OK, onto 08... First... I gotta say it.. While my expectations weren't high, the '08 video was a bit of a waste of time. Remember those few
brief moments of stability in the '07 video when Yalman turned on the Image Stabiliser (IS)? Sadly you'll also recall that very soon after, he
turned it off. (Wouldn't want stable images now, would we...)
Anyway, here we are one year later, and if anything, the images are worse.
No tripod, no return of the IS, and in fact the only difference is
we have diiferent lighting effects, and more grandiose claims. Indeed the translated comments are so comical that I shall ignore them and simply let
them speak for themselves..
For the record the first part of this ongoing 'analysis' is here
the second part is here
The video I used was found here
Off we go:
Video time - 2008/6/8 3:54am
The footage commences with that same object again, in its 'notched' form. As usual the image is underexposed, and the background contains no
detail, even when processed.
Yalman seems to have got the focus a little more accurately, but, in an unfortunate balancing coincidence, the compression artefacts are notably
worse, so there is no useful improvement. Again, he does not refocus after zoom changes. Again, there are vague blurs in the notched area, but they
do not resemble any figures, humanoid or otherwise. Nothing in the image is moving other than from camera shake, in other words there is no RELATIVE
movement within the frame. If anyone disputes this with *specifics*, I am happy to do a series of overlays showing what I mean.
AGAIN, right at the end of this sequence (~0:47) the exposure changes and the object goes very dark..
..either because the lighting has changed or Yalman is deliberately altering it. But he immediately cuts the sequence! This is VERY strange
behavior,and has happened more than once (refer notes to previous video). I have a theory about this.. later!
Video time - 2008/6/11 2:58am
Another scene change, the object has changed its appearance (notch gone, new edge 'details') - AGAIN we do not see a transition. This sequence is
even more underexposed than usual. During brief moments (1:15,1:19,1:28..) there is an odd effect at the left hand side of the object - an effect
that looks very like light showing through branches of a tree (see below)...
Video time - 2008/6/12 2:19am
Another scene change - the object looks different and is reasonably brightly lit, although again, that left side looks like it is obscured by foliage
or something similar. AGAIN, we do not see a transition!! Why do we never
see what happens when the objects move into or out of view, or the
dawn light begins to illuminate the background, or any of the surrounding landscape?
It is VERY noticeable that whatever is obscuring the light at left is well in front of the object, as you can see it causes a 'disjointed' effect in
the bright areas (eg 2:10).
This effect is caused by diffraction, and indicates the obscuring object (which again, looks a lot like tree branches) is not at the same distance as
the bright object. This reinforces the theory that the lower obscuring shape is caused by foreground objects, and begs the question of why Yalman
does not make any attempt whatsoever to show us the foreground.
At 2:12, the lighting changes significantly - a shadow seems to swing across the object, as if a car's headlights shone on the area as it turned.
The image gets very shaky at this point and Yalman for some reason attempts to refocus, only managing to make the image noticably worse and shake the
camera severely.. After a short pause, the shadow moves back the other way, rather like the effect you might expect from that car doing a turn, and
having to wait half way for traffic.. That's just to give you an idea, of course - I can't say that is what actually caused the effect ( I mean, it
could just be someone with a big torch, or.. an alien power source...!!!)
This sequence, with its odd light and shadow effects, gives a strong impression that the object is simply being illuminated by light, not generating
light. It does not appear to be transparent or translucent. However that cannot be determined for certain from such poorly resolved, indistinct
objects in a very low quality video. At times, that shadow gives the very strong impression that the light is being blocked by trees (eg
Note the pattern of the shadows - exactly the same as it was before.
Ok, that's it for the 08 video. Again I shall refrain from summarising all the stuff i find 'bothersome', but you are probably getting the
picture.. The 09 video has some more interesting bits, so i hope all this will be found worthwhile.
Thanks for listening!