# Turkish beach UFO 2023 - a curious high res photo

Here are two pictures of the wavelet immediately in front of the people, taken in the shadow. In the space between pictures it has come in some number of inches (six or eight, at a guess), which seems a lot for a tenth of a second.
Incredulity.
Article:
Shallow-water waves move at a speed that is equal to the square root of the product of the acceleration of gravity and the water depth.

Water depth 0.1m, g=10m/s², sqrt(0.1×10)=1 m/s = 4" per 0.1s
and I think that's not necessarily true for water running up the beach, but that's to calibrate your sense of speed. Water is fast, yo.

Incredulity.
Article:
Shallow-water waves move at a speed that is equal to the square root of the product of the acceleration of gravity and the water depth.

Water depth 0.1m, g=10m/s², sqrt(0.1×10)=1 m/s = 4" per 0.1s
and I think that's not necessarily true for water running up the beach, but that's to calibrate your sense of speed. Water is fast, yo.

But if it's moved 6 to 8 inches then that's 0.15s to 0.2s. Both of which are greater than 0.1s. And if the water's shallower than that, it gets worse.

Don't the original photos have timestamps with 1s or better granularity? If the interval is 0.2s or above, then you're guaranteed a timestamp change. It became trendy to add milliseconds to things a few years back, so that might answer everything. Then again, so might the guy who originally took the photos - can he time (or film) himself taking the photos the same way, and (we can) just divide the interval by the number of shots minus one? It seems like we're trying to solve this the smartypants way when a really dumb and simple solution might be almost at our fingertips.

Nice to have an object in focus for a change.
First impression is a small object close to the camera, based on the following.
The woman is presumably looking at the man in the water or the water just in front of her and the child, so the object is potentially outside her field of vision. Unless it is the size of an aircraft carrier, and thus miles away, in which case she might see it. If she did not see it that supports smaller and closer, well outside of her focus of attention, perhaps even behind her.
The bottom of the object is relatively well illuminated, a small/close object would be well lit from below by the sunlight reflected from the light colored beach pebbles and the shallow bottom of the same material close to the shoreline.
But these are only first impressions, a large translucent balloon further away could also have a light lower surface like this.
No idea what it is, has anyone checked for traces of photoshop in use?

Wait, I think you attached a scaled down copy here somehow, which is what I was looking at. The version from the link from facebook is much larger and doesn't have the weird block around the object.

Hi-resolution copies of the photos with a face covered at the request of the reader.
Content from External Source
Attached here:

Edit: Hmm, seems like mine got scaled down too...maybe the forum software is doing it?

Source: https://i.imgur.com/NAOjS3V.jpg

Source: https://i.imgur.com/gOx63ya.jpg

Ah...that explains the compression artifacts At least it looked kind of unusual...

With that out of the way I took another look at the stones and this one stood out as one with a similar erosion pattern...a couple of dimples, smooth side or backside...:

But still...if this is a small stone in midair, shouldn't there be more motion blur visible? I think I can see blur on the womans hair...so the flying stone should have some too...

It reminds me of a pistachio nut with bottom half of the shell missing, maybe one that has gone bad (which would also increase the probability to find it airborne). Not an exact match maybe, but that's what I come up with on "what does it resemble".

Nice to have an object in focus for a change.
First impression is a small object close to the camera, based on the following.
The woman is presumably looking at the man in the water or the water just in front of her and the child, so the object is potentially outside her field of vision. Unless it is the size of an aircraft carrier, and thus miles away, in which case she might see it. If she did not see it that supports smaller and closer, well outside of her focus of attention, perhaps even behind her.
The bottom of the object is relatively well illuminated, a small/close object would be well lit from below by the sunlight reflected from the light colored beach pebbles and the shallow bottom of the same material close to the shoreline.
But these are only first impressions, a large translucent balloon further away could also have a light lower surface like this.
No idea what it is, has anyone checked for traces of photoshop in use?
Yes I agree. However the claim did muse whether it was so superfast that neither human could see it, so based on the claim it could still be aircraft carrier size, only too quick to notice (not saying I think that's very likely).

Shame that it's the last picture in the series.

The object is a great optical illusion, which makes it so much harder to identify. Here is an interpretation of it being hollow, drawn by one of my viewers.

It's certainly lends itself pareidolia. At that angle all I can see is a bas-relief of bigfoot carved on a rock.

