2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey

I've just been gathering some of my thoughts on my hypothesis that the Turkey UFO is a recording of a wide angle security CCTV feed, possibly on an old CRT type monitor. I made these images for a Twitter post. Hopefully they might help to get my idea across and encourage others to do some more digging....


this picture shows what appears to be a vertical column illuminated by a spotlight. I think this is a bollard beside a road or path.
image001 (4).png


in this image (top left) we can see horizontal scan lines that are very similar to those that are used to create the image on a CRT screen
image003.png


this part of the video, when the UFO is particularly bright, we can see some blue halo or bleeding of the image , again this is often seen on CRT screens.
image002 (1).png


Hat tip to this post http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-turkish-ufo-case-les-videos-de.html

This is slightly more tenuous - the bottom edge of the 'craft' is always a slightly curved line, which is again consistent with the bottom of a CRT screen. in fact the whole 'ufo' image seems to be framed within the confines of an aperture, as if it was within a picture frame.
image004 (1).png


The last sighting of the craft in 2009 is much better quality than the preceding sightings. This could be because the old CRT screen was replaced by an LCD screen - maybe even a colour one. but still the framing and curve are still visible features of the image.

1685350056681.png
 
Last edited:
Wow, I wish you'd drop this. There's no mention anywhere of a closed circuit TV system at the Yeni Kent Apts. There's no reason to believe there was one.

This post shows where he was standing while taking most and almost certainly all of his videos.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2008-ufo-footage-from-kumburgaz-turkey.9844/page-2#post-224087

None of Yalcin's identifiable videos are of a TV screen. This post shows many of his easily identifiable video clips. There's no reason to believe he was standing anywhere else but in that same spot overlooking the beach.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2008-ufo-footage-from-kumburgaz-turkey.9844/page-5#post-247221


The purported view doesn't match anything at the Yeni Kent Apts. This is the entire complex. Two rows of buildings on a single driveway.
911d90581347.jpg


I know you speculate he was at a marina when he shot these things in a monitor. Is there any evidence that he was ever anywhere else but at Yeni Kent?

Here's evidence that he was at Yeni Kent when he shot this particular video.

This video shows the Moon and the object. He's clearly outside. Almost certainly in that same spot. You can here the breakers on the beach, as you do in almost all of his videos.. You don't hear breakers inside a marina, btw.



I've explained how he could get this shot with the UFO in the window here.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2008-ufo-footage-from-kumburgaz-turkey.9844/page-2#post-224231
 
Last edited:
so no actual criticism of my hypothesis that the features seen in the video are illuminated objects, scan lines, CRT bleeding, TV screen occultation and improved imagery quality due to LCD screen replacement? Just that your theory is better than mine?
 
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 taking these videos outdoors at the Yeni Kent. Please look at the above Moon Video again. What's your scenario as to how those (accidental) streetlights appear just before the UFO shot. And how the UFO and the Moon could be in the same shot a few moments later?

This is my scenario. He's got something, it doesn't matter what exactly, set up in that window and is getting a shot of the Moon at the same time. I've already proven that this is where the Moon would be seen in the sky on that night, while Yalcin was standing in this spot at the Yeni Kent Apts. Coincidence? (I've made the insert too small for the sake of clarity.)
9fcc6ba1d2ed8215d2bb021c06fc3a19 (1).png



In this video we see locations at Yeni Kent many times... and all of them taken from that same spot near the stairs that lead down to the beach.



Tourist photo
310bdbf022317909472aff40ad4d33d1.png


Frame from a Yalcin video.
e9ef58e8579a1bdbebfbbaaa40f848ff.png



GIF from the same location on another night. Notice that there's a refection of something in the window. I think it's a streetlight behind Yalcin. And I think that's how those accidental streetlights show up in the Moon Video. In any case, it's obvious that he's set up in a spot where he can get a shot of this window. Just as he was in the frame above. And I don't think it's a coincidence that he habitually set up his camcorder on this spot.
b5aa285293afc8bef343ad1218e33480.gif


We never once see a location other than the Yeni Kent in any of his videos.

Once again, you don't hear breakers in a marina, but we consistently hear breakers on these videos.


The rain video points to him taking this shot of the UFO through a window... outdoors. Listen to how loud the rain is.




In my scenario the rain is running down the outside surface this window.
a11a9a2c2cc0d35015ed3722db589756.png




In my scenario, Yalcin is sheltering under the canopy on our left pointing the camcorder at the window on our right. The rainwater is falling off the the edge of the canopy and splashing on the pavement.
1d647d7c091992c935952cb1f4106754.jpg


I think he was standing in that same spot while taking all of the "Arc UFO" videos. And all them were the same one or two (possibly three) objects set up in the window on different nights.

