2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey

[Ravi]

The vignetting visible (wide shot) is also odd. Normally a lens is optimized/designed such, that there is no vignetting. Perhaps it is not the same make/model lens that fits on the camera he used? That can/could also lead to imaging issues.

 

[jarlrmai]

The vignetting visible (wide shot) is also odd. Normally a lens is optimized/designed such, that there is no vignetting. Perhaps it is not the same make/model lens that fits on the camera he used? That can/could also lead to imaging issues.

Almost all lenses even the high end ones have vignetting to some degree especially wide open, vignette correction is often applied by default by cameras/editing software. So really it would depend on the camera system and settings in use.

 

[Ravi]

Almost all lenses even the high end ones have vignetting to some degree especially wide open, vignette correction is often applied by default by cameras/editing software. So really it would depend on the camera system and settings in use.

Agreed, some vignetting in the corners, okay, but not a whole black circle..
I am too lazy to go through all the comments, but I vaguely remember the zoom lens he used was not the same brand as the video recorder.

 

[jarlrmai]

Could be case of an incorrectly sized lens projecting a smaller image circle than the sensor. Like EF-S mounted on a FF EF camera.

 

[Gom]

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

Using this stabilised footage Kumburgaz UFO footage posted on YouTube Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhsz1Wkkp18
,
the sequence in question starts at 24:57 and finishes at 26:34, you can clearly see that the “craft” image is being reflected onto a rainy window, with the drips of the rain on the glass clearly visible. Perhaps this is achieved by the cameraman by him using the pepper’s ghost effect to project the image a small object onto glass, allowing for the camera to zoom into the reflected image, creating the illusion of a far away craft floating.

Pepper's ghost

Rain drops can be seen clumping together and flowing down across the craft image, these are obviously too large to be anything other than rain water collecting on the exterior of a pane of glass and not on the craft. This reveals that the craft image is clearly being projected onto a glass window that faces outside towards the dark sky.

The timbre of the room in which the camera is being operated can be heard, i can hear that the camera is inside a room with the sound of rain falling on the exterior. The sound data supports the rain on a window theory that the craft sequences in the video are merely an image being reflected onto a glass pane in the foreground, with the sky (and sometimes the moon) appearing in the background to complete the illusion.

Also towards the end of this video section, somebody in the room can be heard clicking a control and we can see the brightness of the image change in time to these clicks. Surely this is proof that the light source illuminating the craft image is being manipulated also.

Images of the rain flowing down the glass (Dark streaks on the images below).

 

[Mick West]

the sequence in question starts at 24:57 and finishes at 26:34, you can clearly see that the “craft” image is being reflected onto a rainy window, with the drips of the rain on the glass clearly visible. Perhaps this is achieved by the cameraman by him using the pepper’s ghost effect to project the image a small object onto glass, allowing for the camera to zoom into the reflected image, creating the illusion of a far away craft floating.

Why isn't this simply him shooting through a window?

 

[flarkey]

Hey @Gom

I've done a bit of work on this too. Maybe we should compare notes?

I noticed the rainfall too, and agree that the 'object' seen is probably a reflection of something. ?

I suggest that the 'object' at 19m14s is the original image...(recorded 2 July 2008) without distortions,



... and the the image you mention at 24m57s has the same ' source image' , but with water-droplet deformation. (recorded 31 August 2008)




The question is... what could have the same dynamic source image nearly 2 months apart....?

My current theory is that it's a TV screen showing a feed from a wide angle camera. This accounts for the changing scene, the 'curve' of the object (it's the horizon). My rationale is also in the Metabunk thread here...

Post in thread '2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey' https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2008-ufo-footage-from-kumburgaz-turkey.9844/post-247014

Post in thread '2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey' https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2008-ufo-footage-from-kumburgaz-turkey.9844/post-267656

It world be great to hear your thoughts on my TV hypothesis.

 

[Gom]

I created a GIF with the stabilized Kumburgaz footage (starting around the 25:18 mark) to demonstrate how easily the rain clumping and dripping on the craft image can be seen, clearly this proves that it is a projection on a window and that all of the alleged craft segments of the video are false as well.

