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: 24
48
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by david444
All this talk of the object being a boat is nonsense that should be dropped. The video as posted by fleabit earlier on in this thread clearly should end the very silly boat specualtion. 1. the object is much higher than the sea level. 2. The lights being displayed are most un-boat like. 3. The object is driving the dog crazy as it can be seen barking directly at it. Animals have been known to react to these things in excatly the same way as the dog does in the clip. Why would it go mad at a boat on the distant horizon? No, this clips is of a real alien craft.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by david444]


Pure conjecture. The daytime lights could be easily above the horizon due to optical effects commonly seen by mariners in which objects appear higher than they are really. Hell I once raid about a Tea Race between two tea clippers in the early 20th century and at one point on of the ships was seen from the other as having an identical tea clipper hovering upside down in the sky above it. As they say, worse things happen at sea.

2) The lights ARE boatlike. Ever seen a boat with a red light at one end, a red light at the other and a few more slightly higher on the deck infrastructure? I haven't either, but who is to say it is impossible?

3) Prove the dog is barking at the lights and not just barking at the other people present, other animals present. Dogs bark, it is a rare dog that is silent. Why would a dog be barking at something so far away the camera man has to zoom like crazy to even capture it.


I think too many people in this thread, and generally on the internet, are willing this thing to be a UFO. Phenomenon it is, mystery it is, but to assume that it is an aircraft of an alien origin is somewhat overstepping the mark.




posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manolete
...
3) Prove the dog is barking at the lights and not just barking at the other people present, other animals present. Dogs bark, it is a rare dog that is silent. Why would a dog be barking at something so far away the camera man has to zoom like crazy to even capture it.


I think too many people in this thread, and generally on the internet, are willing this thing to be a UFO. Phenomenon it is, mystery it is, but to assume that it is an aircraft of an alien origin is somewhat overstepping the mark.


Very astute.

To add to the dog thing... We are considering all possibilities, including that of a deliberate hoax. So, if you wanted a bit of 'dog confirmation', how easy to just toss a few pebbles or some sand into the water, and get the dog excited. Do it a few times and he will be anxiously waiting for the next one. And that would mean that you would need to have an edit in your video footage, just before you took the sequence showing the dog barking in the right direction. Check the video - you will see that is *exactly* how it is edited - there are several minutes missing just before the dog barks. Note also that after he barks, he looks back expectantly at his owner.."Go on, throw the next one.."?) Also, for any dog owners, how often do they bark at distant non-moving lights?

Maybe the aliens were blowing a very loud dog whistle that Yalcin couldn't hear?

Or maybe they smelt like chicken...



[edit on 25-7-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
CHRLZ, did you see my post regarding the moon phases in the video and their incosistency with the actual moon phases on the dates these "sightings" were supposedly filmed?

If the time code has been tampered with or fabricated, what else has? I no longer think this is a case of mistaken identity, but an out and out hoax.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
CHRLZ, did you see my post regarding the moon phases in the video and their incosistency with the actual moon phases on the dates these "sightings" were supposedly filmed?

If the time code has been tampered with or fabricated, what else has? I no longer think this is a case of mistaken identity, but an out and out hoax.


Karilla.....

I wonder what these guys might know about it?



Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


But they look so trustworthy! I'm sure I once bought a second hand VW beetle from the guy on the left.

Who exactly are they? Did they have something to do with this videos release or are they confirming its validity? If either is true they are charlatans, in my humble opinion..



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

But they look so trustworthy! I'm sure I once bought a second hand VW beetle from the guy on the left.
Who exactly are they? Did they have something to do with this videos release or are they confirming its validity? If either is true they are charlatans, in my humble opinion..


Karilla.....

The guy on the right is Jaime Maussan......

The guy on the left is Maussan's right hand man, Santiago Yturria Gaza.

Maybe....maybe not gets out his best Monty Python voice.....

"Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more!"


I have posted extensively about Maussan & Gazza in this thread. Let me know if you can't find my info.



Cheers
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Must have missed that page first time around. I would say, in light of the catalogue of fakes perpetrated by Maussan that you posted, his involvement puts the kibosh on it. In a way I'm glad that I'd already come to the conclusion that this is a hoax before finding out who was involved. I have no doubt now. The credible UFO researchers of the world should club together and buy this bloke some cement boots!



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
CHRLZ, did you see my post regarding the moon phases in the video and their incosistency with the actual moon phases on the dates these "sightings" were supposedly filmed?

If the time code has been tampered with or fabricated, what else has? I no longer think this is a case of mistaken identity, but an out and out hoax.


