Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Hard to tell if the lamp post was already there in these grainy, distorted images.
The lamp post fits the data pretty well, also in height:
![]()
Are you estimating the lamppost's total height as 4 meters?
Hard to tell if the lamp post was already there in these grainy, distorted images.
The lamp post fits the data pretty well, also in height:
![]()
Are you estimating the lamppost's total height as 4 meters?
But why would the rest of the ship be in complete darkness. No lights etc. Just throwing it out there
The dog is barking in that general direction, there's nothing strange about that. I have dogs, they bark at everything, and sometimes at nothing.Also in one video the dog barks at it just thought that was strange.
But why would the rest of the ship be in complete darkness. No lights etc. Just throwing it out there
Also in one video the dog barks at it just thought that was strange.
This animated gif was made with some of the snapshots presented in post #83.
Any ideas what we are seeing ...?
![]()
Someone flew along the Kumburgaz coastline and shot a video.
This is very helpful to determine where exactly the UFO video fragment was taken that contains the moon and several lights at the bottom:
The coastline video:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDWphbMUeDY
At 4:55 in the video you can see the typical canopies of the Yeni Kent facility, where Yalcin worked the night shift (source: http://turkeyufocase.blogspot.com/, also see https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/1d647d7c091992c935952cb1f4106754.jpg for a up-close picture of these canopies).
At a distance of 28 m from the canopies (distance was determined with Google maps), a lamp post can be seen containing four lights. The top of this lamp post is visible from the closest canopy. A smaller lamp post with only one light is situated a little closer to the canopies:
If the bigger lamp post is the source of the lights in the UFO video, the position where Yalcin was filming can be reconstructed using the position and size of the moon (see post #14 for moon azimuth and altitude at 3:07 AM, I used these same values as good approximations for 3:02 AM).
(Note: As pointed out in post #66, the moon and the lights both seem to be in the depth of focus of the camera. This can be expected for a lamp post at 28 meters distance.)
It seems Yalcin was filming from one of the canopies.
Note that the smaller lamp post is outside the FOV of the camera, as illustrated by the yellow line:
Using the video fragment containing both the moon and the UFO, the azimuth and altitude of the UFO can be calculated. The UFO altitude of 6,7 degrees rules out any ships or boats:
![]()
If the bigger lamp post is the source of the lights in the UFO video, the position where Yalcin was filming can be reconstructed using the position and size of the moon (see post #14 for moon azimuth and altitude at 3:07 AM, I used these same values as good approximations for 3:02 AM).
Note that the smaller lamp post is outside the FOV of the camera, as illustrated by the yellow line:
![]()
1. There's no evidence that Yalcin ever stood there. Descriptions of where he stood and Yalcin's own videos show that he habitually stood between the canopies next to the banister.
2. In the video in question, where is Jupiter? Jupiter was only a few degrees away from the Moon at that time.
3. In the video in question there are zoomed out - wide angle - shots in which the UFO and the Moon are shown in a black field with no other lights visible. If Yalcin were standing where you speculate, where are all the building and ground lights that would have to be visible in the frame in these wide angle shots? Including the 4 meter street light you point to. That streetlight is right next to buildings which are higher than the light. In this video the UFO, you say, is at the same height above the horizon as the streetlight, yet the streetlight and all the buildings next to it, plus every other ground light are not visible in the wide angle shots.
You are only considering that short section of the video in which the lens is zoomed in - set to a long focal length - and the streetlight is visible. What about the later sections in which the UFO and the Moon are shown in wide angle? You can't analyze these two different sections of the video in isolation from one another.
so.. are you now saying the UFO is like a 5 mile wide ship hovering over a nuclear site?A line-of-sight of 124,3 degrees from the witness’ position leads directly to the Incirlik air force base, which housed the largest collection of US nuclear weapons in Europe at the time (source: https://fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/_images/EuroNukes.pdf )
so.. are you now saying the UFO is like a 5 mile wide ship hovering over a nuclear site?
or it is just coincidentally when he bought his camera2007, the year of Yalcin’s first observations, also happens to be the year that the AATIP program was started.
or it is just coincidentally when he bought his camera
or are you saying that AATIP sprang up because of Turkey UFO sightings? I don't understand what you are trying to imply with that observation.