 

[Ulrich]

I just see a change in shape and brightness of this light.

Edit: Didnt noticed that there are rain Sounds as well.

 

[flarkey]

I'm still thinking about this stupid video.

Bearing in mind @Gom 's idea that the 'object' in the video is projected onto a window (possibly reflected), and my crazy idea that this could be a security camera feed, possibly in a marina, the logical next step is to try and find a security camera in a location near a marina that matches the scene in the video. Well, I think I've found it.

Here's the google street view location
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.998...4!1sdDylBrVUH8jlbC9NjnwoPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

A security camera is visible on a pole near the edge of the quay at Guzelce Marina, which is a few miles east of the Kumburgaz location.



The scene that this camera would produce bears a close resemblance to a part of the 'ufo' video, as this image shows: (the top image has been horizontally flipped to align with the idea that the video is a reflection.)



Am I still clutching at straws....?

 

[Rocky]

It’s a distant cruise ship.

 

[Ravi]

I'm still thinking about this stupid video.

Bearing in mind @Gom 's idea that the 'object' in the video is projected onto a window (possibly reflected), and my crazy idea that this could be a security camera feed, possibly in a marina, the logical next step is to try and find a security camera in a location near a marina that matches the scene in the video. Well, I think I've found it.

Here's the google street view location
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.998...4!1sdDylBrVUH8jlbC9NjnwoPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

A security camera is visible on a pole near the edge of the quay at Guzelce Marina, which is a few miles east of the Kumburgaz location.



The scene that this camera would produce bears a close resemblance to a part of the 'ufo' video, as this image shows: (the top image has been horizontally flipped to align with the idea that the video is a reflection.)



Am I still clutching at straws....?

Hmm, I have a hard time seeing the resemblance. Can you point it out more?

 

[flarkey]

Hmm, I have a hard time seeing the resemblance. Can you point it out more?

Sure, I accept this is hard to grasp, thats why so many people think it looks like a UFO.

My theory (mentioned numerous times in this thread) is that what we are looking at is a wide angle CCTV feed, the arched shapes that we see throughough the video are straight line features but they appear to be curved due to a wide angle lens. There are numerous different scenes shown thoughout the video, but the one at 5:07 PM on Aug 7 2007 (seen in the image below) is unique as it has some unique shapes and some apparent depth, and even an object in the near distance. The object appears to have three structures rising up from it, almost like masts on a yacht. This got me thinking - is it a marina with the sea wall and entrance showing? Unfortunately the marinas near the Kumburgaz location didnt match the layout seen in the video. But when @Gom suggested that he onject in the video could be a reflection I flipped the image and hey presto it seems to fit the layout of the Gucelze Marina about 5 miles east of where the video was recorded. And when I looked on Google street view to check out the view I noticed the security camera in exactly the right place to create the view.

I have annotated the image below to explain what I think I'm seeing. Remember, I am suggesting that the top image is a distorted due to a wide angle lens.



I dont think this is conclusive evidence, but just a thought that might help in finally debunking this case.

 

[flarkey]

It’s a distant cruise ship.

I think the cruise ship hypothesis only works for one of the scenes seen in the video, not the others.

Yes - this works

No this doesnt.


I still suggest that the security camera TV screen accounts for:

1. The shape of the object
2. The brightness of the object
3. The horizontal lines seen across the video at certain times
4. The changng scene over time
5. The curved line at th ebase of the object
6. The blue tint seen around the object (hat tip - Gilles Hernandez)
7. The access to such a tv feed - the witness was a security guard himself
8. The movement seen in certain parts of the video.
9. And now the scene of the marina.

Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

-The "vignetting" is caused by the overly long lens hood Yalcin was using. When he zooms in, the lens hood is no longer visible.

-The "rain" sound is actually the sound of waves breaking on the beach.

 

[flarkey]

-The "vignetting" is caused by the overly large lens hood he was using. When he zooms in, the lens hood is no longer visible.

-The "rain" sound is actually the sound of waves breaking on the beach.