The object doesn't have to be distorted into an arc shape, because it's circular in the first place. A black card (sheet of paper, foam board) is set up in front of it, hiding the lower 5/6 of the hoop.
 
Last edited:
What is your scenario for all the Arc UFO videos?

Yalcin is inside an office at a marina and has his camcorder pointed at a window. A TV monitor is reflected in the window. Is that right?
Or is he pointing the camcorder directly at the monitor?

In the Rain Video, the rain is running down the outside surface of that window in which the monitor is reflected? Or do you think it's running down the lens of the camera?


I have this cued up to the particular segment in which Yalcin zooms in on the UFO, then zooms out to show both the UFO and the Moon is the same frame.


In this Moon UFO video, the Moon is visible through the window, while the reflection of the TV monitor is on the glass?
That's a big problem with what we actually see here in this video. The reflection of the Mointor is a long way from the Moon. How big is the reflection on the surface of the glass? How far away is the monitor from the window to get such a small reflection? How big is that window? And we see no other reflection from the interior of the office? Even though the Moon is shining in through the window and the window must be letting in whatever other source of light there may be outside the office?

Or is the image of the Moon a reflection on the surface of the glass and the monitor just happens to be near that window? Yet there's no sign of the interior of the office. The office is jet black... even though the Moon is visible as a reflection? How did the light from the Moon get into the interior of the office, and yet the office is jet black?

Edit: I let myself get sucked into wasting more time on this silly hoax.
 
Last edited:
First of all :
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
Yeah, apologies if my previous comment was a little terse. I'd had a few glasses of vino. o_O Also....
Edit: I let myself get sucked into wasting more time on this silly hoax.
Yes, I feel like this with regard to the whole UFO topic sometimes. Might be time to go cold Turkey (no pun intended). I have better things to do with my life, but debunking is so addictive. This event is often held up as the crown jewel of UFO sightings when it is really anything but. The claim from many UFO-fans that 'it has never been debunked' is like a red rag to a bull with me.

But back to the Turkey in the room. ok - I completely admit that my theory has gaps - the main two being 1) where was the TV screen? and 2) where are the locations that were under surveillance?. And you're right I do see a similarity between one of the images and the marina. However, I'm not yet convinced that that he moved locations (to the marina) between filming each segment. Yes the audio of the breaking waves supports the idea that all filming was done by the beach (I don't think Yalcin had the skills to edit the audio post recording to cover this). But I'm not 100% convinced that every 'curve' segment was recorded at the Yeni Kent steps and was pointing east - although the YouTube video that you linked to does suggest this. It is possible that the areas under surveillance were closer to Yeni Kent and that the TV screen was in an upper storey room in one of the nearby buildings. Again, this is conjecture on my part.

I keep on coming back to the TV idea because I want that part of the hypothesis tested & thoroughly reviewed by others. The 4 features of the 'curve' segments that I posted above do suggest to me that it is a TV in the scenes. If there are other reasons why these things could happen then I want to know - like the scan lines and the blooming. You are absolutely right about the quality of the videos being poor, and the errors introduced by the YouTube digital encoding process. Does this make detailed examination of the videos invalid? If so - I'll stop. If not, and if some people think that there is weight to the TV Screen hypothesis then I will continue and try to find the locations that were potentially seen.
 
I keep on coming back to the TV idea because I want that part of the hypothesis tested & thoroughly reviewed by others. The 4 features of the 'curve' segments that I posted above do suggest to me that it is a TV in the scenes.
View attachment 59545
The problem here is that you've also been maintaining that the curvature is produced by barrel distortion, and if that's the case, what you're indicating in your diagram can't be the bottom edge of the distorted image, because the curvature bends the wrong way: the outside of the curve points should point to the outside of the image.

If it is established that we're seeing a reflection in a window, repeatedly shot over several months, then that begs the question why there was never an attempt to get a direct shot from a better vantage point? It seems reasonable to assume that the footage is intentionally in the low information zone, with subsequent sightings not producing better evidence than the first. And that suggests to me that the camera operator doesn't really believe there's a UFO to be seen. It also suggests that the source of the reflection is unlikely to be identified, because the video is deliberately shot to make it so.
 
Last edited:
Good morning. Seeing this video I immediately began to be obsessed with it, as I am usually skeptical about the alien origin of UFOs, and I could not find anyone who could debunk it. Reading all your analyses, I was only partially satisfied.

All of your assumptions sound right, but all of them also have flaws, and many seem far too creative to have been thought up by a guy who apparently doesn't have incredible camera skills.

