2008 UFO Footage From Kumburgaz, Turkey

[PaulofNZ]

I suggested it five years ago, as it reminded me of my lenses
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2008-ufo-footage-from-kumburgaz-turkey.9844/post-224091
View attachment 65153

But I also noted:

but I explain how it was done with the parts I found
the notches and levers so seem to match up. its 100 percent fake the fact the aliens would have to be huge and no roof on the window.. convertible UFO..

its funny I did first live on it Nov 11, 2019 as well
but I didnt have camera.. I just researched it and looked
at the camera parts at the time. Ideally if had same camera and parts
could replicate it Im sure, Night Paul

 

[JMartJr]

For a while I too thought that the image might be an internal reflection of some of the lens hardware.

Possibly not internal -- if you are holding a camera up to a window with a dark background, and the camera is lit, you might get something like this. (Pic taken holding camera very close to the glass and holding a flashlight above it.) The little arc at the bottom is a reflection of the illuminated barrel (terminology?) of the lens.

I'll edit this post after it gets dark here, when I can try with a darker background, if the results are better I'll add another pic.

That still leaves issues with why the details of the reflected camera bit would not be more consistent, maybe there is some control of that by tilting the camera, reflecting off of distorted bits of glass, or even messing about with sticking stuff on the camera to alter the reflection, going for an intended new effect or just a random something new.

EDIT AS PROMISED: Though I'm no longer thinking this is plausible as an explanation, due ot how the UFO moves about frame when the camera shakes, while when I shook my camera the reflection of the camera stayed in place I did go back tonight and try with a night background -- shooting the reflection of the camera in a window. It looks closer, though too many rings and I'd need a softer light, and would need to control for some errant light where I don't want it... and my camera has the disadvantage that my fingers are unfortunately positioned! But with enough time and effort and a similar camera to the one Mr. Yalman had maybe I could get pretty close...

 

[Mick West]

but I explain how it was done with the parts I found

Perhaps you could make a 2 minutes demonstration replicating the images? Nobody is going to watch two hours.

 

[flarkey]

Hmm, I still think these images have depth and light diffusion that wouldn't be likely in an internal lens hoaxing methodology.

Also when looking at the Kumburgaz video I tend to use this version, which is stabilized.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhsz1Wkkp18&list=PLECuza9dWBDILMS7aIUFRLFQZZSHq4nef&index=8

 

[JMartJr]

Also when looking at the Kumburgaz video I tend to use this version, which is stabilized.

I had forgotten how much the UFO moves around from camera shake in some of these vids. That would argue against the idea of the camera being reflected in, say, a window, as I referenced in #322. I think you could maybe cause that effect if the glass was wobbling, maybe? But it starts to get pretty complicated at this point, Pepper's Ghosting something other than a curved bit of the camera would be simpler at some point.

So shove that idea onto the back burner I suppose.

 

[flarkey]

I had forgotten how much the UFO moves around from camera shake in some of these vids. That would argue against the idea of the camera being reflected in, say, a window, as I referenced in #322.

I don't follow what you mean here. A shaky camera doesn't change how a faked UFO scene was faked. For me a shaky scene in a camera only suggests that the object was not up close (less than a m) but rather was 'far' (comparatively, say tens of m) away.

I still think there is some supporting evidence that the object is a reflection, (somewhere) particularly the rain affecting the image in one section of the video

 

[JMartJr]

I don't follow what you mean here.

Sorry -- I mean, if the camera is shaky, and the UFO is a reflection of the camera in a window, as I'd been toying with in Post 322, then I'd expect the reflection to track with the camera and not be visibly bobbing around all over the frame. (NOTE: this is not an internal reflection I am talking about, it is an arc-shaped bit of the camera, reflected externally while shooting through a window.) Camera moves left, reflection moves left, etc. If the UFO is a reflection of something else or an actual something off in the distance, it WOULD bob around the frame due to camera shake. Does that make sense?

