2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey

so, for our CCTV hypothesis, for a typical monitor with a width of about 2ft to be 0.5° it would be at a distance of 1/23 of a mile = 76 yards or 70 metres.

So if the video was recorded from the steps of the Yeni Kent apartments then it would definitely have to be in a nearby building. (or flying over the sea)

Last edited:
so, for our CCTV hypothesis, for a typical monitor with a width of about 2ft to be 0.5° it would be at a distance of 1/23 of a mile = 76 yards or 70 metres.

So if the video was recorded from the steps of the Yeni Kent apartments then it would definitely have to be in a nearby building.

Well, using angular size allows me to rule out the structure on the marina that I posted earlier. I would estimate that structure to be about 50 feet high and wide ( based on comparison with the vehicle nearby ). The problem is, at 4.5 miles ( the distance of the marina ) that structure would be only 1/6 of a degree wide.....1/3 of the apparent diameter of the Moon.

Incidentally, some of the very end footage in the video in the OP reminds me very much of the infamous Israel kibutz 'UFO'. To my mind this provides the single biggest clue about the Turkey 'UFO'. The Israel UFO looks so genuinely like a metalic thing in the sky.......

......right up until the mind switches mode and you grasp that what you are actually seeing is simply the light from the windows and door of a trailer home a mile or so away. Once you have grasped what it really is, you cannot unsee it, and I think the end footage of the Turkey UFO is simply doors and windows too....

To my mind this is the classic example of how the eyes deceive. When told it is a metallic UFO in the sky, that is exactly what it at first looks like. It actually took me quite a while to figure out what it really is. And of course, once told what it really is.....you then can no longer see it as a metallic UFO in the sky...

Last edited:
I agree that it the two videos are similar, and also I agree that once you 'see' a solution in something then it is hard to see anything else (this is where I am with the CCTV screen and where @Z.W. Wolf is with the jewelry stand). Equally, if one is watching this video for the first time after being told it is x the best UFO evidence ever" and shows "a saucer craft " then that is probably what you'll see.

I don't agree that the end of the Turkey UFO video is doors and windows - in fact I can't see what you mean at all by this. Can you explain your thoughts?

so, for our CCTV hypothesis, for a typical monitor with a width of about 2ft to be 0.5° it would be at a distance of 1/23 of a mile = 76 yards or 70 metres.

So if the video was recorded from the steps of the Yeni Kent apartments then it would definitely have to be in a nearby building.
I suspect if this is CCTV footage which is my current best guess the monitor would be smaller than 2ft wide. Most systems I am familiar with back from 2008 would have been CRT and smaller. Closer to 8 to 15 inches (200 - 380mm). Now do the distance calculations based on that.

I took one of the UFO images with the largest arc and determined the diameter to be 2.2 times larger thatn the image. Using this info now do the distance from camera calculations for a bengal that would be approximately 3" or 75mm.

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.
The curvature of Earth is approximately 8 inches per mile squared for visible distances (the error gets larger with greater distance), so 8"×3² = 72" = 6 feet ≈ 2m for 3 miles. And for any camera position higher than ~5 ft. off the water, nothing at 3 miles would be hidden.

Another possibility I have considered is faulty optics, and the the UFO is actually some sort of reflection of the Moon itself.
That seems unlikely, considering you've observed the UFO being slightly brighter than the moon. Lens flares etc. are typically darker; a lens system can't be so badly designed that a parasitic light path gives more brightness than the main path, it'd be unusable.

While cleaning a guest bedroom this morning, I noticed this: sunlight reflecting off the vertical cylindrical pole of a floor lamp. It reminded me a bit of at least some of the pice of our UFO.

It also has a bit of the "ghostliness" of the UFO pics.

Dunno if it is a contender for a method to produce such images, but shared FWIW.

I don't agree that the end of the Turkey UFO video is doors and windows - in fact I can't see what you mean at all by this. Can you explain your thoughts?

To me this is clearly a lit up window. You can at times even see the 4 segments of it. Atmospheric turbulence adds a lot of motion to it....but to me it is exactly the same sort of thing as in the Israel kibutz video.....its a window...