There are mostly wave sounds but there is one section that is distinctly rain. It coincides with a distorted image, due to rain drops falling over whatever is being filmed.

At 24m57s in this clip....
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhsz1Wkkp18

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

My mistake, this is rain.

I had never seen this particular shot. Your thoughts about raindrops on the window are interesting. This is in accordance with my theory about this being a pepper's ghost effect in a window.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I think the cruise ship hypothesis only works for one of the scenes seen in the video, not the others.

Yes - this works

No this doesnt.


I still suggest that the security camera TV screen accounts for:

1. The shape of the object
2. The brightness of the object
3. The horizontal lines seen across the video at certain times
4. The changng scene over time
5. The curved line at th ebase of the object
6. The blue tint seen around the object (hat tip - Gilles Hernandez)
7. The access to such a tv feed - the witness was a security guard himself
8. The movement seen in certain parts of the video.
9. And now the scene of the marina.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Yalcin was the night security guard at the Yeni Kent Apartments. I don't understand how he would have access to a monitor in a Marina five miles away.

 

[JMartJr]

This is in accordance with my theory about this being a pepper's ghost effect in a window.

Trying to visualize it -- my assumption is that the "Pepper's Ghost" aoaratus is on the inside-the-room side of the qwindow, and the rain falling on the outside. Would the rain-rippling show up like that on the reflection bouncing off the dry inside of the window?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Insufficient data, Captain.

 

[flarkey]

Yalcin was the night security guard at the Yeni Kent Apartments. I don't understand how he would have access to a monitor in a Marina five miles away.

Yeah, accepted. Haven't worked that one out yet.

 

[JMartJr]

Would there have been any sort of security camera at Yeni Kent or an adjacent business? (I doubt that is knowable at this point.) As a security guard, access to THAT would seem pretty logical.

 

[Max Phalange]

One question about the fisheye lens hypothesis. We'd expect to get some type of "barrel" distortion like the image below.



The degree of curvature increases away from the center of the image. Is there any evidence of variation in the curvature of the object in the various Turkey clips, if they are scenes from different security cameras?

 

[flarkey]

One question about the fisheye lens hypothesis. We'd expect to get some type of "barrel" distortion like the image below.

The degree of curvature increases away from the center of the image. Is there any evidence of variation in the curvature of the object in the various Turkey clips, if they are scenes from different security cameras?

This image from post #1 seems to show differing 'curvature' in the various different ufo images. So I think thats a yes.



My own criticism of these this theory is - the curvature appears to be going the wrong way for a fish eye lens, ie the bottom of the image is turned down rather than up towards the centre as it is in barrel distortion. Perhaps there is a lens type that does this (wide angle versus fisheye?). Or perhaps the video feed is clipped to only show the top of the full frame?

 

[flarkey]

Would there have been any sort of security camera at Yeni Kent or an adjacent business? (I doubt that is knowable at this point.) As a security guard, access to THAT would seem pretty logical.

I have a hunch (and some tenuous evidence) that the same firm provides security at Yeni Kent and at the Marina (or at least they did 2007-2009). Havent got anything solid yet though.

 

[Max Phalange]

If, as it appears, this is some kind of Pepper's Ghost setup filmed through glass, how would he get the reflection? An angled glass pane with the security monitor pointing upward? Or maybe just a flat window with the monitor turned to face it? Maybe the hard horizontal cutoff at the bottom of the image is just the top edge of a CRT monitor filmed from behind?

I'm pretty sure (without re-reading this whole thread), that he claimed to have filmed these from an outdoor location ... so the presence of raindrops on glass seems to falsify that claim if nothing else.

 

[Ravi]

This image from post #1 seems to show differing 'curvature' in the various different ufo images. So I think thats a yes.

My own criticism of these this theory is - the curvature appears to be going the wrong way for a fish eye lens, ie the bottom of the image is turned down rather than up towards the centre as it is in barrel distortion. Perhaps there is a lens type that does this (wide angle versus fisheye?). Or perhaps the video feed is clipped to only show the top of the full frame?