To make these almost irrefutable, the ideal would be to reproduce the video in the best possible way, trying to simulate the "aliens" inside the UFO with something that can make everything seem almost identical.
I noticed that you are very unwilling to investigate further, because you say that the video is definitely fake. But how can we get definitive confirmation if the video doesn't seem possible to recreate?

I have many doubts especially about the play of shadows inside the supposed UFO, which seemed too strange to me. Can you help me figure out how to definitively debunk at least the alien nature of the "occupiers"?
 
I've broken down and ordered some stuff from eBay. Maybe two weeks from now I'll post some preliminary stuff.
 
But how can we get definitive confirmation if the video doesn't seem possible to recreate?
I see no reason why it could not be replicated with an appropriately shaped backlit teapot lid. The fact is that "not replicated yet" is NOT equivalent to "doesn't seem possible".
 
I've broken down and ordered some stuff from eBay. Maybe two weeks from now I'll post some preliminary stuff.

:D I almost did that when I was trying to approximate the Calvine photo. I scoured the local antique and secondhand shops for old film cameras but thought better of it when I saw some of the prices people wanted for an '80s SLR. It still itches at the back of my mind, so I check Craigslist now and then.

I have imagined though, that if a number of us were in closer proximity to each other, we would maintain a Metabunk warehouse. It would be stocked with old cameras and video equipment, lots and lots of balloons, airplane models, any old hubcap, pie pan or pot that can look like a UFO and whatever else would be useful in recreating some of these vintage cases.

Looking forward to what you come up with.

To make these almost irrefutable, the ideal would be to reproduce the video in the best possible way, trying to simulate the "aliens" inside the UFO with something that can make everything seem almost identical.
I noticed that you are very unwilling to investigate further, because you say that the video is definitely fake. But how can we get definitive confirmation if the video doesn't seem possible to recreate?

This comes up often, but there are a few problems with this line of thinking:

1. It basically reverses the burden of proof for the underlying claim. If someone comes out and says "I made a fake video/photo and you skeptics can't figure out how I did it", then fine, but that's not what's usually being claimed. Rather, it's "I have a video/photo of UFO/aliens and if you skeptics can't make an exact copy, it's not fake and is proof of UFO/aliens".

Claiming the mysteries lights on one's photo/video is a UFO/alien is a big claim and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

2. Depending on the age of the video/photo, it can be a bit of an undertaking to try and recreate it. As I mentioned above, I had a go at approximating the famous Calvine photo and was able to show to a degree, that the elements of the photo could be composited in front of the camera with no double exposure or darkroom manipulation needed.

However, the actual Calvine photo was produced on film in the '90s and I was using an iPhone. The iPhone is never going to quite do what an old film camera did and as my recreation is all digital, some will always suspect that I merely used digital tools like Photoshop to create what I did.

To counteract this, I really should have used an old film camera, but do I really want to spend money on a 20-40 year old camera, then try to find film and then have that film developed in an attempt to recreate an old UFO photo?

3. There may be geographical limitations to recreating something. The afore mentioned Calvine photo was taken in Calvine Scotland, a wet, foggy land of rocky craigs and green meadows. I, however, live in the foothills of Northern California which is decidedly non-Scottish. Even if I were to pony up for a film camera and all that goes with that, I'll never be able to recreate the gray expanse that is visible in the original Calvine photo very well. Some elements in photo/videos may just be a product of their location.

4. Some UFO/paranormal photo/videos may be the result of a number of factors all happening in a certain place at a certain time in a certain way, making a recreation difficult if not impossible.

The famous Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot is a good example. Proponents of the film claim that as nobody can reproduce it, it must be real. But to make a viable recreation, there are a number of issues to confront.

It was done in a very specific site along Bluff Creek in far north western California, in the fall, a couple of years after major flooding in the area.

A specific type of suit would have been worn, with likely very specific modifications made to it.

There was a particular individual in the suit doing whatever they thought a bigfoot would do.

The original filmmaker dismounts a horse, runs for a bit and the steadies himself in a particular way resulting in what we see.

It was done nearly 60 years ago with vintage equipment and film stock.

In short, there are a lot of variables to try and account for in making a recreation, and...

5. Anything short of an absolute spot on 100% identical recreation will be rejected. Simply showing how something could have been done will be rejected. So, how much time and effort does one want to put into recreations?

Not to say no one ever tries, some do and sometimes it works. It appears Mr. Wolf is going to have a go at this one, so let's see what he comes up with.
 
It's hard to believe aliens would be in a craft where their heads are above the roof line. Just sayiing. Seems they got the mini minor of alien craft , mistakenly assigned to them when they actually asked for a large model.
 