I still think there is some supporting evidence that the object is a reflection, (somewhere) particularly the rain affecting the image in one section of the video

That seems very likely to me, perhaps a Pepper's Ghost thing, perhaps using the bangles Z.W. Wolf proposed, iirc.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on my theory of it being a wide angle CCTV feed.

Not who you asked, but I saw that very strongly in some of the vids, particualrly ones like this:

where I think I see a low wall, a passway through it onto the beach, and hints of surf or stuff on the beach through the opening.

When I recall old TVs/monitors with a curved edge to the CRT screen, that seems to possibly account for the curved cut off at the bottom of the UFO -- perhaps it is the image being cut off by the bottom of the screen?

Bangles, possibly reflected for a ghostly look, or something possibly security cam footage on a CRT screen, remain very plausible in my mind. I can;t convince myself that either looks like every one of the UFO shots -- which may just mean that Mr/ Yalman was cleverer than me.

(It' just now occurred to me to wonder if one would Pepper's Ghost a CRT screen, if looking for a cool effect...)

 

[flarkey]

Not who you asked, but I saw that very strongly in some of the vids, particualrly ones like this:
View attachment 65194
where I think I see a low wall, a passway through it onto the beach, and hints of surf or stuff on the beach through the opening.

exactly. this is my top hypothesis at the moment for what this is. Remember that the 'gap' is where the supposed alien heads were seen. I think they were these boats on stilts seen elsewhere in the video.

(boats flipped horizontally to fit in with the reflection theory)

 

[PaulofNZ]

I had forgotten how much the UFO moves around from camera shake in some of these vids. That would argue against the idea of the camera being reflected in, say, a window, as I referenced in #322. I think you could maybe cause that effect if the glass was wobbling, maybe? But it starts to get pretty complicated at this point, Pepper's Ghosting something other than a curved bit of the camera would be simpler at some point.

So shove that idea onto the back burner I suppose.

this is common for teleconverter it amps up shake

 

[PaulofNZ]

Perhaps you could make a 2 minutes demonstration replicating the images? Nobody is going to watch two hours.

why bother you just delete it

 

[PaulofNZ]

Possibly not internal -- if you are holding a camera up to a window with a dark background, and the camera is lit, you might get something like this. (Pic taken holding camera very close to the glass and holding a flashlight above it.) The little arc at the bottom is a reflection of the illuminated barrel (terminology?) of the lens.
View attachment 65157
I'll edit this post after it gets dark here, when I can try with a darker background, if the results are better I'll add another pic.

That still leaves issues with why the details of the reflected camera bit would not be more consistent, maybe there is some control of that by tilting the camera, reflecting off of distorted bits of glass, or even messing about with sticking stuff on the camera to alter the reflection, going for an intended new effect or just a random something new.

EDIT AS PROMISED: Though I'm no longer thinking this is plausible as an explanation, due ot how the UFO moves about frame when the camera shakes, while when I shook my camera the reflection of the camera stayed in place I did go back tonight and try with a night background -- shooting the reflection of the camera in a window. It looks closer, though too many rings and I'd need a softer light, and would need to control for some errant light where I don't want it... and my camera has the disadvantage that my fingers are unfortunately positioned! But with enough time and effort and a similar camera to the one Mr. Yalman had maybe I could get pretty close...

View attachment 65199

he did it outside though with witnesses see it on the side LCD I covered it in the 3 hr live.. if you are a real ufologist you put in the time.. dont need 5min demos

 

[PaulofNZ]

exactly. this is my top hypothesis at the moment for what this is. Remember that the 'gap' is where the supposed alien heads were seen. I think they were these boats on stilts seen elsewhere in the video.

View attachment 65201

alien heads are just micro screws its not too hard to see this.. it cant be a ship you can see the viewing angle and the spec from the moon as I show in my presentation.. ship match is way lame however as I show the red lights are a wind farm other side of the bay fata morgana

 

[JMartJr]

I covered it in the 3 hr live.

I am sure you can understand that I'm not going to sit through three hours looking for that one bit. If you are going to refer us to your presentation, rather than present your thoughts and evidence here, could you at least give us a time-stamp for the relevant bit?