In case you missed it since it got a bit buried (I'm a new user, so my reply had to wait for approval), here is some more analysis concerning the iphone burst mode. My conclusion is that there is no definite proof that the photos were taken using burst mode.
Wow! First of all, thank you all for your engagement in the case.

I have requested the original photos from Paranormalna Polska, but they haven't responded so far.
It could be that they don't trust me poking around in their case, I'm a known skeptic.

I'm now fairly certain that the photos were not taken in burst mode, and the claim was a misunderstanding.
I presume that the photos were indeed taken in a quick series, but done so manually.

Here is a video taken by my viewer, showing the speed of the burst mode.

Her conclusions:
- The time between each photo in burst mode is around a 10th of a second, while the changes between photos #5 and #6 suggest a longer period (waves, woman's hair, the swimmer)
- A burst mode capture, even a short one, produces quite a lot of photos. You would have to hold the capture button for just around half a second to produce 6 photos. That's a very short time, especially when you compare all of the photos.
Presented below is a screenshot of the conversation with the witness. The screenshot was provided by "Paranormalna Polska" in the original Facebook post.
As of now, this is our only source of photos #1-#4.

Even by just looking at the thumbnails, we can tell #1 has a different angle than the rest. #1, #2 and #3 shows the child being held closer to the woman, while #4 immediately after shows them with more space between them. That's quite a lot of instant movement for half a second.

- The images taken with burst mode show a distinct icon when viewed in the photo gallery.
The icon is not visible on the screenshot provided by Paranormalna Polska.

However, the icon disappears when the picture is removed from the set, so its lack is not definite proof:

What does seem weird however, is that the original photos were taken in the HEIF format, while the burst mode photos in the reconstruction are in JPEG. Is it possible to take burst mode photos using HEIF? If not, that would be definitive proof that the photos were not taken with burst mode.

We've been looking around the ground area for one, but couldn't find one. Could be we missed it.

The object is a great optical illusion, which makes it so much harder to identify. Here is an interpretation of it being hollow, drawn by one of my viewers.

Sadly, Paranormalna Polska is not known for their skepticism. I worry that they might be withholding vital information.

A favorite beach activity involves a hacky sack. When kicked, it becomes compressed on one side during flight.

Without a high-speed shutter speed, the ball looks oddly shaped. Same effect as fast flying birds with wings swept back looking like saucer-shaped UAPs.

A favorite beach activity involves a hacky sack. When kicked, it becomes compressed on one side during flight.

Without a high-speed shutter speed, the ball looks oddly shaped. Same effect as fast flying birds with wings swept back looking like saucer-shaped UAPs.
I liked your suggestion as a possible explanation, but my first thought was whether footbag was popular in Turkey. A little research turned up the International Footbag Players' Association website.
http://www.footbag.org/

According to the site, there is one footbag club in Turkey (Istanbul) with four members. http://www.footbag.org/clubs/list?Country=Turkey

Under the association's "events" tab, I looked for the past ten years and found no sanctioned tournaments or other organized events in Turkey.
http://www.footbag.org/events/list

So while all it would take is one individual kicking a footbag on that Turkish beach to get that photo, hacky sack apparently isn't a thing in Turkey.

hacky sack apparently isn't a thing in Turkey.
Tourism is though. So a UFO-simulating hackey sack need not have been kicked by a local.

Withouy a high-speed shutter speed, the ball looks oddly shaped. Same effect as fast flying birds with wings swept back looking like saucer-shaped UAPs.
Good point. Would be applicable whatever the object is.

Tourism is though. So a UFO-simulating hackey sack need not have been kicked by a local.

Which is why I made the point you omitted in quoting my post about it only taking one individual kicking a footbag to get the photo. Remember, @Zoltan began his post by referring to hacky sack as a "favorite" beach activity. I was trying to determine if that was the case in Turkey. I found it is apparently not a "favorite" activity there, period.

Breakfast cereal TV commercial; aimed at Turkish children...in their native Turkish language...playing on a beach in Turkey.

VIDEO

Just sayin'.

Breakfast cereal TV commercial; aimed at Turkish children...in their native Turkish language...playing on a beach in Turkey.

VIDEO

Just sayin'.
Where did you find the commercial was filmed in Turkey? The kids look to be international. Interesting the last few seconds of the commercial shows six nations (Germany, France, Brazil, England, Italy, and Turkey.) Not sure if that's to show the countries where the cereal is available, or if it represents participants in some world wide sporting event like the World Cup.

