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.


The infamous Turkey UFO a yacht?

page: 27
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:25 PM

Originally posted by CHRLZ
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..

--- SNIP---

Hi CHRLZ, I think in some time Yalcin Yalman used a tripod, but almost all of his recordings show no stability...


posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:49 PM
That tripod just wants to boogie!

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:19 PM
reply to post by alfafox

Thank you alfafox! Very kind of you.

I thought I was contributing in helping others. This is not my thread.

I don't need a weather report. The "ducts" still exist no matter what the

weather is. And the major cause of "ducting" is humidity and temperature

inversion which give refractivity that result from stable and unstable

meteorological conditions.

I invite anyone to look up the Black Sea, its composition and relationship and

causal factors attributed to the Mamara Sea.

I have provided the necessary links for the delineation of the "ducts" et al

with wonderful graphics as well. The rest is up to the people to do the foot


I really have no intentions of walking everyone through this when all they

have to do is review the information which I provided. I am done here!


[edit on 27-7-2010 by KIZZZY]

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:37 PM

Originally posted by alfafox
Hi CHRLZ, I think in some time Yalcin Yalman used a tripod, but almost all of his recordings show no stability...

I think I know why...

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:52 PM
Thanks, alfafox - yes, I've noticed at least one sequence in the 09 video where a tripod (not a very good one) is being used. The fact that he has IS (image stabilisation) turned off for almost all of the footage, despite showing that he knew it was there in 07, is rather damning.

And I just *love* that image. I see the tripod centre post is extended.. bzzzt. But of course it is a publicity shot, so that would explain it...

I'm just trying to get my head around Urzi getting tips from Yalman (or vice versa).

Just imagine what they could create, by putting their talents together! [sarcasm]

That image shows the tele-extender lens I alluded to earlier. I don't recognise the brand, but it's worth noting that it is clearly not designed for the camera - it is way too narrow and you can see it vignetting the image badly in the 09 video. Also, Canon do NOT recommend the use of such lenses for the GL1 due to the loss of image quality - the zoom lens on the camera is badly compromised by such folly.

But it *looks* like something impressive, and that's all that counts for some people...

[edit on 27-7-2010 by CHRLZ]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:05 AM
Mirages and Fog


A common illusion is the appearance of “fog” in superior mirages. The cause is the very long air-path of the strongly-refracted rays, particularly when ducting is involved. This appearance is so well known to mirage researchers that Pernter and Exner devote a few (rather confused) pages to it; a better discussion is given by Bonnelance (1929). Here's a good example, selected from Wim van Bochoven's mirage pictures:

Istanbul Fact

Fog is prevalent, throughout the year, particularly during the mornings, but it quickly dissipates before noon.

...sorry, had to throw that in.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:16 AM
OK, onto 09... There's a bit of interesting stuff in this one... but I'm afraid it's most interesting in what it points towards - and that ain't aliens...

For the record the first parts of this ongoing 'analysis', covering the '07 video are here and here.
The one covering '08 is here.

The '09 video I used was found here.

Off we go:

Video time - 2009/5/13 2:19am
The footage commences with that same 'notched' object again, as usual, heavily underexposed on the now obligatory featureless background. Interestingly, this footage appears to have been taken on a TRIPOD! Sadly, it is still quite shaky, and he is clearly using the tele-extender, so the quality is still poor. Further, it seems he does not realise that as long as he is holding the camera, he is wobbling the camera/tripod about. This is obviously a flimsy tripod - a camera like the GL1 needs something solid, especially when it is heavily unbalanced by a large add-on lens. Funnily enough, he would probably have been far better off using a small bean bag on top of a car roof or similar...
Anyway, the object is very obviously a perfect match for its previous appearances in the notched form, as shown by this little snap:

It shows a still from 09 overlaid on one from 07 - while the lighting is different (see other comments about lights shining through trees, etc..) the object is obviously a match.

At 0:22 Yalman again adjust the exposure down (you can hear the detents clicking as he does this). Always dimmer... Perhaps Yalman only found out how to adjust the aperture, not the shutter speed? Seems strange, as he found out about manual exposure - just not how to use it properly, or perhaps how to use it to hide stuff... If you are thinking there may not be enough light - see my comments further down, when he gives the game away when he includes the Moon...

