball-headed posts were meant to hold something that is now missing, then I thought that they were part of a clasp. But I've just seen something that makes me think they are simply decorative things with no function. But the thing I saw makes me even more convinced that these items are jewelry.

 

[deirdre]

this was just on my windows open screen, but i think paragliding at night is likely dangerous

 

[Rocky]

I think the fact that it looks exactly like a cruise ship, and there are cruise ships in that general area raises the bar for counter evidence a significant amount.

Like did they account for all the possible variations from refraction? And moon flaring in the camera?

 

[Rocky]

The overlay for the video and cruise ship totally debunks this. And anything after that from the filmographer and any news outlets saying otherwise just seems like a blatant attempt to deceive the public. And for what???

 

[Rocky]

Also from looking at all of these videos there seem to have been "UFO sightings" by this same person on multiple dates over a period of two years. It seems highly unlikely that there were repeat visits by UFOs to the same area, where this same hotel security guard could repeatedly video them.

The "object" doesn't really look like a cruise ship to me. It doesn't look like a real object at all, but more like a reflection.

View attachment 33802

Apparently the footage was filmed using a camera that had a teleconverter on it. I can't help thinking it looks more like the reflection of a camera bezel or something.

View attachment 33806


Regarding the moon height, in order to have the correct distance of about four and a half degrees between the moon and the horizon, the time would have to be about 50 minutes out. This is 2.18am:

View attachment 33803

However note that the moon is then above the land, not above the sea.

This is the moon position for the time noted on the video:

View attachment 33804

That puts the moon almost exactly above the coastline from the filming position. It seems strange that there are no other lights visible along the coast there.

(The filming location is here, at the beach end of the Yeni Kent apartment complex.

View attachment 33805

The picture of the 2 cameramen looking at the camera just cracks me up. Just goes to show you that technology in the wrong hands can be dangerous.

 

[flarkey]

The picture of the 2 cameramen looking at the camera just cracks me up. Just goes to show you that technology in the wrong hands can be dangerous.

Its great that everyone has a camera in their pocket nowadays, but the problem is... so do the idiots. This vastly increases the number of people who are unable to identify objects, and also increases the number of people who are unable to use the cameras properly.

 

[Rocky]

Its great that everyone has a camera in their pocket nowadays, but the problem is... so do the idiots. This vastly increases the number of people who are unable to identify objects, and also increases the number of people who are unable to use the cameras properly.

Notice in the pic of the cameraman that shot these videos of the cruise ships is wearing a UFO hat.

 

[Fin]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet... The guy standing directly to the right of Yalcin is Antonio Urzi! Infamous serial UFO hoaxer and good friend of Jaime Maussan.

 

[Rotauge]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet... The guy standing directly to the right of Yalcin is Antonio Urzi! Infamous serial UFO hoaxer and good friend of Jaime Maussan.

This would indeed be a giant red flag if it turns out they collaborated or at least knew each other before or during the Yalcin recordings. If however, Urzi drove to Yalcin after his tapes became public, it wouldn't be a surprise seeing dedicated UFO fanatics travel to Turkey seeking to hang out with him.. Any info about the date the photo on the right was taken?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

View attachment 43976View attachment 43975

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet... The guy standing directly to the right of Yalcin is Antonio Urzi! Infamous serial UFO hoaxer and good friend of Jaime Maussan.

Yes, I just couldn't remember his name, and I got so insanely busy that I don't have time to do any research or anything. Come May, I won't be so busy anymore.

 

[Scaramanga]

This whole case is yet another example of how burden of proof gets stood on its head the minute the word 'UFO' appears. That in turn stems from the insidious manner in which 'UFO' is one minute held to mean alien spacecraft...yet the next minute becomes a fallback ' well it IS unidentified ' by which the believer can keep it all going regardless.