It's too bad AATIP didn't investigate the Turkey UFOs since the same UFO kept showing up in the same spot for 3 years. smh. shame they missed that.
Assuming is a slippery slope to wild speculation, there is nothing to say it is a 'head', or even if it is what scale or size it is. If it is indeed a 'head' (looks like a couple of light pixels on the image to me) it could be the size of a gerbils head a few yards away or the bonce of something the size of a Greek Titan of Atlasian proportions tens of miles away.If one assumes that the ‘head’ in the footage is that of a human (or humanoid) being,
Assuming is a slippery slope to wild speculation, there is nothing to say it is a 'head', or even if it is what scale or size it is. If it is indeed a 'head' (looks like a couple of light pixels on the image to me) it could be the size of a gerbils head a few yards away or the bonce of something the size of a Greek Titan of Atlasian proportions tens of miles away.
You cannot safely make such an assumption in a case like this without other supporting evidence, which here is lacking to the point of total absence.
the available dataIf you keep confronting it with the available data
Please do not attempt to mangle my words. I never said it WAS a rodent, I was just saying that without something also in shot tp compare it to it could be any size from very small and close up to very big a long way awayBut somehow this does not come across as a rodent to me, it was made with two snapshots from the original footage, with enhanced contrast and brightness:
the available data
The available data is that a UFO that reappeared in the same spot many times over a 3 year period, was never independently witnessed or photographed by anyone else living in the region.
independently. meaning someone who is not Yalcin or someone allegedly standing beside Yalcin.I’ll give you some quotes from the videos in post #44:
It's not hard to find people who see lights in the sky. There's lights in the sky (or near the ocean horizon) all the time.
But if this were real, then other people would have been able to duplicate the images. Since they have not, the only sensible conclusion is that it's a hoax.
Would have been able to: Only if they had the camera with tele converter that Yalcin had.
I don't think there's any evidence of that from the videos we have seen. It looks to me far more like some very out-of-focus images that could be anything at all. They look far more like blurred reflections of some sort than any physical object.These are not lights but an object with structure, including a substructure that takes on poses independently from the main structure – poses that are very similar to a head of a humanoid figure.
Kaen, surely that imagery is highly (& digitally?) over-zoomed, or in layperson's terms, over-magnified to all hell. A lot of the 'detail' in such imagery is jpeg compression and quantisation artefacts, pixels that are generated (aka guessed) by whatever enlargement algorithms were used, and possibly contrast and sharpening artefacts... all of which are then being emphasised (aka made worse) by the micro-movements in the camera, tripod and mount plus all the intervening atmospherics between camera and subject......The animated gif below was made with the original footage by the way...