To me this is clearly a lit up window. You can at times even see the 4 segments of it. Atmospheric turbulence adds a lot of motion to it....but to me it is exactly the same sort of thing as in the Israel kibutz video.....its a window...

View attachment 60699
yes, I see that now, it is definitely a window. But I don't think that anyone is claiming that part of the video is a UFO.

But I don't think that anyone is claiming that part of the video is a UFO.

As far as I can see, every anomalous object in the video is being presented as UFO. That would also include the odd blue line at 42.10. There is nothing that specifically says 'Its a UFO, but the odd blue line and the stuff beyond 42 minutes is not UFOs'...especially as some of the stuff prior to that is not the arc shaped UFO but is still being presented as 'odd lights in the sky'. There is no clear cut off point at which we leave the UFO arena. Maybe there should be. What's more, if this guy is videoing distant lights that could be mistaken for UFOs.....that in itself tells us a lot.

As far as I can see, every anomalous object in the video is being presented as UFO.
I've asked before if a translation exists. It would be extremely helpful to know what was being said by the videographer and those present at the time it was recorded.

I've asked before if a translation exists. It would be extremely helpful to know what was being said by the videographer and those present at the time it was recorded.
Extremely surprised no translation has yet been released of what is being said on the video considering it's been out for more than a decade. I'm assuming Turkish is being spoken?

Has the second person in the video ever been identified? I'm guessing if he hoaxed this the other person in question would be in on it.

According to a local where the alleged video was filmed says she saw him film it.

Maybe he did film something there but was hoaxing the majority of the footage.

Last edited by a moderator:
According to a local where the alleged video was filmed says she saw him film it.

Maybe he did film something there but was hoaxing the majority of the footage.

View attachment 61152
Note the standard UFO trope -- "It did all sorts of amazing inexplicable maneuvers and stuff which does not appear in any of the videos."

Note the standard UFO trope -- "It did all sorts of amazing inexplicable maneuvers and stuff which does not appear in any of the videos."
I will confess that the first thought that jumped out to me about that post was "so he's into NFTs?".

to me it looks like close ups of ball bearings... possibly damaged on the outer rim

Last edited by a moderator:
Apologies if this is going to make no sense at all... The dome has always looked very reminiscent of an astronomical observatory to me so I wanted to see if I could find a building like that anywhere across the water. A building would also make sense because whatever it was seems to have been very stationary. Is there any way it could be a Fata Morgana of one of the huge gas containers across the Marmara sea here in Sultanköy? They're about 40km/24 mi across the water. I looked at photos of them here and they look like they could be a match, shape wise. The domed tanks on the ship that's pictured to dock there could be candidates as well?

Attachments

• 5ccaa60e97e3002.05.2019Yeni resimler 039.JPG
233.4 KB · Views: 70
• 5ccaa60e9130f02.05.2019Ekran Alıntısı-1515.JPG
348.5 KB · Views: 87
• 5ccaa60e97b1702.05.2019lngkapak.JPG
236.2 KB · Views: 61
• 5ccaa60e8197202.05.2019DJI_0001.00_05_26_15.Still015 (1).jpg
340.1 KB · Views: 80
• 1.png
1.3 MB · Views: 56
• 2.png
2.5 MB · Views: 76
To me this is clearly a lit up window. You can at times even see the 4 segments of it. Atmospheric turbulence adds a lot of motion to it....but to me it is exactly the same sort of thing as in the Israel kibutz video.....its a window...

View attachment 60699
I already identified this. It's a small squid boat with lights hanging on a boom on the starboard side.

It's bow on to us. Masthead light in the center. Red light on our right is the red port navigation light. The green is the starboard navigation light.

See next post for several other "strange lights" offshore.

Last edited:
Yalcin also videoed some things in the sky and offshore.

See:
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.
View attachment 43847
White arrows - A groove in side of the hoop.
Green arrow - a nick the hoop.

View attachment 43848
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.
View attachment 43850

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.
View attachment 43852

Or more likely an inboard like this one; with a smooth transom.
View attachment 43861

View attachment 43868
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.