The onus is on anyone who thinks it is an alien spacecraft to prove so. One could spend years ( and it seems some have done ) arguing is it a cruiser or an internal camera reflection or whatever, but skeptics often tend to forget that they don't actually have to do anything but say 'prove it'. I see zero proof that this is an alien spacecraft. Case dismissed.

 

[Neo]

This would indeed be a giant red flag if it turns out they collaborated or at least knew each other before or during the Yalcin recordings. If however, Urzi drove to Yalcin after his tapes became public, it wouldn't be a surprise seeing dedicated UFO fanatics travel to Turkey seeking to hang out with him.. Any info about the date the photo on the right was taken?

The photo of Yalcin and Antonio Urzi was taken at the '2009 International UFO Congress held in Istanbul' when they were both being interviewed by someone for live TV, they are both wearing the same clothes as in the photo above; Yalcin is wearing the same baseball cap and shirt and Antonio Urzi the same green jacket.

They are both more than likely meeting at this event which took place 2 years after the first Turkey UFO sighting took place.

I have attached screenshot from the '2009 Turkey UFO convention Live TV news report', which also shows a UFO fly over the reporter in broad daylight on live TV.

Links / screengrabs (supporting evidence):

2009 International UFO Congress held in Istanbul
Video: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9mjec

2009 Turkey UFO May 14, 2009 - Multiple Witnesses
Video:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZvOiap-V_w&t=30s


The independet scientific TUBITAK Report by 'The Science and Technology Research Board of Turkey on the videos concluded:
"The objects in the footage have the structure of a specific material that is definitely not made up by any kind of computer animation, balloon, prop, model, or special effects used for simulation in a studio."

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I couldn't visualize the dowel & bangle set-up as I was reading through this thread - we need a diagram of the entire thing including the Pepper's Ghost! - but now I think I understand. I'm very familiar with these bangles and now I can't see the UFOs in the original video as anything but bangles.

 

[Meat5000]

I do believe the four lights in the hill shape was found to match the landing lights of a Boeing aircraft. Cant remember if I saw it on this site. Trying to locate.
There is also a place in the video where for a second it appears the image is swamped with light from a seemingly internal source as the point light disappears off the left of the screen. It appears as though theyve mis-shone their light and the reflection gets saturated. Its just so long I cant skip accurately enough to find it again.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I couldn't visualize the dowel & bangle set-up as I was reading through this thread - we need a diagram of the entire thing including the Pepper's Ghost!

I was going to do that... but I'm much too busy to spend any more time on this trivial hoax.

 

[jackfrostvc]

When I saw this video, TBH, I put it down as a hoax that used a silver spoon in front of the camera.
I still think that

 

[JMartJr]

I was going to do that... but I'm much too busy to spend any more time on this trivial hoax.

And just when you thought it couldn't get any sillier... I guess most of you have seen these; there are multiple versions with "enhanced" images using enhancement techniques ranging from "mess about until you get to some pareidolia" through "mess about until you get to some pareidolia and then make the eyes more prominent" and on to "just draw some lines across the blobs to portray them as two greys and a mantis-man."

Image snipped from http://brainexplor.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-turkey-ufo-alien-case.html

(Dr. Leir,according to Wikipedia was "an American podiatric surgeon and ufologist best known as an investigator of alleged alien implants. Leir wrote books such as The Aliens and the Scalpel, and appeared on various radio and television shows... claiming he had discovered proof of "non-terrestrial experimentation on man".") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Leir

 

[Ravi]

As expected from the ufos sub over at Reddit, a new thread about this Turkey fella's footage has again surfaced. Every time this happens, and I am sure this happens every 3 months, a thread like that gets hundred if not thousands of upvotes. You can imagine how the narrative goes..

Hopefully we get more to a sound debunk soon, because otherwise this case becomes the holy grail for many ufonuts.

 

[deirdre]

Hopefully we get more to a sound debunk soon

Personally i think the fact that in such a populated area, over all those years and he is the only one to notice them is "sound debunk" enough.

