It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Istanbul UFO is Back **May 2009** Video

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:50 AM
reply to post by jkrog08

The SG-1 craft looks like any other conventional stealth fighter jet from a frontal view. The Turkey UFO looks like a flying saucer with an open-air cockpit .

Am I attacking you? Well sorry. I just like letting arrogant people know they're wrong, like in the present case.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:52 AM
reply to post by FoxMulder91

Based on what I've read from everybody so far, it's looking to me like video of a model combined with video of lights on a hill taken at a distance.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by Sam60]

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:53 AM
reply to post by Sam60

Did you see the original 2007-2008 video? Um excuse me, but do lights on a hill cast a reflection right underneath the water they're hovering over? I don't think so.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:56 AM
reply to post by cmazzagatti
Do you have a link to that? I've looked at so many videos of that thing, I'd like to make sure I a look at the exact video to which you are refering. If you post the link, I will have another look at it.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:59 AM
reply to post by Sam60

This is all in the original 2007-2008 footage, people.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:01 AM
reply to post by cmazzagatti

You could have posted the link, as easily as posting that picture - thanks.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:02 AM
You can't see the reflection in the beginning, but you can at around 2:45, proving that the object is not fixated or planted in one area and is actually moving around. Do oil rigs change position?

[edit on 7-6-2009 by cmazzagatti]

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:04 AM
reply to post by jkrog08

It could be a prop, whenever we see the object in detail there is nothing else around it other than blackness.

Except the last part of the video in this thread, where we see the moon in the shot.

So that part does lend credence to the object being far away and not a prop.

The only thing that makes me think that maybe the moon shot was faked is that Jupiter was pretty bright on 17th May, nearly a magnitude of -2.0 in fact.

A screen shot from stellarium:

Obviously there is a chance that it won't show up in the video but there is an equal chance that it should show up too.

I think as internos said earlier, we need to get someone from Turkey to investigate a bit.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:09 AM

Originally posted by cmazzagatti
reply to post by jkrog08

The SG-1 craft looks like any other conventional stealth fighter jet from a frontal view. The Turkey UFO looks like a flying saucer with an open-air cockpit .

Am I attacking you? Well sorry. I just like letting arrogant people know they're wrong, like in the present case.

I strongly disagree with you about how it looks like "any other stealth aircraft". The craft in the video looks nothing like a classic saucer, I noticed that right off. But because I am so arrogant let us look at some actual stealth aircraft....


The only stealth craft that resembles the SG1 ship is the B-2. The others look nothing like it. Actually the Turkey craft more resembles a stealth aircraft than anything else besides the B2…

I do not know where you are seeing the 'flying saucer' shape, it is obvious this craft is somewhat triangular and not circular like a saucer. I mean the colors, the shape, everything matches, but you can believe what you want of course.

[edit on 6/7/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 6/7/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:14 AM
reply to post by cmazzagatti

Thanks for the link.
I looked at that again & to my mind it remains very ambiguous. The movement of those orange lights could be a function of atmospheric distortion over distance compounded by the zooming (in & out) that is going on.
The reflection looks more to me like a reflection from a temperature inversion in the atmosphere, rather than a reflection in the water.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by Chadwickus

Yea that would be good, but really it might not be worth it. I just have strong suspicions about this video now, and I am sure it is not the last one we will see. I mean I wonder why the MSN has not covered this, hell they cover other, less appealing videos.


Personally I think it is likely that this is a prop enhanced with CGI, the orange lights may be real however. This could be a case of someone trying to 'inflate' a legit UFO sighting by perpetrating a more attractive hoax.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:27 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 02:15 AM
reply to post by internos

Well that was a looong response from you internos, unfortunately you are guessing
since you don't know exactly how I got the image and guessing is not an argument.
Even worse you got upset with me wich is dissapointing, we are having a discussion
here my friend and I'm not trying to offend if you read again my post, I'm asking some
questions with due all respect because I'm interested in knowing how did you get your
image and from where. Again there is no reason to be mad for being questioned and
yes we have different points of view in this matter, isn't it legitimate? Just calm down.

To avoid confusions I said tutorial because to me that's what your exposition was, a
technical explanation of the process involved in magnifying those images. I interpret
these expositions as tutorials, I call them tutorials because I respect when knowledge
is displayed by an individual regarding technological issues. It's my own definition.

Until now it wasn't clear to me why you were arguing about your pixelated image in
comparison to the other ones. Here you got your image from the videoframe I posted
not from the footage itself, That's too bad because size is what makes the difference
and that without counting resolution. Therefore you made an extreme digital zoom or
close up or resize if you prefer to the very small section of my video frame wich is
a compressed jpg 497 X 373 pixels at 72 pixels/inch resolution in a 68 kb image. That's
why you got that awful pixelated image. That is not fair to the videographer.