View attachment 43865

All these are from that same video.

These are lights on a distant cargo ship, on a misty early morning.
View attachment 43854View attachment 43855

The landing lights of a distant aircraft.
View attachment 43858

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.
View attachment 43859

View attachment 43860

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.
View attachment 43883

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.
View attachment 43862

Attachments

Last edited:
According to a local where the alleged video was filmed says she saw him film it.

Maybe he did film something there but was hoaxing the majority of the footage.

View attachment 61152
This can all be explained as lights out at sea, or perhaps a distant shore. The antics can be explained by mirage effects and saccadic eye movements, or lights on aircraft. Dimming and brigthening can be lights on aircraft getting nearer or farther or mist getting thicker or thinner. This is really thin stuff.

I just showed above that Yalcin was shooting, what he considered, strange lights offshore. Not so strange really.

I speculate that Yalcin moved on to hoaxing videos because he was frustrated and wanted to redeem his public image by getting spectacular flying saucer videos.

There are precedents to this kind of thing; Including the McMinnville UFO hoax photos.

Last edited:
For the record (as I couldnt find this article linked in this forum), the original 2010 analysis by Andrés Duarte, titled Los ovnis de Kumburgaz son ventanas de lanchas, is linked below via Google Translate.

[article url=https://acanopus-wordpress-com.translate.goog/2010/06/06/los-ovnis-de-kumburgaz-son-ventanas-de-lanchas/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp]

Kumburgaz UFOs are boat windows​

By Andrés Duarte (Canopus Group)
During some early mornings in the spring and summer of 2007, 2008 and 2009, a man named Yalcin Yalman recorded dozens of videos of alleged UFOs from a beach in Kumburgaz, Turkey, which has been documented by Sirius UFO [1-6]. Here are part of the videos in chronological order:

This case is considered not very credible by several researchers and ufology fans, for various reasons that do not need to be explained here. Most hypotheses about the origin of the phenomenon refer to objects located at the level of the land or sea surface, such as domes or domes of buildings, ships, submarines, ventilation caps, oil platforms, etc. The boat hypothesis has been presented in some forums since 2008 [7-12]. After a detailed analysis, this idea leads to the windows hypothesis that will be discussed in the rest of this article.

...

Now we can summarize the probable characteristics of the alleged UFOs to propose a specific hypothesis: the objects are flat or slightly curved mirror surfaces, there are different designs, they could be part of a larger object that is not seen due to the conditions of lighting and recording, they are possibly plates of transparent material, they are probably in the sea. All this leads us to the following hypothesis: the objects would be "shark fin" or "butterfly" style side windows, on certain boats and small yachts, such as those in figure 8.[/article]
I came across the Kumburgaz story and the above analysis some years ago. Whilst I'm no photography expert, these videos of extreme optical distortion never struck me as being particularly interesting or impressive.

Last edited:
I came across the Kumburgaz story and the above analysis some years ago. Whilst I'm no photography expert, these videos of extreme optical distortion never struck me as being particularly interesting or impressive.

The difficulty anyone has with this is trying to show that the 'curved shape' is actually due to optical distortion (which I do) as opposed to its physical characteristics (ie a saucer shape).

Its interesting to note that the 'optical distortion' is only visible in the parts of the video shot at night showing the 'ufo' , and not in the daylight videos of the beach, surrounding area and boats - so it seems unlikely that it is the optics of the recording device that are causing the distortion. The optical distortion isn't even visible in the zoomed out final-scene when the moon is visible, it is only apparent when the camera zooms in on the 'saucer' - which again fits with the idea that the 'zoomed in ufo' is in fact a TV screen showing a scene from a different camera, which is where the optical distortion originates.

The other camera lens is either fisheye or wide angle, which causes the curved shape of the ufo.

I supect the 'ufo with an open hatch' is actually a gate or opening in a wall, kinda like the one seen in the image below (although not this one), I haven't yet found a suitable location. And as this event was ~13 years ago it might not even exist any more.