 

[Ann K]

if you are a real ufologist you put in the time.

On the whole, we are NOT "real ufologists" here.

 

[flarkey]

I recently found this video (supposedly of a 'UAP" that looks like spider silk) that shows a lot of similarity with the Kumburgaz video and my CCTV theory. The grey hue, the curved shape, the points of light in the distance, the changing scene. That, along with the fact that the main witness was a security guard, and the other evidence/analysis that suggests a cathode-ray monitor, I think (with my own bias, obviously) explains what we are seeing.

What I accept I haven't determined yet is 1) where was the TV screen located and 2) what are the scenes being shown.

 

[Scaramanga]

I have zero doubt that the Turkey 'UFO' is yet another of those videos where it looks mysterious until the brain clicks and you realise...and then cannot un-see...what it actually is. A classic example is the fairly well known Hatzor Kibbutz UFO in Israel in 1996. It looks like it is in the sky. It looks really odd....like some metallic object in the sky. Must be aliens in a UFO !

But then, the minute you grasp that it is actually just the side window and door of a mobile home on a hill nearby....the illusion collapses. The 'metallic' appearance, which looks like light shining 'onto' the craft is just an illusion and the light is actually coming from inside a window and door. The object appears to be in the sky because no context is given and the rest of the scene is dark. I must confess this video stumped even me....until my brain grasped what I was actually seeing. And I suspect the exact same is true of the Turkey 'UFO'.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgzv5tDmUY

 

[JMartJr]

have zero doubt that the Turkey 'UFO' is yet another of those videos where it looks mysterious until the brain clicks and you realise...and then cannot un-see...what it actually is.

Possibly, the issue with this one is there are several very different explanations that some of us have had suddenly click and now it's hard to unsee! Proving which one, if any, is the right one is the tricky bit.

Still, there is value in that "aha!" moment... a great example is the Clearest Orb Ever. I won't spoil it by giving away the answer here... but it us worthwhile thread to read.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...-photo-of-orb-captured-by-photographer.13182/

 

[Scaramanga]

Possibly, the issue with this one is there are several very different explanations that some of us have had suddenly click and now it's hard to unsee! Proving which one, if any, is the right one is the tricky bit.

I tend to favour the theory ( presented earlier in this thread, and by Flarkey just above ) that what is being seen is a curved image of car headlights reflecting off a road....via some sort of a fish-eye type security camera lens.

 

[Joshua_88]

I have read all the theories here and still can't see how this amateur filmer that's a full time security guard can pull of such an elaborate hoax which no one to this day has been able to debunk after all these years. One of the best ufo videos i've seen.

 

[flarkey]

I have read all the theories here and still can't see how this amateur filmer that's a full time security guard can pull of such an elaborate hoax which no one to this day has been able to debunk after all these years. One of the best ufo videos i've seen.

By making claims about a video that is of such poor quality that it could literally be anything. It is not 'clearly' anything, but looks a bit like a flying saucer. Any debunk claim is hard to stick because it can be dismissed as not looking like what is seen in the blurry, pixelated, shaky video.

This case is one of the best examples of the LIZ - low information zone.

 

[Mendel]

One of the best ufo videos i've seen.

Show this to someone who doesn't know what it is (and don't tell them anything about it). I'd be very surprised if they think it's a UFO.

I can take a blurry, distorted picture of anything, post it on the Internet, and go "ha ha, bet you can't tell what this is!" That doesn't mean it's a UFO.

With a good picture/video, you ought to be able to clearly tell it's a UFO.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I have read all the theories here and still can't see how this amateur filmer that's a full time security guard can pull of such an elaborate hoax which no one to this day has been able to debunk after all these years. One of the best ufo videos i've seen.

Weird that this huge, extraordinary, unexplained lit-up thing in the sky, which appeared many times over many months, was never filmed by anyone else except for the one guy.