Some elements in photo/videos may just be a product of their location.
....
The famous Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot is a good example. Proponents of the film claim that as nobody can reproduce it, it must be real. But to make a viable recreation, there are a number of issues to confront.
And one of the Patterson-Gimlin features is its location, which has probably changed over the years to the point that it may be difficult (or impossible) even to identify again. Streams that flood, change course, have greater or lesser amounts of fallen deadwood, have more vegetation there than it once did ...I myself had had trouble finding my way back to particular spots in the park, and I'm talking about places that are ten minutes walk from roads and parking places, not miles from civilization.

You're right about those True Believers who would reject even a pretty good approximation! I don't think we can hope to satisfy everyone, and would settle for giving plausible mechanisms or demonstrations that allow honest observers to think again about a phenomenon.
 
I bought a collection of vintage gold tone/brass bangle bracelets and a wooden T-bar jewelry holder.

s-l140.jpg


s-l300 (4).jpg
s-l300 (3).jpg


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.

DSC_0350.JPG
DSC_0368.JPG


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.
DSC_0286.JPG




I used a different set up to shoot these next test photos with an overhead ceiling light.

DSC_0445.JPG

DSC_0448.JPG



There's too much light bouncing around the room, so I used some hand held shades - the folder and a clipboard - to screen out as much extraneous light as possible. These are not entirely satisfactory; but good for a proof of concept. Some of them are pretty good though, I think. They at least will show you all what I was talking about. It seems most of you were having trouble picturing the setup. I hope this helps to convince.

Watch for the top of the dowel in these photos... the arc below the bangle bracelet. Yalcin's flying saucers always have two arcs. And that's what the lower one always is. The top of the dowel the bracelet is sitting on.

DSC_0406.JPG

DSC_0408.JPG
DSC_0415.JPG
DSC_0416.JPG

DSC_0417.JPG

DSC_0419.JPG
DSC_0425.JPG

DSC_0426.JPG

DSC_0427.JPG

DSC_0433.JPG

These last four are the best, I think. Two in focus and two in soft focus. Once again, note the top of the dowel; visible as an arc below the bracelet.

What's different is that these are direct shots. I think Yalcin was using the Pepper's ghost technique. The bracelet and jewelry holder were behind the window, but not in direct sight of the camera. What the camera was seeing was a reflection of the objects in the window.
See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2008-ufo-footage-from-kumburgaz-turkey.9844/page-4#post-246935


From Mar 29, 2021
There are some consistent elements.

-The objects are arcs. Or flattened arcs.
-These arcs are cut off at the bottom with a straight edge.
-There is always another arc below the UFO object, and this object is always the same object.View attachment 43638View attachment 43639View attachment 43640


In this case there's a wide separation between the arcsView attachment 43641

It follows that the two arcs that appear in each photo are separate objects. And while the UFO arcs have some variance in their appearance, the lower arc is always the same - thus the same object each time.

My opinion is that these objects are hoops resting on a cylindrical object - such as a wooden dowel. Always the same dowel. We are looking along the length of the dowel. The straight edge is caused by a flat surfaced object - a tabletop, a plastic box, pasteboard, a clipboard, a TV tray...

The dowel and the hoop hanging on the dowel are situated beyond the flat surface. The image of the dowel and the hoop resting on it are cut off by the far edge, or the top edge, of the flat surface. The flat surface may be anything from completely horizontal to completely vertical. We see only the top part of the hoop and the dowel, so we see them as arcs. The rest is hidden by the flat surface.

There is a single light source above the hoop and the dowel. The lit portion of the dowel surface is the lower arc and the hoop resting on it is the UFO. There is sometimes an area of shadow between them, where the dowel surface is shadowed by the hoop; sometimes there is no shadowed area. That is determined by the shape of the hoop. A hoop with a flat inner surface sits flat on the dowel and casts no shadow. A hoop with a more circular cross section does not sit flat on the dowel and casts a shadow.

In the case of the last photo above, the relative position of hoop and the light source, and perhaps the hoop with the dowel, has made a wider band of shadow between the lighted dowel surface and the hoop than usual.


He used this particular hoop a lot. It's in at least five of his hoax videos on five different dates.
View attachment 43642
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0406.JPG
    DSC_0406.JPG
    33.8 KB · Views: 83
  • DSC_0344.JPG
    DSC_0344.JPG
    38.1 KB · Views: 94
  • DSC_0344.JPG
    DSC_0344.JPG
    38.1 KB · Views: 81
  • DSC_0286.JPG
    DSC_0286.JPG
    242.8 KB · Views: 101
Last edited:
From Apr 3, 2021
This is the same bangle on different days.

