It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The infamous Turkey UFO a yacht?

page: 21
48
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Seeing what's on and near the beach will be handy though, ideally a panoramic of the coast line, east to west would really give us an idea as to what's out there.

My original theory (and still in my mind the best) is he filmed something that is fixed, like a building.

Perhaps even on the island across the way.

A full pan of the coast will tell us what's there and what's not there.




posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I don't really think that the video shows a boat. I'm very used to seeing boats in the distance, at sea, at night. There are a few things missing from the video that should definitely be there if this is a yacht.

Firstly, assuming the most likely scenario that the yacht would be anchored and unoccupied with the moonlight reflecting from a curved glass canopy, this yacht would have to be very dark grey, or black. White GRP would be reflecting almost as much light as the glass canopy. Even if this were true you would see the reflection in the water from that distance. There would be a diffuse mirror image of the reflecting canopy shown in the water and extending much farther down than the extent of the light we see, caused by the ripples on the ocean surface. There isn't any reflection at all.

Secondly, I find it very difficult to believe that such a yacht would be anchored in complete darkness with no anchor light or other nav lights showing. The anchor light should be an all-round white light on the highest part of the boat, preferably aft of midships. The only candidate for a dark yacht with a curved canopy would be something like this (have seen them with dark grey hulls):



NOBODY is going to leave a yacht like that at anchor, unlit. It just would not happen. Any old trawler could be on top of it before they knew it and you wouldn't risk several million dollars worth of boat for the sake of saving a bit of battery power.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Lupelius
 


How very helpful of you!
I look forward to your pics as we all

sit and wait with great anticipation!



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Hello all. This is my first post here, though I have lurked here for a few months.

I have been fascinated by UFOs all my life, and have tracked down a lot of material on them. Unusually my local library service stocked 50+ UFO books, so I have read most of those over the last decade on and off.

The Turkey footage interested me greatly when it was first spread around the internet. A lot of current UFO footage appearing on youtube is either obviously CGI or merely lights. I find the footage of light formations the most interesting and possible evidence of either UFOs or some other high-altitude programme being carried out by unknown parties. I am fascinated with drones and unmanned vehicles and I believe a whole range of these are in opperation that do not get reported.

However the Turkey footage is something different. Instead of just lights or blurry objects we see something very clearly. The camera is stable, the focus is clear and the camera man is obviosuly as excited as we are. However I just cannot see what we are meant to be looking at. We see a partial curve of some sort, with a clear break in the middle. The length of the curve (or the area of the curve with light on it) changes and we see more or less of the object. If that thing was a UFO, and said UFO was a saucer shape we would have to assume it was at a strange angle. We are either seeing a lot of the underside of the saucer or a lot of the top of the saucer, but the thing is not flat as the profile is wrong.

People in this thread are overlooking a few things I think. It does not obviously look like a Yacht no, and I don't think it necessarily is a Yacht, but is it a UFO either? Its like no other UFO I've ever seen footage or photos of.

Also in the daytime footage the thing appears as six or eight red lights on the horizon, and young fishermen work in the foreground oblivious to it. If I was there at that time I would have been asking them for either their opinion or just to go on camera and say "yes there are six/eight red lights over there, I've not seen this sort of thing before". It is always good to have these things in your belt for when the skeptics get involved.

So just my $0.02, I look forward to contributing to this forum.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I'm not sure that the lights on the horizon during what looks to be twilight are the same object at all. Why would any craft, wherever it came from, show highly visible lights during daylight and then none during darkness?

It looks to me like two vessels about 5 miles offshore, both engaged in underwater operations. Each vessel would be showing 4 all round red lights, one white and two green. The white and green lights would be slightly less visible at that time of day than the red, or they could be obstructing one anothers lights somewhat. It definitely looks like something I'd associate with shipping though, and would not give such a series of lights on the horizon more than a cursory glance, unless we were on a reciprocal course so there was risk of collision.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
I'm not sure that the lights on the horizon during what looks to be twilight are the same object at all. Why would any craft, wherever it came from, show highly visible lights during daylight and then none during darkness?

It looks to me like two vessels about 5 miles offshore, both engaged in underwater operations. Each vessel would be showing 4 all round red lights, one white and two green. The white and green lights would be slightly less visible at that time of day than the red, or they could be obstructing one anothers lights somewhat. It definitely looks like something I'd associate with shipping though, and would not give such a series of lights on the horizon more than a cursory glance, unless we were on a reciprocal course so there was risk of collision.


Absolutely.

