The infamous Turkey UFO a yacht?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a31914820b0b.jpg[/atsimg]

You can't see the boat in both pictures. You only see the lights!

Oh and the the heads of people as well. Go figure!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c7cacc1be448.jpg[/atsimg]


Get the damn lamp thing out.......THESE are the two pictures I was referring

to.

BOTH bi-lateral reflections. The skeeter boat is angled producing a left

reflection that is different than a boat straight on.

Don't be mis-matching my diagrams! I DID NOT address that LAMP-LIKE

object!

Straighten out that skeeter boat and it sure do create the right match!!!!











[edit on 1-8-2010 by KIZZZY]

Originally posted by fleabit
I agree with the comments that the object is stationary. I see no movement at all.

Which renders this particular thread moot. Boats on water move. Whether moored, anchored, whatever... even on the calmest days at sea, it WILL move.

No movement. No yacht. End of yacht theory.

Yes...they are stationary....BUT....Your buddy Yalcin over that JERKS the camera

around so much no one is getting anything from it except for odd frames that

are not related!

There are three lines to the right that could be ripples in the water! But who

can tell from the man with the SHAKY HAND?



[edit on 1-8-2010 by KIZZZY]

Who are these scientists and where are their reports?

To date I have not seen them and I don't trust that other guy, Haktan!

He has a museum and wants to generate business no doubt and he was

also leading the witness Yalcin in his video!


The only phenomena that I found intriguing was the NORWAY lights not this

hodge- podge of unrelated frames of video crazy-glued together!

[edit on 1-8-2010 by KIZZZY]

tsurfer, you've never seen the vertical stretching effect over water?

I'm stunned.

You've never seen a mist rolling in over water, and that it gives a false horizon effect?

I'm more stunned. But the worrying part is that you, Jphish, etc, don't seem to want to consider all possibilities.

Further, can you show us your maths? How high are the lights? - show your workings. How distant are the lights? How did you determine/estimate that? Without knowing the exact zoom setting (magnification), you are simply guessing. As your own pictures point out, the ratio of the width of those lights compared to their height above the *possible* horizon line, is well within the appropriate range for a vessel.


If you wish to abandon science and logic and geometry, fine, but don't expect others to agree, or to not be called on it.

Originally posted by KIZZZY
Who are these scientists and where are their reports?
To date I have not seen them and I don't trust that other guy, Haktan!
He has a museum and wants to generate business no doubt and he was
also leading the witness Yalcin in his video!

KIZZZY.....

I amplify the important point you have again raised here.

The conflicts of interest inherent in this whole case must be understood.

Therein lies the motivation for all of this.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JPhish
there would be next to no motion blur for a car in drive moving at 1 mile per hour if the camera had a fast shutter speed. However, you are missing the point. The point is the motion of an object can help identify it.

So, POST details of where you see such motion of these objects. If you can't do that, you are just waving your arms about.

YES, motion of an object *could* help, if the motion means we get a different view, or we can measure the speed. But these objects are stationary! These objects are not moving in any way that changes their shape or orientation relative to the camera. (Even if they were, Yalcin's ridiculous hand-holding would hinder any such attempt...)

That means that still frame comparisons are in fact quite useful, and in fact *extra* useful in cases where there is much camera movement and refocusing, exposure adjustments, etc. You can then cherry-pick the best frames (indeed frame-stacking is a technique that might be useful here, but without the original footage... I wouldn't bother.)

It does make a difference because boats move . . .

[If you claim any of your factors render still frame comparisons invalid, AGAIN, POST DETAILS of where/when/how. You seem to be avoiding that like the plague.

I’ve attempted to explain this at least 3 times now. I’m not doing it again. Try actually reading my posts.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JPhish
Pictures are lesser evidence than photographs or stills.

??Wha?? You just contradicted yourself, but we'll assume it was just a slip of the non-Freudian kind...

this was obviously a typo; in several other places in this thread i have repeated that “pictures are lesser evidence than videos”. This is what happens when you have to repeat yourself for people who are being obstinate.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JPhish
I never said anything about motion blur . . .