View attachment 43734
It has a flat inner surface, so it's sitting flat on the wooden dowel (Red arrow - you can even see the grain in the wood). This bangle has flat sides and a curved top.
Green arrow - a fine (decorative) groove.
Blue - decorative indentations.

Because of the flat inner surface it's sitting flush on the wooden dowel. And because it also has flat sides, it doesn't cast a shadow on the surface of the dowel.

The same one on a different day.
View attachment 43735
Green - the same fine groove.
Red - the same wooden dowel.


This frame below is just over exposed because the automatic exposure on the camera was confused. You can see the fine groove more clearly. And the wooden dowel is more visible as well.

Same one again, even more over-exposed.
View attachment 43736
The light source on this day was a little bit farther back, making the top brighter in relation to the side. In this frame you can see the surface of the wooden dowel reflected in the flat side of this silver colored bangle.


Cropped
DSC_0426 Kropped.JPG


You can see the grain in the wood


Two flying saucers and my eBay vintage bangle bracelet.
5 15 2009 459.png

DSC_0350 Kropped.JPG

5 17 2009 306.png
 

Attachments

  • 5 17 2009 306.png
    5 17 2009 306.png
    60.5 KB · Views: 83
  • DSC_0350 Kropped.JPG
    DSC_0350 Kropped.JPG
    58.1 KB · Views: 100
Last edited:
I'm going to show you my first proof of concept photos.
I like it! Especially as you went further down the rabbit hole than I did with the Calvin photo ;).

You definitely got the shape of the look, but do you think it's a Pepper's ghost? I only ask, because I came up with all kinds of complected thought experiments for the Calvin photo, even posting one that Mendel pointed out the folly in. Once I started to try to actually replicate it, I found myself trying to keep it as simple as possible. Why use a Pepper's ghost if a really out of focus shot will do. Or maybe something on the lens to blur it a bit.

Looking forward to your attempts.
 
-Yalcin's images are in focus. You can see him hunting for focus in the videos and the details snap into focus.
-I really don't think he was using a pro-mist filter (soft focus filter). Here's why:
upload_2018-8-21_10-18-41.png

This shot comes just minutes before he shows the Moon and the flying saucer in the same frame. The streetlight is not "misty." The Moon looks just as it does in the flying saucer and Moon in the same frame thing.

Besides, it doesn't look like a soft focus filter.


The reason I first suspected these are Pepper's ghost images is because... they look like Pepper's ghost images. I'm not the only one who thinks so. They look like reflections on glass.

I can't read this guy's mind and tell you why he went with the Pepper's ghost effect. I suspect it was because it makes the images look more otherworldly, and because direct shots of these bangles would be too identifiable. The images would look like what they are.
 
Last edited:
I only ask, because I came up with all kinds of complected thought experiments for the Calvin photo, even posting one that Mendel pointed out the folly in. Once I started to try to actually replicate it, I found myself trying to keep it as simple as possible.
Take my advice. Go with the glass shot technique. Print a copy of the Christmas star thing. Take a field trip to an airport and take an out-of-focus photo of an airplane in flight and print a tiny copy of that. Cut them out and paste them on a window pane. It's really simple.

The airplane image should be out of focus, because it makes it look as if it's distant and not in the same focal plane as the flying saucer.
 
Last edited:
I can't read this guy's mind and tell you why he went with the Pepper's ghost effect. I suspect it was because it makes the images look more otherworldly, and because direct shots of these bangles would be too identifiable. The images would look like what they are.

Agreed. It's just becomes speculation as to how or why he did it that way. Did he set it all up before hand as a hoax, as the Calvine photo likely was, or did he stumble across a strange reflection that made UFO thing appear in the sky? Maybe a bit of both, having stumbled upon the effect, he set it up to do it repeatedly.

Take my advice. Go with the glass shot technique. Print a copy of the Christmas star thing. Take a field trip to an airport and take an out-of-focus photo of an airplane in flight and print a tiny copy of that. Cut them out and paste them on a window pane. It's really simple.

I went even simpler than that. I didn't have star ornament, so I just used a cardboard cutout with some shadows painted on and hung from a tree. The plane was just drawn onto the sheet of glass with a sharpie. Having only the plane on the glass allowed me to quickly move it around in relation to the UFO as it was claimed there were 6 original photos with the plane "flying by".

As I said above, it's too bad we can't have a Metabunk lab or Maker-space for this stuff.

Waiting for your next iteration of this one.
 
New to this thread due to posts from Reddit. I am in agreement with the camera/CCTV footage theory. I haven't seen this pointed out yet but there is video which contains shots of TWO of the known shapes within minutes of each other. This may be due to a video feed changing on a monitor.