 

[Scaramanga]

I have read all the theories here and still can't see how this amateur filmer that's a full time security guard can pull of such an elaborate hoax which no one to this day has been able to debunk after all these years. One of the best ufo videos i've seen.

I think that stance confuses skepticism and debunking.

The default position is skepticism the minute anyone makes a claim of anything out of the ordinary. And the burden of proof is entirely on the person making the claim to demonstrate that their claim is true. The skeptic does not actually have to 'do' anything. In that respect, the Turkey UFO has failed the skeptic test because at no time has the claimant provided any evidence to prove that a non-human craft is being observed.

Debunking is more a case of skeptics using the available data to demonstrate that the observed phenomenon is most likely not what is being claimed. The debunk position is one of ' Is it not more likely that object xyz is a balloon, or a meteor, or a bird, etc, etc '. In other words the debunker is saying ' Look, here's a bunch of more likely explanations for this event than it being aliens from the Pleiades '. So debunkers do not necessarily even all have to agree on one hypothesis....though with the more obvious cases they often do.

So although there is no one single debunker position on the Turkey UFO, the one thing you can be sure of is that every debunker considers their explanation a more likely one than visitation by aliens. So no....I don't have a 100% explanation for the object, but I am 100% convinced it is not aliens. I strongly suspect one of the explanations given in this thread is the right one.

Youtube is full of blurry videos where nobody could possibly ever 'prove' its not an alien craft. It seems to me to be a bit ass backwards to use that as a criteria for a 'best UFO' when really it is solely a criteria of 'shoddy video that nobody could ever identify'.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I think that stance confuses skepticism and debunking.

The default position is skepticism the minute anyone makes a claim of anything out of the ordinary. And the burden of proof is entirely on the person making the claim to demonstrate that their claim is true. The skeptic does not actually have to 'do' anything. In that respect, the Turkey UFO has failed the skeptic test because at no time has the claimant provided any evidence to prove that a non-human craft is being observed.

Debunking is more a case of skeptics using the available data to demonstrate that the observed phenomenon is most likely not what is being claimed. The debunk position is one of ' Is it not more likely that object xyz is a balloon, or a meteor, or a bird, etc, etc '. In other words the debunker is saying ' Look, here's a bunch of more likely explanations for this event than it being aliens from the Pleiades '. So debunkers do not necessarily even all have to agree on one hypothesis....though with the more obvious cases they often do.

So although there is no one single debunker position on the Turkey UFO, the one thing you can be sure of is that every debunker considers their explanation a more likely one than visitation by aliens. So no....I don't have a 100% explanation for the object, but I am 100% convinced it is not aliens. I strongly suspect one of the explanations given in this thread is the right one.

Youtube is full of blurry videos where nobody could possibly ever 'prove' its not an alien craft. It seems to me to be a bit ass backwards to use that as a criteria for a 'best UFO' when really it is solely a criteria of 'shoddy video that nobody could ever identify'.

Well put!

 

[Watcher]

I would like to add strong evidence of TV screen hypothesis.


Source: https://youtu.be/Nhsz1Wkkp18?t=720


See this stabilized footage 12:03
Where the "ufo" fades.

1. Notice ufo fading is not continuous, but 4 levels of stepped exposure decrease
2. Also notice with exact same timing, there are "tv knob noises" exactly matching those stepped exposure decrease.

Therefore, this is a big debunk stamp that he was handling TV(why bring tv with telescope to the beach?) and the footage is tv screen.


Additional gathered evidence(from this forum and my opinion) that indicating this is a tv screen

1. When the exposure is low, TV like flickering occurs

Source: https://youtu.be/Nhsz1Wkkp18?t=720


2. The "craft" closely resembles a road or tunnel with wide fov cctv camera.
3. "Shapeshifting" moment is just change in sun direction or light sources.


Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhsz1Wkkp18&t=1001

16:41

see this and it is more close to "road with changing light conditions" than"metalic craft changing shape"

4. Blue pixel bleeding when exposure is high, as like crt display would
5. Tv knob noises over time
6. Focus mismatch with moon and ufo(as like ufo is close to the camera)

 

[flarkey]

@Watcher nice post. The only thing I have to add is regarding the 'CRT Screen' hypothesis. I agree that the majority of the 'black and white disc UFO' is a wide angle CCTV feed seen on a CRT monitor, however the very last segment of the Kumburgaz video (from 17 May 2009) looks different to all the other segments. It appears to be in color. What I think has happened here is a change from a CRT montor to an LCD screen. The outer edges of the scene look more square / less curved as you'd expect with an LCD monitor, plus the other effects of blue-blooming, scan bars etc aren't seen in this last section of the videos. This was the last time that Yalcin saw & recorded the 'UFO'. Maybe from this point on the 'saucer shape' was less undefined and the craft/sighting was no longer in the LIZ? The tv screen no longer resembles a saucer.

This is where I think the LCD screen kicks in...

Source: https://youtu.be/Nhsz1Wkkp18?t=2010

Although I have pushed the tv screen hypothesis, I don't claim to have come up with it. I first saw the idea on this blog page:
https://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-turkish-ufo-case-les-videos-de.html

So if you think its a tv screen - where do you think it is showing?

 

[Watcher]

I think it is road inside a tunnel.
It can be hard to pinpoint since it can remotely be anywhere, since its a recorded footage.

1. The "craft"s occasional features can be doors or props, wall markings inside a tunnel.
2. Localized emissions, they can be tunnel lights
3. "shape shifting" footage: explainable by sunshaft leaking thru tunnel entrance.

So my proposal is

Its either tunnel or open road.
It can explain most of(if not all) night footages.

For example this one is a traffic cone.

 

[FatPhil]

I would like to add strong evidence of TV screen hypothesis.


Source: https://youtu.be/Nhsz1Wkkp18?t=720

See this stabilized footage 12:03
Where the "ufo" fades.

1. Notice ufo fading is not continuous, but 4 levels of stepped exposure decrease
2. Also notice with exact same timing, there are "tv knob noises" exactly matching those stepped exposure decrease.

Therefore, this is a big debunk stamp that he was handling TV(why bring tv with telescope to the beach?) and the footage is tv screen.

That's also the sound of simply changing the gain control on a camera. I agree, the fade is stepped and in sync with the clicks, but that doesn't prove the clicks are from playback rather than capture. I of course accept that in video capture, gain control is more likely to be automatic (you'd set one of the A/T parameters, and the camera would adjust the other one to compensate whilst maintaining the same metering), so if anything your suggestion remains the more likely absent more infomation about the footage.

 

[Ravi]

A little heads up, a youtube channel @UAPFilesPodcast has made a podcast with an interview with Yalçın Yalman. It is at 2300 Uk time. Perhaps interesting to listen what he has to say.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7D6Fr2wWx8

 

[taurusclover21]

A little heads up, a YouTube channel @The SneezingMonkey made a podcast about the Yalçın Yalman videos. It may be interesting to listen to what he says, Metabunk comments referenced therein.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm93JuW3zUk

 

[NorCal Dave]

A little heads up, a youtube channel @UAPFilesPodcast has made a podcast with an interview with Yalçın Yalman.

A little heads up, a YouTube channel @The SneezingMonkey made a podcast about the Yalçın Yalman videos.

So, is Yalman making the UFO podcast/YouTube rounds now 16 years later? Does he get into exactly where he was standing and exactly where these UFOs showed up and why nobody else ever made similar recordings? He knew where they would be and how to video them. He never once brought some others along to join in with their cameras?

 

[flarkey]

A little heads up, a YouTube channel @The SneezingMonkey made a podcast about the Yalçın Yalman videos. It may be interesting to listen to what he says, Metabunk comments referenced therein.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm93JuW3zUk

Wow, I was pleasantly surprised by this breakdown. He explains my CCTV theory well, and the other hypotheses.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I should put all of my scattered arguments in one place. I'll get to that... some time.

In the meantime...