Having worked around a busy port for a large portion of my life, those lights look very familiar. The trawlers often have lights on their booms, ships on their cranes and upper decks, and they were quite high off the waterline. Also, when there is the possibility of a (rolling) mist obscuring the *actual* waterline, and the very good possibility of temperature inversions giving false impressions of the height... those lights are, imo, completely uninteresting.

Then there's the fact that they do NOT, NOT NOT match the shape of the objects.

Then there's the fact that Yalcin (terribly unlucky fella that he is), did not ONCE manage to show any transition from one object to the other. NEVER. There are ALWAYS cuts in the video. We NEVER see the object change, except in minor lighting details. This applies to ALL of the different things he captured. NOT ONCE does he show them moving or changing. The movement is very obviously camera shake. Terribly, terribly unlucky, isn't he.... Maybe in that three year period he should have bought a second battery for his camera... (or learnt how to properly use a decent tripod)

Then there's the fact that he is obviously using much less magnification/zoom when showing the lights. WHY????

THEN there's the killer, imo. The Canon GL1 is a very good quality camera - look it up - this is no ordinary camcorder.. While it is not famous for its low light performance, nevertheless it is MUCH better than a typical camcorder. There is absolutely NO question that in moonlight, its automatic exposure (or a properly chosen manual exposure) would be able to show background details. And YET, he deliberately uses exposure levels that are very low - he even proves that by showing the Moon in some shots, and the Moon is, if anything UNDERexposed!! As any photographer knows, a camera will NOT choose that as the default exposure!!! Try it, even on a cheap video camera - take some moonlight footage and note how the Moon is a completely blown white area, and the camera, even a cheap one, will show some traces of the background.

But NONE of this footage does.

Yalcin doesn't want you to see the background....

I'll have more to say on this, plus some screenshots, later.

Hey, Free Spirit, got anything to add to this? I'd love to see you engage in some actual ANALYSIS...



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Seeing what's on and near the beach will be handy though, ideally a panoramic of the coast line, east to west would really give us an idea as to what's out there.

My original theory (and still in my mind the best) is he filmed something that is fixed, like a building.

Perhaps even on the island across the way.

A full pan of the coast will tell us what's there and what's not there.


HelloChadwickus,

First of all congratulations for your OP.

I am following this thread since the beginning because I am doing
a research since last year about this "infamous videos" from Yalcin Yalman
and Haktan Akdogan and of course supported by the well known hoaxer
Jaime Maussan who I have investigated more than 46 hoaxes since 1998
but that should be in a separate thread to stay on topic.

About Haktan Akdogan here is a comment from Ferhat Talayhan
and recommend you to read ALL the thread in UfoUpdates.

Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos
ufoupdateslist.com...


Unfortunately Andres Duarte is a thief who stoled my theory
about a "boat" to be the origin of the "UFO" in this case.

My theory is about a Cargo or Cruise Ship at the distance with
part of the body below the horizon and showing the Bridge or Bow.

Andres also stoled my theory about the famous Mexican Air Force
11 FLIR lights (UFO's) sighting of march 05 2004 that happen to be
the flames of oil wells(rigs).

About the beach in Kumburgaz there is a very important data that
must be considered. There is a pair of "Goals" used to play football
soccer.



You can see the "goals" in this video at minute 06:54



If you and everybody please take a look of what I have in my site

THE "UFO" COULD BE THE TOP OF A MAN-MADE STRUCTURE
LIKE THE BOW (BRIDGE) OF A FREIGHT OR CRUISE SHIP
ALSO A MAN MADE STRUCTURE OVER 'IMRALI ADASI' ISLAND
www.alcione.org...

Regards,

Capt. Alejandro Franz


[edit on 22-7-2010 by alfafox]

[edit on 22-7-2010 by alfafox]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfafox

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Sorry for my mistake...

You can see the "goals" in this video at minute 06:54



Regards,

Capt. Alejandro Franz



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by alfafox
 


Wonderful post, thank you for sharing!


I thought to put your diagram up of horizon.






If you want to know the distance to the horizon you simply have to know the distance that your eyes are off the surface of the water. Your height of eye is the distance from your eye to your feet.

1.17 times the square root of your height of eye = Distance to the horizon in nautical miles


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Lupelius
 


I was wondering would you be able to distinguish a boat or ship on the water. Also would people who have lived there all there lives know what a boat or ship would look like on the water. I would think they could distinguish the difference between a vessel at sea and a UFO.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I have used this on another post but it applies here as well:





posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Alfafox, it is an absolute DELIGHT to see you here.

I regard your work on the Mexican Air Force FLIR footage as a benchmark in 'debunking'!!! Your analysis was simply a work of art, and I use your website often as a pointer on how to properly investigate claims such as these. I haven't looked at what you may have done regarding this one, but I will, and I do hope you stick around - your input would be greatly appreciated...