One more comment, at about 0:50, the images have the 'slurred' effect that indicates he may have Image Stabilisation (IS) turned on. Many manufacturers recommend that you turn IS off when using a tripod, but given the shakiness of this tripod, it is difficult to tell if that is helping or hindering..

Just for the record, the best image quailty so far seems to be at about 1:21 - he seems to have fluked the focus.. But it is still quite low resolution, and no useful edge detail exists. The 'aliens'
are still just a small blurry blob - they don't even appear to be holding rayguns!! (sorry)

Yalman, inexplicably, keeps playing with the exposure, constantly dimming and brightening the image. I felt the strong urge to slap his hand away and tell him to stop playing with it!

Video time - 2009/5/13 3:57am
Since the last effort, he has now abandoned the tripod. He has also abandoned the focus control it seems - the footage from 1:36 to 2:00 is uselessly out of focus.

At 2:03, he has zoomed the image to ridiculous levels (both digital and tele-extender in use) and attempted to focus it a little, but the image is simply dreadful! There are huge swathes of chromatic aberration (CA) - pretty colours, but completely devoid of useful detail. The image is shaking uncontrollably (he's turned IS OFF, now that he needs it..) This whole sequence is just useless amorphous shapes, and is probably the worst so far.

Video time - 2009/5/15 4:59am
Another change of scene, and again we see the object in its un-notched form, but with the similar edge details/lighting as in 07 and 08. Again, no tripod, no IS, shaky, underexposed, no background detail, no transition, the usual downwards adjustment of exposure...

Video time - 2009/5/15 5:20am
At last - something new!! 4 little flickering lights in a curve... And it seems that there is a little light around, as dawn approaches, perhaps? Now first up - *is this supposed to be the same object?* We don't see any transition (are you surprised?). As far as I know Yalman hasn't even claimed it is the same. It doesn't LOOK the same, and this overlay strongly suggests that:

there is simply no correlation in either shape or size - even if you change the sizes dramatically from what is presumably the same (maximum) magnification for each - it just doesn't match. The lights are MUCH smaller and a completely different shape. These are obviously NOT the same object. If claimed otherwise, where is the footage showing the change from one to the other???? As further evidence, the lights are scintillating, exactly consistent with them being at least a few kilometres distant, being filmed through a lot of atmosphere (a misty morning over water will also contribute greatly).. And yet this effect has not been seen on ANY of the other objects!!! One would have to suggest that the other objects are either much nearer, or are not over water. OR BOTH. In summary - there is NOTHING similar about the two different types of scene.

At 3:17, yalman zooms back and you can see the efefctive aperture of the lens increases (ie it lets in more light), so we can now see the water, and what appears to be the horizon (which could however simply be a mist rolling in).

At 3:35, he zooms right back. The lens 'vignettes' (the image becomes a circle with black borders). This shows us several things:

1. He is using a tele-extender lens to increase the focal length. Canon does NOT recommend such lenses as they reduce resolution and cause other unwanted effects like chromatic aberration, as mentioned above..

2. The lens is not matched to the camera (if it was, it would not show those black borders and have to be even larger than it already is).

3. The lens is probably a 1.5x or 2.0x, judging by the amount of vignetting, but that is just an educated guess.

4. Note that the circle is significantly offset - uncentred. That suggests that the extender is poorly mounted (duck tape?
), or that the camera is poorly constructed or perhaps damaged. To be honest, this isn't that unusual, but it does suggest that the lens and sensor are not going be giving their best, perhaps explaining some of the fuzziness.

At 3:48, Yalman pans across to show another bright light in the sky, higher this time. It looks like an aircraft, but he doesn't hold it in a steady image long enough to tell if it is moving.

As a side issue, note that at 3:52, there is a dark object floating/swimming/whatever in the water...

Think about that in regard to the dog's behavior later...

He zooms into the light a bit, but doesn't manage to focus on it before there is ANOTHER cut in the footage. Sigh.

Video time - 2009/5/15 5:27am
Just six minutes have elapsed, and now we suddenly cut to a zoomed in image of the four lights again. As he zooms back, we see Yalman's (?) dog barking at the water, vaguely in the direction of the lights, but also roughly in the direction where the dark object was - although for some reason, Yalman doesn't zoom back enough for us to verify where he is now standing. The footage clearly indicates that there is a lot of mist/cloud/pollution in the air.