I most certainly did, and I'll look at it a bit deeper later on - so many issues, so little time...!! Problem is that any bright object that is overloading the sensors will bloom outwards and tend towards a circle. So if it was already close to a circle... Hard to be certain. But the time stamping is an issue. I understand Yalcin says that the battery that stores the time is not working, but the bahavior of the time signatures is not really consistent with that. Either it keeps time or it doesn't...

There are SO many holes in these videos and the story that goes with them - making sense out of it is a bit like herding cats...

I'll try and catch up and post the next instalment shortly..


[edit on 26-7-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Karilla
 


The reason Jaime Maussan was in turkey was because of the UFO conference 2010. Which by the way also had these speakers there also.

Neil Freer
Jim Nichols
Gary Heseltine (UK)
Wendelle Stevens
Fred Burks
Judy Goodman
Ross Hemsworth (UK)
John Ventre
David Sereda
Danny Sheehan Paul McCarty (UK)
Marc D’Antonio
Chuck Zukowski
Donald Ware
Dolores Cannon
Dr. C.V. Tramont
Mary Rodwell (Australia)
Melinda Leslie
Niara Isley
Ann Eller
Paola Harris Stan Romanek
Travis Walton
Douglas Taylor
Richard Dolan
Barbara Lamb
Michael Horn
Mary Joyce
Evelyn Gordon
Jaime Maussan (Mexico)
Santiago Garza (Mexico)

So you can't say he had anything to do with the video and its release.Also just because he is there does not mean that this is a hoax. I am not saying it is or isn't a hoax, because I just do not know. If there is anything that shows he was involved in some way or had something to do with it I will admit to being wrong. Like I had said he was here for the conference and Has probably heard about this and will obviously talk about it. SO i guess until we can get more info than what we have I just can't confirm or deny what is out there and I still believe it was not a yacht, but what do I know.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by tsurfer2000h]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   


I have a question still about the way the underside looks illuminated and yet you see nothing else illuminated. It seems to me if the underside is visible then you should be able to see some type of reflection from some where under lights that are illuminate was seems to be the underside of this vessel.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   


Oh I just felt like throwing a sub into the mix here. After all, the Sea of Marmara

is home of the Turkish Navy.




Sub entering the Sea of Marmara.





Fun sub:












[edit on 26-7-2010 by KIZZZY]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I'm still not at all convinced that the sections showing the dome-like structure are filmed from the same place. There is no evidence in the vid that we are still looking out to sea. The preceding clip of the lights on the horizon, filmed from the beach may lead us to assume that we are looking at the same view, but it could well be a smallish perspex (or similar) dome sat in a field with the moon above.

We never see any movement and we never see any waves or reflections on the water, which bothers me greatly.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Karilla
 



I have to agree with you on that? Where is the moonlight in the water?

Oh btw, loved your moon phases!

I smell rotten fish with these pics. The blinking lights seems to be an

altogether different scene. Where were those blinking lights on the

other pics?

What are they doing? Trying to drum up some tourism?


[edit on 26-7-2010 by KIZZZY]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Continuing with comments on the '07 video...

The (same) video I used is here. And my earlier comments are here - if we put em all together it will be a good sized book...

So, ummmm, did I say this one would be shorter? I lied, sorry! Grab a coffee, sit back.. or if you aren't that interested and just want a good ufo story.. I suggest you skip this post, and maybe even jump to some other thread.


0:15
Video time - 2007/7/30 4:50pm
The lens is zoomed to what appears to be its maximum. The Canon GL1 camera's maximum zoom is 800mm* (35mm equiv). In layperson's terms, that means a magnification of about 16x (twice that of a standard pair of binoculars). It is worth noting that later videos show that he has used a tele-extender - a lens attachment that increases the telephoto range. Such converters usually only give 1.5 - 3x magnification, so the full zoom might be anywhere from 16x to 48x. Unfortunately these tele-extenders often reduce the lens quality markedly, which may explain some of the loss of resolution.

Digital zoom may also be involved, but this simply becomes too difficult to guess at. Certainly digital zoom would also contribute to the loss of resolution, and should *never* be used for this type of photography.

At full zoom, the images are extremely shaky, suggesting the magnification is at least 15x, probably more, and that Yalman is not using anything to steady himself.

[opinion!]The object gives the impression of a very slightly assymetrical circular object, possibly tilted, and it appears to be obscured at the bottom by an uneven surface/object (eg hills, sand dune, could even be someone's arm..) The object appears to be opaque and softly lit, eg by slightly cloudy moonlight.[/opinion]

The image is, once again, badly underexposed. It is so dark that no background detail can be discerned.