I agee with Chrlzs and Mr West I am a UFO skywatcher and I use Night vision , HD camcorders, and I had telescopes in the past since astronomy was a big thing for me until I saw a UFO 10 years ago..Today I have one of the best ORB and spheres UFO videos in night vision anywhere, but this is not about me. OK I’m also very late to the party but I must say I am also very suspicious of this footage and likley perpetuated hoaxe by a few poeple, Yalcin is just a fall guy and he also bought a new camera or someone bought for him.??hmm.. THe fact he captured the UFO same spot on multiple years, where are the other Ufologists, (DR Leir is not a UFologist , he’s just a pseudo believer of UFO’s because of his apparent findings of implants which Im not a big fan either). I am also a videographer and photographer. The camera Yalcin used would not provide this kind of detail unless the object had quite a bit of light on it, or self illuminated...The moon would not have been sufficient. , just look at the video..super black sky but half moon, there is something not correct here....Just look at his night time shots of orange objects in the sky, super noisy and this is what you would expect from his camera. His camera ISO settings where never discussed, nor anything else and I don’t beleive they would provide the truth anyways...The UFO was very close , like within 100 feet...HOw do I know this, I have 100x optical camcorder and when I zoom at something at 100 feet or thereabouts , this is how fast I can get up close and personal. Now lets say Im zooming at a plane at maybe 1500 feet, to get this close , the zoom no matter how fast I have the zoom...it will not look like this at all, sorry little subjective but its an experienced night time videographers instinct.The UFO here was very small, then zoomed and wow he was close in no time at all and in focus, the speed of the zoom did not correlate to the apparent distance and size of the object..THis is sooo difficult at night and his camera is not very good at all for low light..This was the biggest red flag for me and also the object looks very small..., has anyone considered possibly something positioned on a wire...I see them all over from light post to light post. , or even on top of a flag post,...Clearly there is artificial light on the object , and lets forget about the moon, that is not the source. ., or very unlikely ...The only footage makes me have an ounce of belief this might be an actual ufo, is when it seems to “cloak” from side to side ...that’s very interesting...Cloud going over the moon, would not account for right to left and then left to right cloak..This is the only piece that would be difficult to replicate but I believe if we find the object and location where it was filmed, it wouldn’t take long to figure this out...Like I had mentioned, I film predominately at night and with light pollution from city lights, you would have to have a Sony A7S with high ISO setting to get these great shots but also have background noise of the sky due to the moon light..The only way he was able to do so, object was very close and lit up...The audio is also echoing, so they are not on the beach but on a patio or area covered ..almost like they are in a studio but we know that is not the case..that being said if they are way back away from the beach, the UFO could have easily been just about anything in the area.. Since he’s a security guard , he knows the area quite well.!! My 2 cents for now..Kaen, surely that imagery is highly (& digitally?) over-zoomed, or in layperson's terms, over-magnified to all hell. A lot of the 'detail' in such imagery is jpeg compression and quantisation artefacts, pixels that are generated (aka guessed) by whatever enlargement algorithms were used, and possibly contrast and sharpening artefacts... all of which are then being emphasised (aka made worse) by the micro-movements in the camera, tripod and mount plus all the intervening atmospherics between camera and subject...
In other words the vast majority of the data you are trying to analyse is distorted, made up or otherwise 'unreal' and has only a vague relationship to the actual detail on the object. While there are techniques that might help a little with clarifying such imagery, you haven't shown any sign of that, and I've gotta say, that 'movement' looks much more like artefacting / false detail to me - it's just what such over-zoomed images do..
The fact that you didn't mention any of the above, is a bit of a worry. Can you show an example where you have used that approach on something that you have then verified?
When added to your leap to an assumption that this might be a human....? well, let's just say .. no.
Sorry I'm a bit late to the party but I just signed up, having noticed this thread. I got quite involved in investigating Yalcin's stuff a long while back at another forum... so I'm not exactly new to that footage, even though it was all a long time back...
they claim that the elevation of the UFO was too high for it to be a boat,
Haha true, I couldn't find where this alleged claim was but I actually found a claim against this refutation.i claim it isn't.
claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Article: Now, the first objection one could raise is that the “UFOs” are over the horizon. In fact, that is almost certainly not the case. Duarte points that in the May 17 2009 video, 23:32UT, the Moon would be at an azimuth of 113.8 degrees and just 6.8 degrees of elevation.
And you can see that the object is to the right of the Moon (in the direction of the sea), and several degrees below it.
Duarte also notices that the cameraman seems to deliberately play with a nearby tree to obstruct the lights of buildings that should be visible to the left, as well as with the camera exposure to have only the object and the Moon appear in the footage.
Hi,
I've ben researching this UFO event and came across this old thread. Did it ever occur to you guys that the image of the UFO looked like an arc which, when repeated to make 360° looks very like the interface of a 58mm telephoto adapter. The guy that filmed the event used a similar device.
![]()
![]()
"Enhance"
![]()
"Zoom out"
![]()
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.
Reading through the thread it seems as though a few people had suggested that the close-up I the UFO was actually the reflection of a smaller object. I've been thinking it could be a reflection, but off a curved surface. ...It did, yes.