No, and if you aren't specific, who would know *what* you are talking about. So... BE SPECIFIC.

I already have been, read my previous posts. I’m sick of sounding like a parrot.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JPhish
no offense, but that's poor frame grab, there are no reference points.[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d9b70064fa62.jpg[/atsimg]
Those lights are clearly in excess of 20 feet above the water.

No offense, but the frame you provided does not in any way show that - indeed it is EXACTLY the same scene as MY grab, just zoomed out! - so it beautifully demonstrates how you CANNOT trust your eye to arbitrarily make measurements. Anyway, the lights quite possibly are twenty feet or higher so let's concede that .... - the prawn trawler vessel I showed you has lights that are.. wait for it... about 25-30 feet above the water. (I used to work in and around those vessels). So, we have a match - thanks! A small cruising ship would have higher lights again.

It’s not the same scene, because mine has the dog and the beach as a reference. Your screen grab could be anywhere. If you genuinely believe that your screen capture is equivocal to mine you should not be in a thread analyzing pictures or videos. Once again, cruise ships move, the lights in Yachins’ video are stagnant.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JPhish not at all, those lights could be extremely high over the water depending on how large the object is.

Oh, so your 20 feet estimate is possibly/extremely wrong...? I'm getting quite confused now.

I’m really starting to hope that English is your second language or something man . . . I said that the lights are in excess of 20 feet; which means they are 20 feet or higher . . . Depending on how far away the object is it could be a lot higher than 20 feet.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JPhish When I first saw the video THIS is what I thought the day time object was. I changed my mind when I realized the light arrangement was incongruent with that of an oilrig.

WHY are they incongruent with an oil rig? How far away and at what angle would the rig be, and what lighting is actually required of a rig after daybreak? Why are you so eager to criticise others for dismissing stuff, when you are clearly eager to do so yourself, on very slim grounds? You need to start justifying your decisions by giving examples, workings and proof.

lights on oil rigs are typically linear and more abundant. It’s that simple.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JPhish The lights are definitely higher than 20 feet and I’d be willing to GUESS they are much higher.

How is your 20 feet figure NOT a guess, but higher is? You keep avoiding this - HOW do you know? If it is just a feeling, then admit that please. If it is not, then show the maths/geometry.

because the object is at least 2 miles off shore which would make it at least 20 feet high. Unless you think the object is much closer or farther than two miles away it is not a guess.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JPhish A very large cruise ship is a good guess, but again, I believe the light arrangement is incongruent.

Based upon....? __________________ Please fill in some gaps. ANY gaps.

Lights on boats are inverted in comparison to the lights observed in the video. They are also typically more abundant. It’s that simple.

Originally posted by CHRLZ?? You brought up the cardboard business, so how on earth is that NOT about the depth/shape/parallax of the object???? Again, you complain about intepretation, but offer no specifics. We *have* to guess at your meaning if you don't 'elucidate' at the start. Indeed how will I know what I have missed, if you won't elucidate..? Educate me...

I’ve already explained that it was about the variable of motion being lost in pictures.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by JPhish]

"Haktan Akdog 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 (riding on the back of these multiple UFO events) and any

extra interest in aliens will also encourage punters through the door of his

museum. He also runs the museum as a fairly successful franchise, of the six

UFO museums in the world three are in Turkey (Istanbul, Denizli and

Goreme in Cappadocia) and his website www.siriusufo.org advertises for

further partners to open other UFO branch museums. It is his clearly stated

intention to open UFO museums all over Turkey to 'further the knowledge of

the Turkish people and to attract tourists'.



www.paradigmresearchgroup.org...


So, where are the scientific reports?

You would think that when you google info on them they would be right out

front. I can't find any scientific reports. Can anyone provide me with these

tests performed by scientists?

reply to post by JPhish


JPhish.....

I find your circumlocution somewhat circumlocutive.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

As this is just getting ridiculous, with nothing but claims and no examples or supporting information whatsoever, I'll just focus on one issue:

[quoting JPhish]
It’s not the same scene, because mine has the dog and the beach as a reference. Your screen grab could be anywhere.

I don't appreciate this sort of misleading comment.