In any event, it's easy to make one program/commercial and dub in the sound track in whatever language is appropriate for where it's to be shown. I watched "Columbo" dubbed into Korean and "Hogan's Heroes" into German while TDY in those countries.

@Zoltan began his post by referring to hacky sack as a "favorite" beach activity. I was trying to determine if that was the case in Turkey. I found it is apparently not a "favorite" activity there, period.
With respect, I'm not sure you've demonstrated that.

I'd agree that finding a lot of hacky-sack clubs would be a good indicator that it IS popular, but I'm not sure that the lack of them demonstrates that it is NOT. For example, I see there is one club for foot-baggers in SC, the state where I go to the beach, and this club is not even near any of the beaches, but kicking the things around seems a reasonably popular activity along the strand. Admittedly this bit relies on personal observation, but hacky-sack-kickers I've seen have not been engaged in a sanctioned event or activity, they're just goofing around on the beach.

But as you say, one is enough -- and since I am not converted to Team It's-A-Hacky-Sack just yet anyway, it probably is not worth arguing over too much, other than for the fun of debating. (And yes, I DID resort to Googling "Hacky Sack Sales in Turkey" in hopes of scoring a decisive point. Sadly, if such data exists it is beyond my Google Fu to locate it.)

Weather was nice today so I thought I make my own stone UFO to have something for comparison...

I used a Samsung Galaxy S20 FE in standard (manual) photo mode...handheld...

For the first couple of throws I tried to keep the camera static, as if I was taking a picture of the landscape:

Stone slightly blurry in every picture...

Second try, different stone...for these throws I followed the flightpath of the stone with the camera just a tiny bit:

Reduced motion blur...closer to the beach pictures...

Weather was nice today so I thought I make my own stone UFO to have something for comparison...

I used a Samsung Galaxy S20 FE in standard (manual) photo mode...handheld...

For the first couple of throws I tried to keep the camera static, as if I was taking a picture of the landscape:

Stone slightly blurry in every picture...

Second try, different stone...for these throws I followed the flightpath of the stone with the camera just a tiny bit:

Reduced motion blur...closer to the beach pictures...
If you'd post the first three (slightly blurred) photos on one of the UFO sites, you could claim you got photos of a shape shifting UAP. Put together a 3-4 sentence narrative, including the ubiquitous "it was totally silent," and I can almost guarantee you'll get comments from others claiming they "saw the samething."

Weather was nice today so I thought I make my own stone UFO to have something for comparison...

I used a Samsung Galaxy S20 FE in standard (manual) photo mode...handheld...

For the first couple of throws I tried to keep the camera static, as if I was taking a picture of the landscape:

Stone slightly blurry in every picture...

Second try, different stone...for these throws I followed the flightpath of the stone with the camera just a tiny bit:

Reduced motion blur...closer to the beach pictures...
phenomenal work! amazing how strong an effect a little matching motion has in suppressing blurring, and it's def normal for a person to have a camera slightly in motion while snapping some casual beach photos.

I think in the beach pictures it was a combination of the stone at the highest point of it's flight arc where it loses it's momentum and falls back to the ground and at the same time hitting the focal plane just right to be as crisp as it is...

I don't think there was as much camera movement involved as I had to do to get the less blurry pics, it wasn't much but it would be very unusual to do that when your subject is sitting in front of you...

I used a Samsung Galaxy S20 FE in standard (manual) photo mode...handheld...
Do you know the shutter speed? (Should be in the EXIF data.)

Sure...here is the full camera related info for all six pictures:

First three pictures:

Second set:

My system is in german, please excuse that...shutter speed is under "Belichtungszeit"...but should be obvious I guess...

Edit: And to clarify...with "standard (manual) photo mode" I meant that I hit the trigger manually...the standard photo mode chooses settings automatically...

Last edited:
Sure...here is the full camera related info for all six pictures:

First three pictures:

Second set:

My system is in german, please excuse that...shutter speed is under "Belichtungszeit"...but should be obvious I guess...
Your speeds are 1/2365 and 1/871.
The Turkish pictures have 1/7463, which is more than 3 times fast. So it should have less than ⅓ of the motion blur that your rock has in the first set, if the object traveled as fast as that rock and in the same direction.

amazing how strong an effect a little matching motion has in suppressing blurring,
is it possible that the motion triggered the image stabilisation?

is it possible that the motion triggered the image stabilisation?
I was wondering that exact thing.