0:47
Video time - 2007/7/30 4:50pm
The image is zoomed well back, and then manually focused. However, the focus process is justa 'one shot' process. Yalman does not rack the focus past the optimum so it cannot be determined if he actualy does gain correct focus.

Importantly, it should be noted that zoom lenses such as this MUST always be refocused when you change the magnification, ie 'zoom'. Autofocus will handle that in daylight, but in low light manual focus is best. It is notable that Yalman is unaware of the need to refocus at every zoom change, or perhaps deliberately chooses not to do it.

1:00
Video time - 2007/7/30 4:50pm
Yalman seems to adjust the exposure, but down, so the object is even less bright! The comments seem to indicate the object is clearly visible to the naked eye, which means the camera could definitely be adjusted for a brighter image, but Yalman does not do this.

1:15
Video time - 2007/8/1 4:46pm
A new scene, showing a similar but slightly different object with 'notches' and irregularites. It is roughly the same shape, and has the same apparent obscuring effect. Again, it is underexposed. Again, he zooms in to show that the object appears to be the same size.

The more specular highlighting may indicate a clear moonlit night, but without knowing the nature of the object (is it highly polished or somewhat dull, is it translucent, is it emitting rather than reflecting light?), or the light source (it could be parking lot floodlights..), these are merely speculations. (Vague pun intended..)

1:50
Video time - 2007/8/1 4:46pm
(Sadly!) he manages to zoom in even further, indicating digital zoom may be being used. The image becomes even less sharp (again no attempt to refocus), and is shaking around to the point of being completely useless.

1:50
Video time - 2007/8/2 3:59am AM??
NOTE - the video time indicates it is about 14 hours after the earlier footage, and yet it is night again...?
The scene has changed again, with the object looking more like the first one, but differently lit, giving an impression of lights through trees. The focus is VERY poor, momentarily improving at 2:57, but it is quickly defocused. Yalman zooms in excessively again, perhaps trying to resolve some vague shapes beneath the object, but the shakiness and lack of resolution make that impossible.

3:35
Video time - 2007/8/7 5:07pm
NOTE - the video time again...???
Once more, a scene change to a very similar but differently lit object. This one appears to have more edge details, but again, the resolution is poor and the object is out of focus. Interestingly, at 4:20, the lighting appears to change (or it could be an attempt to change exposure), but then the camera is swung rapidly away [opinion] almost as if he wishes not to be showing the object at that moment...[/opinion]. After a short pause during which nothing shows on the video, what appears to be the Moon comes into view. Presumably during the pause, he zoomed back, as the moon is relatively small. It is somewhat overexposed (but not as much as it should be for a 'normal' night exposure). Yalman makes a brief attempt to focus on the moon, but the scene suddenly changes...

4:33
Video time - 2007/8/7 5:13pm
If we are to believe the time stamp, 6 minutes have elapsed, and now the object looks very different. Whatever 'transition' took place was, as usual, not shown. At 4:48 the camera seems to be quite violently moved from side to side and at the same time the exposure appears to be adjusted down again. There is another period of 'nothing', followed by another brief glimpse of the moon - no other objects are visible, and the moon is never in the same shot as the object.

5:03
Video time - 2007/8/10 4:20pm
Yet another change - the object is shown again with slightly different lighting, rather similar to the first sequence. But again, Yalman darkens the exposure.

5:27
Video time - 2007/8/12 5:12pm
Yet another scene change, the 'notch' reappears. There are some lighter parts in the 'notch'. I guess they are supposed to be aliens, but they look like unresolved blurs to me..
The footage is VERY shaky and blurred. At 6:25, he again reduces the exposure, even though the image is, as usual, badly underexposed.

6:37
Video time - 2007/8/24 1:44pm
Amazingly, Yalman seems to have found the image stabilisation button.... (He should still be using a tripod, but we should be thankful for small mercies..) As usual the image is blurry, slightly different, and heavily underexposed.

8:16
Video time - 2007/8/24 4:02pm
Yet another scene change... same as usual, and he has now turned off the image stabilisation.. So much for that improvement in quality...

BTW, at 8:48 there is a brief flash of something - I can't be bothered downloading and freeze framing it (it's not a key frame sadly), but someone else may wish to look at that.

8:49
Video time - 2007/8/12 5:12pm
We've just entered a time warp - note the date and time - this is repeated footage.