What happened in those six minutes, I wonder??

Video time - 2009/5/15 5:32am
More footage of the four lights, a bit brighter. The footage clearly indicates that there is a lot of mist/cloud/pollution in the air. The dog is no longer barking, but the lights are still there...


posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:27 AM
CONTINUED....09 video analysis

Video time - 2009/5/17 3:02am
This and the next segment are puzzling. First, Yalman appears to show the Moon (at 3:02am) and below and to the LEFT can be seen what appears to be a streetlight and some other ground detail:

Note that I have wound this image up a little to show the object a litttle more clearly, and also show the horrific posterisation that proves the image has been deliberately manipulated to exclude any detail in dark areas. Whatever is at bottom left, is clearly NOT the object in the other takes... The scene is somewhat underexposed, but still shows a VERY bright Moon... More about this later..

For some reason, Yalman has AutoFocus engaged and it is continually racking back and forth (5:14) trying to find more detail than the Moon to focus on. This shows WHY AutoFocus is useless at night - even on a good camera like the GL1, it's hopeless.

Video time - 2009/5/17 3:06am
Note the timestamp - this is just 4 minutes later!! The exposure has been changed downwards again, by several stops.. Note that this is a WIDE view, and judging by the fact that the objects at bottom left have now vanished, something funny is going on. Did Yalman duck down a bit below his fence, perhaps, while he was busy changing the exposure settings?

He zooms slowly in, the now VERY DIM Moon disappears at top-mid-left, and he shows our familar object again, but this time the notch looks a little different. Still just as fuzzy and unclear, and now Yalman has demonstrated, by the way the Moon was very obviously dimmed out, that he has DELIBERATELY adjusted the expsure down so as to not show the background. What is he hiding?

While he appears to be using a tripod and IS again, the image is digitally zoomed and suffering again from the horrid CA and fuzziness.

At 5:37 he zooms back, once again showing the now-dim moon. The next part is boring as all hell, and I suggest you turn down the sound, as it sounds like Yalman is.. er.. oh dear..

He zooms back in at 6:02, then back out, helpfully showing us that uderexposed moon quite clearly at 6:24:

Again, I emphasise that to get such a dimly lit moon, you would have to deliberately wind the exposure WAY DOWN. Deliberately... That fact can be easily proved by taking any digicam out at night and shooting the Moon...

And through all this, no transitions. We never get to see it arrive, or go. We never get to see it as dawn lights up the sky, and see it magically transform its shape and lighting completely into what looks exactly like lights on a ship.

OK, I've waffled enough for now. I haven't finished though! - I've got some more to say and a summary of all the 'issues' and giveaways, but that can wait. I'd like to hear other comments first. I'd also like to hear any objections to what I have said - Free Spirit, now's ya chance!!!

But if you wish to dispute my comments, come armed with your wits... I know this topic rather well (modest, aren't I..).

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:38 AM
reply to post by CHRLZ

Thanks for your in depth analysis's CHRLZ, very refreshing to have someone who knows their camera gear talking us through it all.

One question I wanted to throw at you, in regards to the dog barking in this video:

It starts barking around the 2:35 mark.

Then compare that with the barking at 4:10.

Is it me or is there a distinct echo in the dogs bark at the 2:35 mark?

Sounds like it's inside.

Dunno if this means anything.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Is it me or is there a distinct echo in the dogs bark at the 2:35 mark?
Sounds like it's inside.
Dunno if this means anything.

I confess I had not actually listened to the footage at 2:35 - i was getting sick of Yalcin's drone...

So I just bravely threw on my trusty but aging Sennheisers and took a long hard listen. Yes, i agree that there is a subtle difference, but not by much, and I'm not sure if it is evidence - but I am absolutely 100% percent convinced that the beach scenes have nothing at all to do with the darker scenes anyway. They may well be shot from a similar or even the same location, but the objects being recorded are not related in any way whatsoever to the lights.

Prove me wrong, Yalman!! Show some daytime footage from ALL these locations, panning around - I particularly want to see that streetlight you accidentally caught, and where it is... Show us the transition to dawn. Show us what boat/ship lights DO look like at dawn in similar conditions. Describe how the object morphs completely, and how come you never captured it. Explain why you use such ridiculous exposure settings... Etc, etc....