Last edited:
Yes, believers skip past the plausability of "anomalies" in these videos being visually distorted in the extreme, and dive directly into their interpretation.

The analysis by Mario Valdes (discussed in post #239 and #240) is a good example which includes "creative" drawings of perceived alien figures.

After a retweet by Joe Rogan, this beast was given new legs to run, as in the following discussion on reddit. This is interspersed with occassional voices of logical dissent that I was pleasantly surprised to read!

With out question since it's been posted right up to today this is the best UFO footage ever.
...

AVBforPrez
This is a big "...sigh" from me.

While I love the video, the overall scenario doesn't make a lot of sense. So a visible UFO - with alien occupants, in plain view - was appearing on a regular basis, in a set place, for hours at a time. Yet - the only person who captured any footage of it is a guy who runs a UFO conference, and its appearances didn't attract other filmmakers or angles?
That just doesn't feel right to me. I'm not some hardcore skeptic, but I can't see a world where this scenario makes sense if it's legit. If they had multiple YEARS to prepare to film this thing, why does only one guy have footage of it, and footage that's filtered through a pepper's ghost setup?
[/article]

Last edited by a moderator:
I found this video that has a good view of the Yeni Kent apartments and the surrounding area from the sea, The white gazebos over to the left hand side are where Yalcin claims to have recorded the ufo video from. The street-light that is mentioned early in this thread is visible

External Quote:

Been studying these videos for a long time. It is impossible to fully prove or disprove these videos, we will never know if there was a hoax. But one thing I know for sure, if they were observed more than once, why the operator did not give a request to the Air Force that they would fly fighter jets to the UFO and try to shoot from their angle on better cameras. Ideally, the operator and the fighter jets would have filmed at the same time, but alas. Then there would be no doubt. And so on the video can be anything, moments on the shape of the UFO in general resembles a faucet in the sink.

why the operator did not give a request to the Air Force that they would fly fighter jets to the UFO
Pretty sure the operator in this case has no authority to request fighter jets to attend the scene.

Anybody can make a request... might be ignored, of course.

why the operator did not give a request to the Air Force that they would fly fighter jets to the UFO and try to shoot from their angle on better cameras.

Turkey has borders with some interesting neighbours, and sometimes hostile relations with non-state groups in border areas, as well as traditionally complex relationships with Greece and Cyprus. In 2015 Turkish F-16s downed a Russian Su24 Flogger in Turkish airspace.

It costs a lot to use a modern military fighter jet, there's the fuel etc., and many nations take into account the wear-and-tear on the airframe because of the high acquisition costs of each aircraft.

Speculation on my part, but if the Turkish Air Force had been informed of the "UFO" sightings, I'm guessing there would be a quick check with civil and air defence radar and an equally quick evaluation of any security issues for the locality in question.
If there were no additional concerns I'm guessing that, like some of their European partners, the Turkish AF would conclude there was nothing of immediate defence significance, would record this in some logbook and leave it at that.

Tradition has it to send the local sheriff out. The police are able to enter the sighting into official record if they can confirm it, and might have the authority to escalate this up. Maybe a helicopter would be better anyway?

Been studying these videos for a long time. It is impossible to fully prove or disprove these videos, we will never know if there was a hoax. But one thing I know for sure, if they were observed more than once, why the operator did not give a request to the Air Force that they would fly fighter jets to the UFO and try to shoot from their angle on better cameras. Ideally, the operator and the fighter jets would have filmed at the same time, but alas. Then there would be no doubt. And so on the video can be anything, moments on the shape of the UFO in general resembles a faucet in the sink.

Rather than calling the military and getting ignored they should find some fellow enthusiasts and recruit them for the effort. Next time the object is seen call them up and have them try to capture the object with their own cameras from their own locations. Multiple views from multiple directions is both a way to confirm that something was actually seen and provides a way for the location and speed of the object to be determined. But those who see such things seem to wish to have exclusive photos and videos, so they don't have to share the publicity (and maybe money) with others with pictures to sell.

One person seeing something is far easier to ignore than many people seeing the same thing from many directions. But so often when groups claim to see something they are standing shoulder to shoulder, not looking from different directions.