[opinion]The 'aliens' are highlighted by circles, and that is probably the lamest piece of pareidolia I have EVER seen in my life.[/opinion]

So much for video one. Final comment..?

How is that there were SOO MANY scene changes, and the object changed appearance SO MANY TIMES, yet Yalman never once caught the transitions? NOT ONCE. I have an opinion on that, and a lot of other complaints and observations, but I'll refrain until the bitter end..


Next, I'll look at the 08 video. I might do some screen grabs to make this stuff a little less boring...

Again, comments, criticisms or additional observations very welcome...



* - actually, it's 807mm equivalent, if you want total precision...


[edit (can't count!) on 26-7-2010 by CHRLZ]

[edit on 26-7-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h


I have a question still about the way the underside looks illuminated and yet you see nothing else illuminated. It seems to me if the underside is visible then you should be able to see some type of reflection from some where under lights that are illuminate was seems to be the underside of this vessel.


That's one of the key issues here. There are various clues that these things are reasonably brightly lit, he even shows the Moon several times - and a camera of the quality of the GL1 would easily show background detail in a moonlit scene. Crikey, mate, my elcheapo digital still camera takes better video than that shown. The GL1 would also DEFINITELY show the reflections of the Moon in the water if used at the default exposure settings (let alone more carefully chosen manual settings). Besides which, this is a quite developed, populated, well lit area. Where are the streetlights, buildings, etc...? Why the hell doesn't he pan around and show us the environment??? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that, but I'll refrain until I've gone over the other two videos.


Finally, it is very clear that these videos have been very poorly 'transcribed' - whether because of a poor capture method, or by lousy post-processing, or over compression, or all three.

I have to smile when I see folks saying this is some of the best footage they have seen, because that truly is a very sad indictment of the current state of ufo evidence, in these times of very good, and very available, camera equipment.

The fact that we are being refused access to the original footage speaks VOLUMES about this 'case', and what is actually happening here...



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by KIZZZY


What are they doing? Trying to drum up some tourism?




I am sorry if this has been brought up before in this thread, I may have missed it. But yes, Mr. Haktan Akdogan, who is promoting the "Kumburgaz UFO", certainly does have very strong financial motives for doing it. He IS a business man, and I suppose he doesn't mind drawing some visitors to his UFO museum and making money on a hoax or two...

This is from an older article written in 2003, but it is still true today:



Haktan Akdogan of Sirius seems to be a recurring figure in Turkish UFO lore commenting freely on each event and insisting on the importance of Turkey to alien life.

His motives however may not just be scientific, he is also the owner of the Istanbul UFO museum that opened in 2002 (commercially riding on the back of these multiple UFO events) and any extra interest in aliens will also encourage customers to his museum.

He also runs the museum as a fairly successful franchise with three others in Turkey (Istanbul, Denizli and Goreme in Cappadocia) and his website www.siriusufo.org advertises for further partners to open other UFO museums.

It is his intention to open UFO museums all over Turkey to "further the knowledge of the Turkish people and to attract tourists".

His organization provides all the necessary materials and installations so each museum is a de facto copy of the first. Whether they are lucrative or not is not mentioned but when the Goreme museum opened in 2006 Hurriyet newspaper reported that they had 5,000 visitors in one month alone. Apparently it was especially popular with the Japanese.

www.voicesnewspaper.com...


Istanbul UFO Museum



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


CHRLZ.....

I commend you on your typically strong work on this case.

Your posts really are a highlight!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


ugh you torture me with the drippings of your analysis


This anticipation is just driving me mad!

That pesky zoom lens I know it well!

Excellent job so far....I only finished 1/2 cup of java



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


CHRLZ.....

I commend you on your typically strong work on this case.

Your posts really are a highlight!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Aww shucks!! You're a kind, kind soul, MMN.

But my recommendation is that you skip all the long-winded stuff I'm going through now, and wait until I do an executive summary at the end.


Sadly that probably won't be until the weekend.. I'll try to get time to look at '08 tomorrow night.

I want to look at each video thoroughly, because sometimes tiny things can be very important, and I don't want to miss anything. Plus, as you watch someone filming and note what they do (or don't do), you can get a very good handle on their approach to the subject, what they know, or don't, about the equipment, and also what they want (or don't want) you to see... In these videos, there are lots of little giveaways being scattered all along the way, and I gotta say it isn't looking good for the 'ufo' side.. I think Yalman knows dam well what he was filming...

By the way, I do hope Lupelius comes back - he sounded like he was genuine...

[edit on 26-7-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


THE WEEKEND?........cries




top topics



 
48
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join