If this is the holy grail, that's kinda sad.

 

[Ravi]

Personally i think the fact that in such a populated area, over all those years and he is the only one to notice them is "sound debunk" enough.

If this is the holy grail, that's kinda sad.

Ok, I did not want to generalise the whole ufo community of course.

 

[flarkey]

I'd love to travel to Kumburgaz and get some ground truth data. Maybe I should set up a GoFundMe?

 

[deirdre]

Ok, I did not want to generalise the whole ufo community of course.

i know.

 

[JMartJr]

I'd love to travel to Kumburgaz and get some ground truth data. Maybe I should set up a GoFundMe?

You'll need somebody to tote your gear bags through the airport. Hit me up, I'm around...

 

[flarkey]

I'm still pondering this case from time to time, trying to look at the evidence from a different direction and I think I may have found something. As per my posts above, I still think the image of the 'ufo' that we see in these videos is from a TV screen, possibly from a security camera with a wide angle lens, but until I can identify a location for this then it will only be hypothesis. Most of the images of the 'craft' are too blurry to make anything out... but ... Look at this image from the video. (Here is a direct link to a stabilized clip.)

To me this image has depth. I can see a distant illuminated scene, and an object in the foreground with three lines rising up from it. Could this be showing a yacht in marina...?

Bearing this image below and the entrance to the marina in the distance....

I can see similarities in the UFO video.... could we be looking at a video of Marina?

What are your thoughts on this? Could this be a three dimensional scene? Or am I seeing things ...

 

[Malacuea]

Mmm interesting. But there is something bother me... Why look so flat compared with other segments?. Are different shape? Also there is other segments on which appears much more illuminated.

 

[flarkey]

Mmm interesting. But there is something bother me... Why look so flat compared with other segments?. Are different shape? Also there is other segments on which appears much more illuminated.

What I think we are looking at is a TV screen with a changing picture. Some of the scenes show depth and illumination, the image below being a good example.

This scene also shows a light source illuminating from the left of the screen..

This image, is the same 'location' as the one above but six months later. Now the picture seems to be in colour rather than black and white... did they get a new monitor?

 

[Ravi]

I am not sure @flarkey. The video's show zooming in at times, which would be hard to do with your theory. Also I think "using a wide fish-eye lens" is just not enough to show that effect.
But, interesting theory nevertheless.

 

[flarkey]

I am not sure @flarkey. The video's show zooming in at times, which would be hard to do with your theory. Also I think "using a wide fish-eye lens" is just not enough to show that effect.
But, interesting theory nevertheless.

Hi @Ravi - You said "The video's show zooming in at times" - yes, I'm suggesting the witness operated video camera is zooming in on a separate TV screen, which is also showing a video camera feed from a different camera(s). I don't see how this would be hard to do. (to clarify - I'm not debating whether this is an intentional hoax, or unintentional mistake, just trying to figure out what is actually happening).

Re my wide angle lens suggestion: whilst my current hot theory is a wide-angle security camera (this fits with the witness's job as a night-watchman) I have also noticed the similarity in the Turkey UFO shape to the picture on Mast Mounted Cameras that are often fitted to sailboats....

Here's a picture of a wide angle lens used in a on a yacht's mast. The curved effect of the scene in the middle distance to horizon is clearly visible. This has some similarity to the 'Turkey ufo' object with the curvature of the image.
(source)

And another 2 (source) ...

As mentioned in post #128 of this thread Gilles Fernandez also though that this could be an image of a tv screen. His article on the Kumburgaz UFO is here: https://skepticversustheflyingsauce...D44msfldwXW5AJw-jptqee71uB3AEm_mwFCbzIsx6F0D0

There are points in the video that show over exposure or blooming of the bright parts of the image into the darker parts. This is commonly seen on TV screens ( and less commonly seen around extraterrestrial spaceships)

There are points in the video that seems to show horizontal lines across the image of the 'ufo', similar to scanlines on a Cathode Ray Tube TV.