Weather was nice today so I thought I make my own stone UFO to have something for comparison...

I used a Samsung Galaxy S20 FE in standard (manual) photo mode...handheld...

For the first couple of throws I tried to keep the camera static, as if I was taking a picture of the landscape:

Stone slightly blurry in every picture...

Second try, different stone...for these throws I followed the flightpath of the stone with the camera just a tiny bit:

Reduced motion blur...closer to the beach pictures...
Excellent!

Ah...that explains the compression artifacts At least it looked kind of unusual...

With that out of the way I took another look at the stones and this one stood out as one with a similar erosion pattern...a couple of dimples, smooth side or backside...:

But still...if this is a small stone in midair, shouldn't there be more motion blur visible? I think I can see blur on the womans hair...so the flying stone should have some too...

Focusing solely on the lower half of the object where the detail in the image hasn't been washed out, the prominent features appear to be non uniform and do resemble vesicles typical of vesicular basalt. Tossing a pebble upward from just right of shot and photographing it at or around the apex may account for the lack of motion blur. To my mind, this is the most likely scenario.

I decided not to respond to messages under the first post but to gather the next set of evidence. There were a few threads I didn't ask. Maybe it's because I approached the topic too optimistically.

For a reminder, "A reader from Poland, who was vacationing in Turkey, wrote to me. While relaxing on the beach, she decided to use a feature of her iPhone 13 Pro Max that allows taking a series of quick photos.". https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/16a5ujh/uap\_best\_sighting\_ever\_turkey/
At first, the author gave me a series of six photos, and I thought that was all. It turned out that there are almost 40 photos in total. I have most of the original photos but I can't share them. It's not that there's something to hide. The author, aware of the photos' value, asked not to share them publicly. She will share them gladly but with someone who knows their stuff, who will know how to analyze the photos.

The most important information is that the object appears in three photos. Below, further evidence that the "object" is real.

Source: https://youtu.be/OIC7DVNmva4
(4K)

Phone screen:

EXIF:

High-resolution copies of the photos with the face covered, as requested by the reader.
https://easyupload.io/jtkrh5 - (original photo with original EXIF)
https://easyupload.io/kctmre - (photo with the face blured. PHOTOSHOP)
https://easyupload.io/m/qpe2g4 - (photo with the face blured. PHOTOSHOP)

Phone screenshots

Conversation screenshot (the reader wants to remain anonymous).

Arranging the photos chronologically, it turns out that the object was jumping as it appears in other photos. The timestamps indicate that it "came" from the direction of the water. Perhaps I wrote something unclear, so I apologize. My English is not perfect, especially for writing analytical texts.

There's now even more photos from the set.

Interesting. So assuming it is the same object in the three photos, that would lower the speed it would have to be moving at -- it no longer has to get in and out of frame fast enough to only show in one frame. If it is NOT the same object (it looks at least somewhat different, though the resolution in the other shots is not as clear) then it looks like somebody is tossing stones, plural, or something repetitive?

Half-eaten nut or sea shell dropped by a gull.

[...]

Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting stuff. Just a couple of idle thoughts . . .
Judging speed by timing the movement from left to right or vice versa not necessarily helpful. May have been only just crossing one corner diagonally, thus more conformable to being wind-driven. Unless I missed something.
My first impression visually was a discarded (i.e., empty) container for microwave popcorn.

Can someone extract the other, newer photos showing the object(s)? I can't seem to find anything in decent quality

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow a rock thrown on the beach?
It does rather remind me of a “UFO” pic I took nearly 10 years ago, when my daughter was throwing rocks on the beach!

I wanted to click one of every Moji for that - I now believe in Aerial Phenomena!

Better get that image water-marked, copy-righted, attributed, NDA'd and stored in an undisclosed safe-box before 'leaking' degraded, cropped, EXIF-stripped copies to a third-party conduit with questionable credentials, for 'distribution' through other channels... I can guarantee that all the good folk here will never find that exact object, thus rendering any debunk unprovable.

I wanted to click one of every Moji for that - I now believe in Aerial Phenomena!

Better get that image water-marked, copy-righted, attributed, NDA'd and stored in an undisclosed safe-box before 'leaking' degraded, cropped, EXIF-stripped copies to a third-party conduit with questionable credentials, for 'distribution' through other channels... I can guarantee that all the good folk here will never find that exact object, thus rendering any debunk unprovable.

Wait - you haven't seen the enhanced version yet! There is clearly internal structure!