This is why this idea is not credible: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2008-ufo-footage-from-kumburgaz-turkey.9844/page-8#post-308484

An internal camera artifact,, a reflection of a part of the
lens adapter for the tele-converter

It's impossible. You can't get a focused image of the surface of an internal part of the lens.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Very briefly. The video of May 17, 2009 is crucial. Any theory has to explain how Yalcin could get the Moon and the UFO in the same shot like this. When I've raised this point before, it just gets bleeped over.




We see an outdoor light and the Moon in the same frame. An obvious mistake. Yalcin exclaims and ends the shot. He didn't mean to get that lamp in the shot. The Moon and the lamp are in focus at the same time. That establishes that the camera is outdoors.

(I think the image of the lamp is a reflection in a window, thus the lamp and the Moon are in the same focal plane.)

Then a few minutes later we see the UFO and the Moon in the same frame. The UFO and the Moon are at different distances, because they are not in focus at the same time. This means that the UFO must be a nearby object. In my scenario, the UFO is a bracelet about 30 feet from the camera.

This fits, optically, with everything we see. The image of the bracelet is small when the lens is zoomed out and large when it the lens is zoomed in. The apparent size of the UFO image is consistent with this in both situations. We see nothing else in the frame, because the structure is in deep shadow while the bracelet is brightly lit. No stars, no ground lights, no aircraft lights are ever visible in any of these model UFO videos.

This also is good evidence that the camera was outdoors at the time all the similar UFO videos were shot.

We have a good idea of where Yalcin stood when he made these videos. No one has disputed this point. He was right here.

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


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

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

This is a frame from a Yalcin video. The tallest knobs are located where the banisters meet the railing.

The dark ring is caused by the overly large lens hood Yalcin was using. It's visible when the lens is zoomed out.

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

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


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

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

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

We know where the Moon would be from Yalcin's viewpoint on May 17, 2009 at 3:06 a.m. I've put it where it should be.

This insert is from the video and shows the Moon in the upper left and the very small, un-zoomed image of the UFO in the lower right corner, at the same time. This insert is a bit small but I wanted to clearly show the approximate position in relation of the Moon to the tree and of the UFO to the window. The Moon is peeking above the tree and the UFO is in the window. (I think the UFO model was lower down in the window. Again, I made the insert a bit small, only for the sake of clarity. Imagine it a bit bigger.)

Additionally, we know that Jupiter was near the Moon at that time... but it is not visible in the video. Why? Because it's blocked by the tree.

I say that the UFO models, the bracelets, were either in the widnow directly behind the glass, or were reflected in the glass in the manner of a Pepper's Ghost illusion.

I say that this was the standard set up. Yalcin always stood here at the Yeni Kent Apts and the UFO/bracelets were always in this window.

On this night of May 17, 2009, Yalcin was able to get the Moon and UFO in the same shot, just because the Moon was fortuitously in this spot in the sky.

In whatever scenario anyone wants to present, you've got to take this particular video into account and every detail in the video must be accounted for. This can't be glossed over.

 

[flarkey]

Very briefly. The video of May 17, 2009 is crucial. Any theory has to explain how Yalcin could get the Moon and the UFO in the same shot like this. When I've raised this point before, it just gets bleeped over.

I agree it is crucial, and it fits in with my CCTV theory. The 17 May 2009 was the last scene recorded, and it looks noticably different to the other scenes - the UFO appears to have some colour and the parts of it can be seen n much higher detail. However, it does bear some resemblance to other scenes - the image below shows the 6 Nov 2011 scene which has some of the same featues in it,

What I think has happend here is that the old black and white CRT CCTV monitor has been replaced by a colour LCD monitor. This now shows the 'ufo' in too much detail and Yalcin in no longer able to pass it off as a 'craft'. Its the end of his 'hoax'.

Still havent worked out where it is yet though.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

And that detail of where it was is fatal. The marina you speak of is miles away. Was he skipping out on his security job, on a regular basis, to go over there? Why would he have any special access to the security cams of that marina? Just because he's a brother security guard? That seems like very superficial reasoning.