I think someone here knows Yalman, and might just pass these challenges on...

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:20 AM
reply to post by CHRLZ

Yeah I don't know what it means, if it even means anything I just thought it was a bit odd.

Let's hope our Turkish friend hasn't forgotten about us and we'll get to see some daytime shot of the area.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:40 AM
reply to post by CHRLZ

I happen to agree with you CHRLZ. The dog is not evidence of anything and one would expect fishing boats to be seen, after all, they do fish for squid with their fishing jiggers. The flashing lights could very well be a fishing boat or two in the fog and it is not uncommon for a dog to bark when he sees something. They want a "good boy" pat on the head. The two scenes are so not related.

Squid boats do have bi-lateral hanging lights over the water or the new led lights underneath the water and must be anchored. The lights of course to attract the squid. The fog of course would dim the whole view of that scenario. *Just a thought.

This guy does dart from one frame to another which is totally unrelated to the other. You don't see the transition. He wants to save batteries? Ya think in three years he would get it right?

Unlike you CHRLZ, I don't have the patience to do a step by step. So far so good with your delineations. A big thumbs up to you!

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:51 AM
reply to post by KIZZZY

KIZZZY, has some great info and links about mirages at the moment.

Worth checking out for the pics alone!

[edit on 28/7/10 by Chadwickus]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by Chadwickus

I gave info up the wazoo Chad
The report I gave out describes the "ducts"

from the involvement of the Black Sea to Mamara Sea. Quite an interesting

read. The fact also of Istanbul having fog prevalent throughout the year is a

matter of fact. I put up that information to back up Phage and the mirages.

That is really a great shot Chad! Think I will have a look-see!

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by CHRLZ

p.s. I just knew there was something wrong with that tele-extender

as well.

I smell rotten fish all over this thing...oh yes I do!

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:48 AM

Just when ya thought it was safe to go back in the water....

Yes folks....Night-Time Mirages do indeed exist!

Night-Time Mirages

We tend to observe mirages most often during the daylight, but superior

mirage conditions commonly occur during the night. Indeed, inversion

formation is much more frequent during the night hours, at times occurring

nightly for long stretches. The advent and spread of artificial light sources

during the twentieth century, particularly moving light sources such as the

headlights of cars and trucks, can produce some interesting visions.

For example, the superior mirage could be the source for many nighttime

UFO sightings. Here's why. The light from headlights on automobiles moving

along the highway can be refracted under inversion conditions so that they

appear to come from the heavens rather than from the surface where they

originated. These images can appear to move quickly across the sky, or

they can disappear suddenly as the angle or position of the light beam from

the moving vehicle changes.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:20 PM
Hi all,

Dunno about this one? But suggest our real in-depth researchers go back in time and take a peak at the USS Roosevelt Carrier and what happened there (1950-65). One of the more interesting points to the time was their offensive weapons.


posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Chadwickusit me or is there a distinct echo in the dogs bark at the 2:35 mark?

Sounds like it's inside.

Dunno if this means anything.

It sounds like the dog itself is some distance away. The echo is consistent with the volume of the dog's bark. If I ripped the audio from the video and it was clear enough the echo (or reverb if ya like) would be consistent with the volume of the dog's bark. So it is a dog far away not a close dog with a far away echo.

It does not prove anything either way. You can add sounds in windows movie maker. I could add a dog barking to any video you like!

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Decoy
Hi all,

Dunno about this one? But suggest our real in-depth researchers go back in time and take a peak at the USS Roosevelt Carrier and what happened there (1950-65). One of the more interesting points to the time was their offensive weapons.


Hello Decoy!

This thread is not about the USS Roosevelt Carrier. It is about

the Turkey UFO footage. I for one have already seen it on the History


It has also been covered on ATS. Here is the thread:

Thank you just the same.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by KIZZZY]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:15 PM

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by alfafox
Hi CHRLZ, I think in some time Yalcin Yalman used a tripod, but almost all of his recordings show no stability...

I think I know why...


For interest's sake, I think that picture was taken outside the 2009 UFO conference in Istanbul.

I recall the videos of Yalman with his new "UFO groupies".

I also recall the histrionic filming of the "UFO" that "flew" over the people milling around outside the conference as per this photo. The UFO seemed to be utilising advanced holographic stealth technology that made it look like a balloon.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

top topics

<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in