Captures from the YouTube:
2007 100% RAW FULL SEQUENCE Turkey UFO Footage (Non Condensed Version)



Screenshot 2023-07-14 at 4.31.27 PM.png


Screenshot 2023-07-14 at 4.32.51 PM.png



I contend that these are the same shapes/object as these:
Screenshot 2023-07-14 at 4.43.18 PM.png


I would think a dual sighting or shape-shifting incident would garner more attention but I am not seeing reference to it anywhere. These shots did not make it to the enhanced versions or the consolidated videos as well.
 
Last edited:
hey @JAFO that's an interesting point about the pattern of the changing scenes. I had hypothisised previously that the changing shape of the 'ufo' could potentially be explaianed by a the monitor changing which camera feed it is showing over time, maybe changing every 2 or 5 minutes. This might suggest that there is a consistent sequence or pattern throughout all the videos...? I'll see if I can see anything.
 
Last edited:
@JAFO (nice name by the way, is it a Blue Thunder reference?
1689769553846.png


Anyway - I've reviewed all the Kumburgaz videos and scenes can cant find any particular examples of 'one CCTV scene changing into another' or a pattern in the changes in shape of the 'saucer' as recorded in the video. But they does show the consistency of the observed shape over a period over three years. I've tried to categorize the shapes as seen - some are seen multiple times, some only once. I made the following collage which shows their apparent freqency over time.

1689768393420.png


Although we don't see any movement of the UFO, we do see a change in the illumination of the object in this video at the 16m40s mark. The illuminated zone moves to the right and then returns after a while, only to do the same again at the 17m15s mark. Not sure what is happening here - would love to hear your ideas. To me - and I'm 100% hypothesising here - it looks kinda like the movement of the light of a lighthouse, or the movement of a car's headlights as it turns. If this isn't a change in illumination what could it be? An alternative explanation could be a change in exposure level - but I think that would be seen in all of the video image and would not be a movement from left to right which repeats 30 seconds later.


Source: https://youtu.be/Nhsz1Wkkp18?list=PLECuza9dWBDILMS7aIUFRLFQZZSHq4nef&t=1000


And whilst I was looking at that video I noticed a familiar towards the left hand side. The images below to me appear to show the outline of a humanoid lifeform, possibly an earthling (probably not an alien ;)). However, I am well aware of the effect of pareidolia and the brain's inane ability to seek out and recognise familiar shapes, even when they are not there.

1689769037537.png
1689769204021.png


Would love to hear your thoughts. (especially yours @Z.W. Wolf )
 
Last edited:
@flarkey - good catch on the Blue Thunder reference. It is indeed.

Although we don't see any movement of the UFO, we do see a change in the illumination of the object in this video at the 16m40s mark. The illuminated zone moves to the right and then returns after a while, only to do the same again at the 17m15s mark. Not sure what is happening here - would love to hear your ideas. To me - and I'm 100% hypothesising here - it looks kinda like the movement of the light of a lighthouse, or the movement of a car's headlights as it turns. If this isn't a change in illumination what could it be? An alternative explanation could be a change in exposure level - but I think that would be seen in all of the video image and would not be a movement from left to right which repeats 30 seconds later.

Source: https://youtu.be/Nhsz1Wkkp18?list=PLECuza9dWBDILMS7aIUFRLFQZZSHq4nef&t=1000
I too was analyzing this and had very similar thoughts. I actually went through frame-by-frame and discovered that the change in illumination appeared more likely to be non-mechanical (lighthouse or security spotlight) base on the movement itself. At one point it stops/pauses halfway through the change. It also could be something blocking a brighter illumination source. Car/truck/trailer passing between or similar.

And whilst I was looking at that video I noticed a familiar towards the left hand side. The images below to me appear to show the outline of a humanoid lifeform, possibly an earthling (probably not an alien ;)). However, I am well aware of the effect of pareidolia and the brain's inane ability to seek out and recognise familiar shapes, even when they are not there.

1689769037537.png
1689769204021.png
I don't see a human shape there. I actually see a tree with trunk, branches and leaves. The way it's illumination changes is indicative that it is an object within the scene. the "UFO" also appears to be framed by bushes on the bottom. It is very apparent on this shot due to the high illumination and what appears to be better focus at points.
 
Are there english transcripts or translations to the voices from the videos? I don't see that info anywhere within this thread or elsewhere.
 
The biggest gripe I have is why the supposed 'saucer' never moves, not even an inch in any of the sightings. Even if it was a CCTV feed you would see some kind of movement of colour changing. This makes me think it's more likely a small object like jewellery being filmed and zoomed into at close range. I guess we'll never know for sure but the CCTV theory is a longshot.
 
but we do see exactly that in the video that I linked to a few posts above - movement and a change in the image - not a change in colour but a change in illumination. We also do see a change in shape over time illustrated by the different 'saucer' shapes but we also see a consistent shape over time - with my hypothesis being that we see changing feeds from different cameras covering views around a property which do not change much themselves over the period of months and years..