[edit on 23-7-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Alfafox, that is a useful website you posted.

I like your hypothesis the most of any here, because in my mind the bottom of those 'ufos' in the video do not look right. They do not follow the geometry of a circular UFO at all, and instead suggest an object vanishing over the horizon, not hovering above the sea.

As you pointed out, the video is underexposed. Even with better exposure I think we could be looking at a massively distorted ship's bridge or structure. Ghosty lit and strangely distorted I can see why the camera man would be so confused by the image. If nothing else he captured an amazing illusion on film, but to jump straight to the UFO theory is a bit foolish imho.

Now wait for the skeptics to say "but it does not look like any of the ship's bridges on your website therefore..."



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Alfafox, it is an absolute DELIGHT to see you here.

I regard your work on the Mexican Air Force FLIR footage as a benchmark in 'debunking'!!! Your analysis was simply a work of art, and I use your website often as a pointer on how to properly investigate claims such as these. I haven't looked at what you may have done regarding this one, but I will, and I do hope you stick around - your input would be greatly appreciated...


Hello CHRLZ and thank you for you kind comment. I remember I was called the
"Pelican" when that case and my theory was exposed on UfoUpdates list.

There are many "believers" who like to perpetrate the mystery while others
fight hard to try to unveil it and grow according to common sense and through
honesty and objectivity.

Congratulations for your precise explanation in your post above, it is very
educating and I know will make some members to think again and reconsider
the way things could have been in the reality.

please keep up your nice work,

Regards.
.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by alfafox
 


Thanks alfafox, very interesting site you linked to, the second hypothesis goes along the lines of what I thought of when I first heard of this case.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
There are a lot of different conclusions because the video is made up of multiple different videos,
Maye some are speaking of the video with the lights on the horizon,
while others are speaking of the other multiple clips,
maybe the OP needs to be more specific,
Or maybe everyone needs to be more specific about what they are talking about....

But personally I thought the subject was on the entire video!!

3 seconds of footage of how a light reacted on the horizon does not discount the multiple other clips in the original footage,
It would only explain 3 seconds of it,


WHY CANT WE JUST GET SOME REAL FOOTAGE!?!?!?!?!?!!?



[edit on 23-7-2010 by SupremeKnowledge]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
We have real footage all over the planet,
But people are not looking hard enough;

There are billions of people on this planet thats see's and hear's everything....



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by alfafox
 


Alfafox.....

Your link to the boat theory also highlights the involvement of the known hoaxers Jaime Maussan & Santiago Yturria Garza, as per my extensive posts in this thread. These two are as thick as thieves, sharing TV shows, conference podiums, etc...

It's not difficult to conclude why they won't release the original footage.

It's a wonder they haven't thrown in some flying humanoid balloons! Oh hang on, they save that for Jeff Rense, that paragon of accurate reporting!


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 24-7-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manolete

Alfafox, that is a useful website you posted.

I like your hypothesis the most of any here, because in my mind the bottom of those 'ufos' in the video do not look right. They do not follow the geometry of a circular UFO at all, and instead suggest an object vanishing over the horizon, not hovering above the sea.


Thank you Manolete, I am feeding it daily and hope will help a bit.
And yes, the GL1 Canon camera was handled by Yalman in a strange
or bizarre way. I think we shouldn't call it "UFO", it is better to call it a UAP
(Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) because it is not 'flying' and only appears
inside our atmosphere as a strange object or light or a mirage.


As you pointed out, the video is underexposed. Even with better exposure I think we could be looking at a massively distorted ship's bridge or structure. Ghosty lit and strangely distorted I can see why the camera man would be so confused by the image. If nothing else he captured an amazing illusion on film, but to jump straight to the UFO theory is a bit foolish imho.

I suggest you to read an interesting post in UfoUpdates list
and follow the 2008 thread "Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos":
ufoupdateslist.com...



Now wait for the skeptics to say "but it does not look like any of the ship's bridges on your website therefore..."


Well, I expose my work as an HYPOTHESIS, besides that I am 90% skeptic.

Regards,
.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Possible, but none of the yachts have that little break in the top. In the yachts it is almost like a roll bar.

Why film many segments of different looking craft and break it up the way they have. If you were manufacturing a fake why not the last views only?/ Why bother with the earlier sightings?

Then again if most people had seen this a few nights running, I think they would tell some friends to join them watching for it to return, lots of friends with many cameras.

Though this theory is impressive, it isn't definitive yet to me...until I see it reproduced again as theorized.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join