And the monitor was outdoors? Security monitors are indoors, aren't they? Or they allowed him to move it outdoors for awhile? And he he wired it up outdoors?

And he was able to sneak around the marina without anyone asking what he was up to? Or he explained that he was making hoax UFO videos and "Please help me out here, Brother Security Guard." And no one at the marina blabbed?

Show me one particle of evidence that Yalcin shot any video footage anywhere else than the Yeni Kent Apts.

Show me one bit of evidence that the camera for this CRT monitor was anywhere on the grounds of the Yeni Kent Apts.

Show me how he stood so far away from the CRT to show such a small image when the camera is zoomed out, and yet we see no reflected light from the CRT screen on anything. Also, no stars, no ground lights, no aircraft lights are ever visible in any of these model UFO videos. Was it it in a custom built shelter?

 

[DavidB66]

The still pic at #350 above appears to show one of the 'alien heads' enlarged from a fuzzy featureless blob into a recognisable skull-like head, with large black eyes. I don't know of any optical quirk or legitimate 'enhancement' which would have this effect. It reminds me of one of those TV cop shows where the cops ask their resident tech geek (Pauley Perrette or similar) to enhance a fuzzy pic of a numberplate, the geek quickly scrabbles on a keyboard, and - voila! - a perfectly clear image appears. But I don't think that happens in real life. Does anyone know otherwise? It might be another matter if someone specifically asks an AI program to enlarge the blob into an alien head!

 

[jarlrmai]

The still pic at #350 above appears to show one of the 'alien heads' enlarged from a fuzzy featureless blob into a recognisable skull-like head, with large black eyes. I don't know of any optical quirk or legitimate 'enhancement' which would have this effect. It reminds me of one of those TV cop shows where the cops ask their resident tech geek (Pauley Perrette or similar) to enhance a fuzzy pic of a numberplate, the geek quickly scrabbles on a keyboard, and - voila! - a perfectly clear image appears. But I don't think that happens in real life. Does anyone know otherwise? It might be another matter if someone specifically asks an AI program to enlarge the blob into an alien head!

It's noise that you see as alien heads because of suggestion and pareidolia.

 

[JMartJr]

It's noise that you see as alien heads because of suggestion and pareidolia.

Remember that you can keep fiddling with the image indefinitely, and stop when it happens to look like a classic UFO alien, then stop fiddling and say "See my enhanced version! It's an alien!" All the fiddled with versions that don't look like an alien are tossed in the trash.

 

[flarkey]

And that detail of where it was is fatal. The marina you speak of is miles away. Was he skipping out on his security job, on a regular basis, to go over there? Why would he have any special access to the security cams of that marina? Just because he's a brother security guard? That seems like very superficial reasoning.

And the monitor was outdoors? Security monitors are indoors, aren't they? Or they allowed him to move it outdoors for awhile? And he he wired it up outdoors?

And he was able to sneak around the marina without anyone asking what he was up to? Or he explained that he was making hoax UFO videos and "Please help me out here, Brother Security Guard." And no one at the marina blabbed?

Show me one particle of evidence that Yalcin shot any video footage anywhere else than the Yeni Kent Apts.

Show me one bit of evidence that the camera for this CRT monitor was anywhere on the grounds of the Yeni Kent Apts.

Show me how he stood so far away from the CRT to show such a small image when the camera is zoomed out, and yet we see no reflected light from the CRT screen on anything. Also, no stars, no ground lights, no aircraft lights are ever visible in any of these model UFO videos. Was it it in a custom built shelter?

All valid questions for which I currently have no answer, other than conjecture.

For what it's worth I'm not 100% convinced that it is the marina in the scene. yes, there's some similarities on the shapes and it could be. I don't think that Yalcin moved around during the filming of the UFO. i think it's more likely that there multiple feeds coming into a central monitoring station, that was perhaps reflected in a window. (again I see that I am adding complexity to the argument here, which isn't really aligned to Occam's Razor). But images like this is one make it hard for me to see how else Yalcin could have done it (admittedly that's an argument from incredulity).