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


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:

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.

 

[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.

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...

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.

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!