Ok, I admit that this is clutching at straws a little, but I hope this illustrates my crazy theory a little better. Happy to hear any comments and criticism from anyone.

 

[JMartJr]

FWIW, this is more or less what I saw when first seeing these vids. In several of them i see a view through a wide angle lens looking down onto a beach partially lit by lights from houses and stuff, through a gate in a wall in one case. Whether directly or second hand on a tv screen I don't know. Reading this thread several times, i can also see the bangles shot directly or "Pepper's Ghosted." Somewhere up there was a mention of an upturned small boat hull laid out on the beach being a good match. The early cruise ship concept looked exactly like one of the vids, less like the others.

Looks like there are many ways these UAP videos could be faked!

The evidence that they WERE faked is somewhat circumstantial, but pretty strong. The same guy filming the same UAP from the same spot over several years, filmed by nobody else from that spot or anywhere else despite this apparently being an area with regular visits by cruise ships full of camera-titing tourists... it doesn't pass the "smell test."

 

[jackfrostvc]

If you believe this turkey ufo vid is real, then you also belive aliens fly around in a craft which has a roof that is lower than the height of the aliens heads. And that they fly around with the sun roof down.

Let alone the area that has the sun roof seems to move places/completely dissappear
. See the OP pics

 

[Mendel]

fly around in a craft which has a roof that is lower than the height of the aliens heads

not the best picture, but

Fokker E.III, in 1916

argument by incredulity is always iffy, no matter which side you're trying to support

 

[jackfrostvc]

not the best picture, but
View attachment 50321
Fokker E.III, in 1916

argument by incredulity is always iffy, no matter which side you're trying to support

I'd have to ask there:
Does a fokker fly in space?
Does it magically have a full roof and randomly not at times in the same video footage?
Does that full roof that magically appears , seem lower than the pilots head?


Context matters. The point remains that aliens are not going to be a in a tiny ship where the roof is lower than their head.
A roof that appears and dissappears

The Turkey video showing aliens in a ship is not even remotely close to believable IMO

 

[Mendel]

Does a fokker fly in space?

Neither does the Kumburgaz UFO.
Fighter pilots go to high altitudes with oxygen masks, not with a pressurized cockpit.

I'm not going to look for photos of aircraft with a sliding canopy, and pilots who appear larger standing up than sitting down in an open cockpit, but they're out there.

 

[Ravi]

@flarkey

After watching the videos again, I have not actually seen a direct zoom from close to far. This means I cannot use the argument it was a proper zoom, giving your theory a higher probability. It could be a clever move from the Kumburgaz fellow, to just cut it inn between proper outdoor shots.
Also the camera shake when he zooms in completely to the "aliens", is not as big as you would expect from a not so super great setup as he used. Give it a shot with your own zoom cam and try to hold it still.

 

[flarkey]

@flarkey

After watching the videos again, I have not actually seen a direct zoom from close to far.

The only segment that I've seen a wide-shot to narrow-zoom and back again is in the 2009 clip below. This is the only clip that offers any context regarding the scene around the "UFO", and the only thing visible is the moon. Hopefully this link will open at the 5m18s timecode.

Source: https://youtu.be/BX3VTg1uQrw?t=318

From that clip.... we can see the moon and the UFO...

The image of the moon & ufo above is itself strange, as the moon should be incredably bright when zoomed into it, however it looks quite dark. At the 5m11s time code the moon is as bright as a streetlight..... but not when the the ufo is in shot.

(street light at bottom centre)

Why is this? Has the cameraman adjusted the exposure settings to hide the scene around the object?

Edit: This has already been discussed in this thread from post 66 onwards (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2008-ufo-footage-from-kumburgaz-turkey.9844/post-224231) , although I dont think it was satisfactorily answered.

(hat-tip @Z.W. Wolf )