My problem is that I haven't yet been able to identify the location or the property under surveillance. I completely accept that until I or someone else does this then it is indeed a longshot.
 
Here is another example of the scene changing within about 90 minutes. From May 13, 2009 @ 2:19 & 3:57. Again, the scene (shapes) are similar to ones recorded over the past three years. I personally would rule out the jewelry being recorded due to how little each of the four or five known shapes have changed over three years. More likely it is video feed from stationary cameras in my opinion.
 
I personally would rule out the jewelry being recorded due to how little each of the four or five known shapes have changed over three years.
Can you explain why? To me, it would seem extremely likely that a collection of 4-5 pieces of jewelry used for faking a UFO vid would continue to look the same for several years. Not trying to be snarky -- my early reaction to the vids was in line with the video feed from security cameras hypothesis, but lately I'm coming around to the bangle bracelets or something similar school of thought, and I'm interested in understanding your point here.
 
Can you explain why? To me, it would seem extremely likely that a collection of 4-5 pieces of jewelry used for faking a UFO vid would continue to look the same for several years. Not trying to be snarky -- my early reaction to the vids was in line with the video feed from security cameras hypothesis, but lately I'm coming around to the bangle bracelets or something similar school of thought, and I'm interested in understanding your point here.
As far as I can tell there is only one instance of the UFO in the same frame with a known object, the moon in this case. In order for the UFO to be a bengal or ring it would need to be fairly far away from the camera. I would estimate 15 - 25 feet.

In this same video @ 2:22 there are slight color changes which could be from recording a monitor. Also at that same point, the rightmost edge of the object apperas to change shape. I believe this is due to a tree swaying in the breeze within the scene silhouetting the brighter scene behind it.



The video with extreme changes in illumination NOT due to the videography changing the exposure manually would be hard to replicate with a small ring or bengal. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I think it is more likely that it a a larger scene getting illuminated by a larger light source. There are also larger objects in the scene than I believe would be present on a bengal. I see what appears to be a tree on the left side that gets illuminated. I see the silhouette of tree/bushes in the foreground of the bright scene that do not change luminosity at any point. Again, this is of course my own interpretation.

In the same video below @20:12 we see flickering when the videographer changes the exposure. This could be due to the image being recorded from a CRT display. I concede that an LED light source would prodce a similar effect.
 
One of the other criticisms of the the CCTV Video screen hypothesis (post #247& others) relates to the observed barrel distortion, ie if we are looking at the bottom of screen showing a wide angle camera image then the distorted 'curve' should go the other way... like in this image...

Screenshot_20230722_095659_Chrome.jpg


Wide angle CCTV cameras often use a fisheye lens to cover up to 360° around a point, and they can either be mounted on a wall or a ceiling, or even on a pole. This ensures that wide areas can be monitored and also ensures that any intruders in the general area will be recorded. In this way the fisheye camera can also simulate some of the features of a Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) camera).

https://info.verkada.com/security-cameras/fisheye-camera/

Screenshot_20230722_121326_Chrome.jpg


Fisheye CCTV systems have a feature called "Region of interest" which allows a section of the full image to be selected and then displayed as a rectangular image on a screen.

https://www.securitycameraking.com/securityinfo/fisheye-security-camera/
Screenshot_20230722_123438_Chrome.jpg



This lets the user have multiple 'virtual cameras' to cover areas around a single camera. However, due to the distortion in the original image, the spherical distortion can be carried across to the rectangular image.

Screenshot_20230722_121349_Chrome.jpg


This is what I think we are seeing in the Kumburgaz saucer videos - a selected region or regions recorded from a fisheye lens displayed on a rectangular screen. In modern CCTV systems the distortion can be removed by software with rectilinear correction , or "dewarping", of the curved image, but I believe that this option has to be selected and is only available in some systems.

https://info.verkada.com/compare/ptz-vs-fisheye-vs-multi-sensor-security-cameras/
Screenshot_20230722_205332_Chrome.jpg



This would account for the "barrel distortion" being the wrong way as previously suggested.

Screenshot_20230722_122653_Chrome.jpg


I still have some questions to answer regarding this - maybe someone can help with these. These are related to the fact that the Kumburgaz videos were recorded in 2007 to 2009 -

  • were regions of interest available in CCTV camera systems then?
  • Did they include rectilinear correction?
  • Is the correction automatically applied or does it need to be manually enabled?
Comments and criticism are of course welcome.
 