The situation here is clear, either you work with a high resolution footage or not, you
work on good resolution images, photos, videoframes or not. Unfortunately you took
a small videoframe of low resolution and tried to get the same results with your paint
shop pro, it wasn't going to work. That's why I made the comparison with my image
and yours, I worked with the NTSC high resolution footage and made captures, you
see what I mean and no offense partner. I know it's unfair if you don't have a copy of
the original footage in NTSC 720 X 480 at 4:3 to work the frames but that's what makes
the difference here.

Back to the heads issue in the zoomed frame I posted. No need to be a good observer
to distinguish two heads, alien style and also a pair of eyes on each head. Just take
your time everybody, watch carefully and make up your mind. The rest is up to

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Sam60
Internos & Free Spirit:
Your work & commentary is the sort of material that makes it worth hanging around this site.
Free Spirit:
Are you saying you have a higher res version of the video than that which Internos used for his pixel zoom demo?
If so, what level of detail do you think it shows of the "aliens"? Do you think there is any detail beyond that which Internos showed us?
For the record, I can't get my head around this being real because I cannot understand how the images can be identical (or almost so) to those acquired previously at that site.

I just gave my reasons to internos regarding the difference in the images, yes I have
a copy of the May 2009 videos on DVD transfered from the original camera. That is
why I give credits courtesy of Mr. Yalcin Yalman and Mr. Haktan Akdogan. I made
some captures and posted the video frames when this thread started. About those
details on the heads they are unequivocally clear, I made zoomings directly from the
DVD. Just take your time and check the zoomed frames but of course as usual it's a
matter of everyone's interpretation.

Just keep in mind we are dealing with a subject of an extremely controversial nature
that defies common sense and logic. But that's what the UFO phenomena is all about.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 03:45 AM
Sorry, doesn’t it seem to be ridiculous to discuss some alien faces which can or cannot be seen in a case which poses more important questions.

What a waste of time. Especially for internos and chadwickus who are going that much into detail to convince some members of this forum who don’t even show the slightest reason to accept the given facts.

Sometimes it’s more important to question those things that can’t be seen rather than those which are obviously visible. So often we have footage which shows certain things in the sky without showing how they either appear or disappear. In this case it is very important that the filmed craft and lights remain absolutely static. I can’t imagine that Yalcin Yalman films what he is claiming to film on subsequent nights without alarming any news media or at least numerous people who would confirm and corroborate his claims and more importantly bring in some top notch equipment.
Yalcin Yalman had enough time and experience from his previous sighting to know that he would very likely spot those objects again.

Okay, it is understandable that he doesn’t use a rubber or fishing boat to approach the lights (supposedly above the water), might be too far away. However he doesn’t even consider changing his position to have a different angle on the craft which astonishingly doesn’t show the slightest motion. How great it would be to triangulate the position of the UFO having different shots from different angles like the footage of the Greifswald lights. I bet that as soon as others join in supporting his night watch the craft won’t reappear.

Having said this, I have to point out that I am a believer who is absolutely convinced that UFO’s do exist but I don’t have to swallow any kind of so-called evidence and defy reason.

PS: I had my personal encounter which awoke my interest into the UFO phenomenon at Lake Iznik not so far away from Kumburgaz in 1981. Back then I bought my first book on UFO’s: The UFO Encyclopedia by Margaret Sachs.

PS2: I should ask you to be lenient with my English since it is not my first language.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by necati]

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 04:20 AM
reply to post by free_spirit

free_spirit, as you can see, I've taken your picture as base, i didn't even bothered to check if there was any better screen capture because i know that you check your sources (and if i'm correct you are in touch with someone who made investigations on this case since before even the first sighting took place): this is because I trust YOU. I also don't need to let you know how i appreciate your contributions to this forum, because you should know it: if you don't then here it goes: think that you are one of the best researchers on ATS in this subject matter, this is what i ACTUALLY think about you.
I think that the misunderstanding started when i've mentioned the bicubic resample but omitting which was the very far fetched "enhancement": i will try to do it now.
First, Yes: i see clearly two shapes, which could be very well two heads. But one thing is to claim that they look like two heads, and that there seem to be more details, another one is claim to see and outlining, noses, mouths, eyes and even pupils.
I think that there should be some limit to everything: i have nothing against fantasy, but to mix fantasy together with research is never a good idea: the lack of details in RAW is NOT a valid reason to create some new ones: i think that now it is OBVIOUS that I wasn't referring to you. I don't think that you would endorse the "enhancements" made by our fellow member who called me either retarded or blind or disinfo agent, or called JKrog dumb, or called everyone disagrees with him arrogant etc etc etc: I bet that you do realize how ridiculous that enhancement is. Now, to our point: i use bicubic resample (but whenever i can and/or remember to, i also post the enlargement made with pixel resize at the same factor): in my very humble experience i've noticed that below some factor (i'd say about 300%) the bicubic resample may give some very good results, and the appearance of the enlarged object is better. In a case like this one, for example, i see clearly two different shapes even in the unresized image. But when it comes to small details, that in the original image are just some two-three pixels, a smart resizing generates the contary effect: the result that you get is always far from the original appearance of the image. Now i will try to explain why i've posted that image (which IS pixelated, as you correctly pointed out): the purpose was to show that while two heads or whatever they are are clearly visible, there is a complete lack of details in what is supposed to be the face to the right:
my purpose was to prove that there are neither eyes nor mouth nor heads and of course, pupils. Maybe i didn't prove it, but it's not that important:

The pixel is our limit, there is no way to get beyond it: if a face is 8 x 9 pixels and in its original format is monochromatic , then there is no way to bring out more details, unless someone (intentionally or by accident) adds artificially details.
This is the only point i was trying to make. Now i feel guilty for not having pointed out which enhancement was unacceptable In my humble opinion, so i apologize for creating this misunderstanding. Mine was a thechnical observation on a very far fetched, uncorroborated conclusion, and it wasn't referred to you: and i wasn't mad at you my friend, i was just a little bit saddened when I've realized that you took it as something referred to you, now it's all right.
Now, regarding the case, in my opinion it's very good that you have this contact with Mr. Yalcin Yalman and Haktan Akdogan: now i will U2U our fella members who speak turkish, maybe there are some news.

Edit to add: messages sent to our fella members who applied to the Aliens & UFO language registry

[edit on 7/6/2009 by internos]

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 04:25 AM
Here's my take on the subject:

- When the video started, it seems like the UFO wasn't really changing direction until it skipped to another timeline. It's like an inanimate object facing one direction, which seems to be moving with all the camera shaking and zooming (that's what kinda bothers me - but of course I am not implying that it really has to change direction for it to be legit);

- Then again, there was an entirely different angle presented somewhere along 1:37 of the video, but I can't seem to tell whether or not it's the same "craft"

- The "oil rig" lights are less likely to be a domed structure with a couple of major lights outlining it. You don't really light domes in that sorta 2-dimensional fashion... you light it the way you do in Vegas... it's either to attract attention or usually as safety markers for aircrafts. Form follows function most of the time. The towers can be lighted, yes, but the only domed structure in Turkey that I can think of that can be big enough to be noticed from that distance (if we're really talking about several miles) is the Hagia Sophia (having only four spires with generally equal heights - and based on night photos that I googled, the towers are usually fully lighted up). However, the arched effect could also be caused by varying angles and perspectives, depending on the vantage point of the one shooting the film. The lights also seems to come from an isolated area, not really a densely populated one.

- The dog in the video seems to be barking at the "oil rig" lights, but to me that really doesn't prove anything so I don't think it can be a determining factor

- the Stargate scale model, IMHO, looks way off. And if I was a hoaxer it's either:
A. I wanna make the UFO as real as possible so why use a scale model from a popular show? Or at least something that looks like it. I'd rather make my own original design.


B. If I'm not after originality and realism then I'd rather pull of a cheap fast and blurry one. Nothing like the quality of this video... and I certainly wouldn't do it twice.

Basically I am more inclined to believe that this is something out of the ordinary, but at the same time am also a bit wary that it might be something simple that we all just overlooked.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:10 AM
reply to post by free_spirit

OK - I've had another look at what you posted & I can see there is more detail in those images.
I guess that as you say, the best thing to do is to keep reading & keep thinking about it.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:10 AM
One thing I noticed in the video right at 5:12 when the shot of the moon comes into view there is a bright light or reflection at the bottom center. I went to youtube and maximized the screen to full screen to see it. What is the reflection off of? It could be the lens, or there is something else going on.

[edit on 7/6/09 by spirit_horse]

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by Chadwickus

Page 1

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by mandroid

I don't think it's flying, or even in the air.

I was thinking something more like an oil platform sitting off the coast.

your first amateur response, but my images of oil platforms didn't warrant a response sooo...

Page 9

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by FlySolo

Think you're funny?


Istanbul has lots of domed buildings.

Do I need to spell it out for you?

[edit on 6/6/09 by Chadwickus]

Again, you changed your theory. You did, not me. 2nd amateur response. but yet you can't come up with an explanation as to why there is a 100' gap between the horizon and the lights

Originally posted by Chadwickus

I'm sorry if you're unable to comprehend basic english.

And again you fail at comprehending basic english, the object was not filmed near Kumburgaz/Yeni Kent Compound, it was filmed FROM Kumburgaz.

Which is the area underlined in red in the above map.

Sounds like your getting mad. Ridiculing me only shows desperation of a desperate man.

Perhaps your memory is like a spaghetti drainer. The above comments hopefully should remind you of your contradictions.

Lit up domed buildings from across the sea as a theory is laughable. I'll wait till the morning to tear your other feeble attempts apart. Please leave the skepticism to the professionals. Your only looking foolish Wolverine boy.

When all else fails, deny deny deny, or change your story.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by FlySolo]

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in