Rather than calling the military and getting ignored they should find some fellow enthusiasts and recruit them for the effort. Next time the object is seen call them up and have them try to capture the object with their own cameras from their own locations. Multiple views from multiple directions is both a way to confirm that something was actually seen and provides a way for the location and speed of the object to be determined. But those who see such things seem to wish to have exclusive photos and videos, so they don't have to share the publicity (and maybe money) with others with pictures to sell.

One person seeing something is far easier to ignore than many people seeing the same thing from many directions. But so often when groups claim to see something they are standing shoulder to shoulder, not looking from different directions.

Something tells me these particular UFOs could only be recorded by one particular operator under circumstances he entirely controlled.

That is the conclusion I reached after reading this excellent thread. (Not proved absolutely, but sufficiently for my needs.)

Hey @PaulofNZ - welcome to Metabunk. First off nice debunking-live video! - I'm not going to claim that I have watched all 2h53m50s of it but I've watched your other videos. For a while I too thought that the image might be an internal reflection of some of the lens hardware. I think it was suggested earlier in the thread. TBH - I'm not convinced by it yet, but I'm not at the point of rejecting it either. I think the hypothesis works in some of the UFO scenes but not others. I think if Yalcin (the witness) faked the video, or was mistaken and honestly captured what he was seeing, the method would be consistent throughout the video - ie any suggested hypothesis should fit all cases. So bearing that in mind - here are some critical thoughts from me for you to consider.

If we are seeing parts of the internal workings of a lens how do you explain these scenes from the video:

You might know but - I have my own ideas as to how this was done which I have stated in this thread (around post 210). I'd love to hear your thoughts on my theory of it being a wide angle CCTV feed.

as I said I think he uses the filter slot to insert
the ring..after the rectangle thats used to clip bottom out of the video capturing going to sensor so its on a slight angle.. and potential to be
knocked and blurred. and 2007 he was practicing
and learning how to make it better to fool people
in fact someone on my group said the guy next to him is well known for hoaxing
as shown in my lens how false image is made he has to focus
on it using the teleconverter adapter which is behind the telescope
part.. believe im correct on most of my debunks like guardian ufo
being a night time harvest combine harvester and skinny bob being a mix
of cgi silicon and puppets and socoro being surveyor 3 prototype
being tested by howard hughs tool corp very close symbol and owner
of a special heavy lifting heli thats looks like a egg
ufology is full of naysayers and gullible

For a while I too thought that the image might be an internal reflection of some of the lens hardware. I think it was suggested earlier in the thread.
I suggested it five years ago, as it reminded me of my lenses

But I also noted:

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

As for Lehto hes easily mistaken or tricked.. If she claims sees them all the time
and move up and down.. wheres the footage,, millions live there and he went
and didnt record such lights? also now days its common around beaches
for drones.. maybe not back in 2008 but certainly now.
and lets face it as I said the guy could pull it off like I said with a mod
he did to the camera was easy to pull of the trick with many watching.. I also show chats on others talking about see reflected
rings on their teleconverters and having to mod them to rid the artifact..

also he believes Dr Greer who faked light beings with cactus trees mpths and distort
camera fling and enhanced them in photoshop see my lady in red one and the joshua tree
I have playlists with them easy to find.. look for truth on dr greer.

Paul

Off topic too. remember Lehtos Aussie UFO.. well thats
just a desktop led fan.. you can here the fan noise
some said sounded like air con or electric train.
but maybe electric train in background QLD Aus
use the everywhere.
but some frames can see typical fan grill

yes he clearly tried different lens parts to see which would look good 2008 he worked it out and 2009 he had it down pat to trick Dr Leir remember its a reflection so it would not be as sharp.. and the blacks would blend with the dark BG. Yes I think I suggest lens rim maybe first years ago.. this is a new look and improved explanation.. still some say its LEGIT UFO.. but really it looks like a bottom cropped lens part and some are really bad and obvious.. [...]

Last edited by a moderator:

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
100
Views
5K
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1K
Views
182K