Last edited:
The videos are pointing almost exactly in the direction of Guzelce Marina. And look at this rusty old structure that is on the marina, with the opening pointing directly toward the cameraman in Kumburgaz. Most of the structure would be hidden by house tops that are in the way, but I think the very top might just be visible. This is at 123 degrees from north...which is exactly where the 'UFO' would have been if we argue the time as not 2.33am but 1.33am and the clock on the video is wrong ( I do recall reading somewhere that the clock is wrong....but I forget the details ). The marina is well lit, with a whole bunch of lights, two of which are tall lights just 50 feet or so away from structure and pointing towards it.

marina.jpg
 
Last edited:
I wonder if anybody on here has access to a close circuit system like that which is being theorized and can attempt to recreate something similar, would be interesting.
 
It occurs to me that there is another completely different way of looking at the whole sighting.....

If we assume that he is on max zoom when viewing the Moon ( especially as the maximum that he zooms the Moon to is always about the same ) well....we know that the Moon is 0.5 degrees across, and it fills half the video width of view. So at max zoom the field of view is 1 degree. And at max zoom the UFO covers about 1.5 screens...or 1.5 degrees. So the UFO is actually some 3 times larger than the apparent diameter of the Moon...which is never really apparent from the videos as he never has both in view at the same time.

Then all we need to do is ask, what reasonably fits within 1 degree at varying distances..

Well, at one mile, 1.5 degrees is 138 feet.
at 2 miles...............1.5 degrees is 276 feet
at 3 miles.................1.5 degrees is 414 feet
at 4 miles.................1.5 degrees is 552 feet
at 5 miles.................1.5 degrees is 690 feet

Those are the sizes the object must be at those distances.

This raises a problem for the cruise liner hypothesis, because even the biggest cruise ships in the world in 2008 were 124 feet in width ( For example the MSC Fantasia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSC_Fantasia

The Fantasia would have to be a mere mile away for it to fit the cruise liner hypothesis. A cruise liner at 2 miles would have to be 276 feet wide, which even the biggest liner in 2023 is 60 feet short of....and we are talking 2008, when the widest liners were 124 feet.

Not only that, but given the south east direction of the video, any cruise liner would have had to be a mile away, and just 1/3 of a mile offshore.

It is often assumed that any cruise liner filmed must have been miles away....with only the top superstructure visible above the horizon. But the above shows this cannot be the case. A cruise liner even 5 miles away would have to be almost 700 feet wide !

I thus suspect that what is in the videos is really something small and close.
 
It occurs to me that there is another completely different . So the UFO is actually some 3 times larger than the apparent diameter of the Moon...which is never really apparent from the videos as he never has both in view at the same time.
Not quite true. They are both in the FoV in this image. And the moon and the UFO are close to being the same size.

Screenshot_20230724_205139_YouTube_1.jpg


What I find interesting about this screenshot is the exposure. The moon is usually so bright, but the camera is turned down so much that it looks dull, but also that the UFO is almost the same brightness.
 
Last edited:
Not quite true. They are both in the FoV in this image. And the moon and the UFO are close to being the same size.

View attachment 60656

What I find interesting about this screenshot is the exposure. The moon is usually so bright, but the camera is turned down so much that it looks dull, but also that the UFO is almost the same brightness.

It needs a lot of enhancing to show the moon and UFO. And even then, it is not clear whether what appears for the UFO is just a bright segment at the top of the 'craft' or the entire structure. I would say, after just one application of auto enhance, that the UFO is actually brighter.

Even if one assesses the Moon and UFO to be the same size, 0.5 degrees, we just adjust the scale...

At one mile........... 0.5 degrees is 46 feet.
at 2 miles................0.5 degrees is 92 feet
at 3 miles.................0.5 degrees is 138 feet
at 4 miles.................0.5 degrees is 184 feet
at 5 miles.................0.5 degrees is 230 feet

We are still getting to the point where the size of the UFO at just 3 miles would be wider than the width ( 124 feet, as mentioned above ) of even the widest cruise liner at the time. And of course, a large part of the cruise liner argument is that the liner is sufficiently far away for the bulk of the ship to be beneath the horizon.....which I very much doubt would be the case at just 3 miles. Also, given the angle of viewing, a cruise liner 3 miles away would actually be just a mile offshore 3 miles away. It would be highly visible and obvious as a cruise liner !


I like this line of reasoning, as it places considerable restriction on what the UFO can possibly be. I personally think it debunks the cruise liner hypothesis and we need to look for something else. Another possibility I have considered is faulty optics, and the the UFO is actually some sort of reflection of the Moon itself.
 
Back
Top