To create a fish eye lens (essentially creating a very large field of view), you need a very small focal length. This is why you cannot make or buy a zoom lens that can go from fish eye focal length <10mm, to full zoom of say 1m focal length. Hence why you need a couple of switchable objectives on your slr.
So I don't think our Turkish friend could go from ultra wide (fish eye) to full zoom in to the ufo.

 

[flarkey]

If, as it appears, this is some kind of Pepper's Ghost setup filmed through glass, how would he get the reflection? An angled glass pane with the security monitor pointing upward? Or maybe just a flat window with the monitor turned to face it? Maybe the hard horizontal cutoff at the bottom of the image is just the top edge of a CRT monitor filmed from behind?

I'm pretty sure (without re-reading this whole thread), that he claimed to have filmed these from an outdoor location ... so the presence of raindrops on glass seems to falsify that claim if nothing else

All valid questions, the answers to which would all be completely speculative at the moment. If I had to suggest one, I'd speculate an open window reflecting into a security room. Maybe near this one:

To create a fish eye lens (essentially creating a very large field of view), you need a very small focal length. This is why you cannot make or buy a zoom lens that can go from fish eye focal length <10mm, to full zoom of say 1m focal length. Hence why you need a couple of switchable objectives on your slr.
So I don't think our Turkish friend could go from ultra wide (fish eye) to full zoom in to the ufo.

I'm not suggesting he did. My hypothesis is that there is a static security camera with a wide angle lens. The image from this camera is displayed on a TV screen. Our Turkish friend is pointing his camera at the TV screen and zooming in and out on it.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not suggesting he did. My hypothesis is that there is a static security camera with a wide angle lens. The image from this camera is displayed on a TV screen. Our Turkish friend is pointing his camera at the TV screen and zooming in and out on it.

Ok, I misunderstood. I guess that is still a possibility, yes.

 

[Max Phalange]

Ok, I misunderstood. I guess that is still a possibility, yes.

You still raise a good point though - if this is a Pepper's ghost effect then it's something relatively near, filmed with a very long lens. Suppose the camera was 10ft from the window, and the source of the reflection was at a similar distance back — then camera would need to resolve an image apparently 20ft away. Does this seem plausible with the lens setup he had?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

There are two videos which show the Moon and the UFO in the same part of the sky. Note that the when the UFO is in focus, the Moon is not. The Moon must be in focus when the lens is focused to infinity. Therefore the UFO is not in focus when the lens is focused to infinity; therefore the UFO is close by.

In the May 27, 2008 video, Yalcin has to pan to go from the UFO to the Moon. The UFO is in focus. There's a pan to the Moon. When he gets it into the frame, the Moon is not in focus.

This is not autofocus, btw. Yalcin is focusing manually.

At 0:38 the UFO is in focus and Yalcin begins a pan up and to his left to the Moon. The Moon is not in focus. Yalcin fumbles around trying to get the Moon in focus but he never does. At 0:48 Yalcin begins his pan back to the UFO. When he finds it, the UFO is not in focus because Yalcin has been messing around with the focus.


The May 17, 2009 video is the only time the UFO and the Moon are in the same frame without panning.

At 5:11 Yelcin accidently gets electric lights and Moon in same shot. Note that the Moon and electric light(s) are both in focus at infinity.

After a pause to reposition the camera; at 5:17 Yalcin zooms in on the UFO which is in good focus. This means he zoomed in on it while the camera was not recording, got the UFO in focus and zoomed out again. When the camera starts recording at 5:17 and he zooms in, it's magically in focus; as if the lens were already set to infinity to capture a distant object, you see.

But when Yalcin zooms out at at 6:50, the Moon is noticeably out of focus.

I've explained what I think is happening in this post:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2008-ufo-footage-from-kumburgaz-turkey.9844/page-2#post-224087


How far away was the camera from the window? Thirty feet? Forty? You can look at the tourist photos of the area where Yalcin probably stood and judge for yourself.

Back up to this post to explain what a Pepper's Ghost effect is:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2008-ufo-footage-from-kumburgaz-turkey.9844/page-2#post-224007

(When I wrote that post I hadn't yet seen the window at the Yeni Kent Apts., and speculated about a box Yalcin may have set up.)