It is indeed the same scene. You can tell that even just by looking at the time signature - see that "5:27AM MAY. 15, 2009"? Notice how it is the same on JPhish's image and mine? So we know it is in the same minute, and very likely to be the same sequence...

Then, if you care to actually WATCH the video (links HAVE been given), you will find the difference between JPhish's grab and mine is about 8 seconds, just enough time for Yalcin to zoom. Clearly NOTHING in the scene changed except for the magnification - there are no cuts, it is a continuous shot.

Not that I would rub it in, but here's a GIF showing the transition:


The frame with the slightly longer pause is MY frame grab. Can everyone see the dog at the beginning of the scene? Any questions? Does JPhish dispute any of that - if so, WHAT? Will he apologise?



All that is a PERFECT example of loose words and lack of willingness to actually do the work required to deal properly with this imagery.

If anyone *else* wishes to debate these issues with integrity, please feel free.

reply to post by KIZZZY


KIZZZY.....

The blatant money-making hoaxing going on here is breathtaking.

The whole lot of them should be dragged out there & sunk, along with their BS story.

Cheers
Maybe...maybe not

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

 

KIZZZY.....

The blatant money-making hoaxing going on here is breathtaking.

The whole lot of them should be dragged out there & sunk, along with their BS story.

Cheers
Maybe...maybe not

I agree man. Poor camera work, inconclusive video, no sea in nighttime footage. The whole thing is junk.

If it was a real UFO the camera man should still be taken out and shot for filming it so poorly. If he filmed it better then better analysis could be carried out by those "scientists" (more like out-of-work film students I bet).

What analysis can you do to a rubbish shakey under-exposed video? They proved it was a solid object... how? What analysis can you do? I'm getting pissed off with people saying "it was proven by Science to be a UFO!!!11111". The entire Scientific community agree on that one eh?

reply to post by CHRLZ


CHRLZ.....

May I ask a small favour?

Can you post a link to the English version of that "scientific" report?

I can only find the Turkish version.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

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

 

CHRLZ.....

May I ask a small favour?

Can you post a link to the English version of that "scientific" report?

I can only find the Turkish version.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

You may indeed ask... But no, I can't help - I'll have another dig around when i get a spare 30 mins, though.

Interestingly, there USED to be a copy at Siriusufo.org, but that link is now dead, and a search on 'TUBITAK' at their site gives zero results. It may still be there somewhere, but who knows.

Problem is, there was no explanation of WHO did the translation, anyway. And the 'interpretations' that were in the Sirius faux 'news releases' were beat ups which twisted the words around mercilessly, especially the part where they claimed that Tubitak had eliminated many earthly explanations. According to any translations I've seen, the report actually stated that they had not been able to definitively identify a mundane explanation, and that is VERY different to saying they had eliminated anything.

As I mentioned earlier, translations of reports are very unreliable things, and MUST be signed off by experts in both languages, and in the fields concerned. I'll start getting more interested if I see one from Tubitak that is signed off by them as an accurate traslation.

Plus, as we all know, this was only a very brief preliminary look at the video, and (here's a little scoop for you) I believe it was done by someone who IS NOT a video imaging expert at all!!! I'm still chasing this down though... so I won't swear to that one.. YET.

Strangely (hahah) Sirius never followed it up for a REAL analysis. Inexplicable, that is mate. In-ex-plic-able....

Then again, it might still be available...

I've copied it for *my* posterity, I dunno if it's too long to post for ATS's new-found copyright terror, but it would be quite useful to post it on this thread... here ya go.

www.ufoseek.com...

You'll need to scroll towards the bottom of the first post... Bear in mind that this translation was first provided by SiriusUFO, so there is still the question of how it was made, and it has NOT been signed off by the original author. But even taking that into account, read it and see if you can see the bit where they eliminate that long list of things (planes, helicopters, meteors, etc). It's NOT there.

Haktan Akdogan MADE THAT UP - it's a COMPLETE FABRICATION!!

What a bunch of lowlifes these people are.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
What a bunch of lowlifes these people are.

That's an understatement mate. Don't expect it to change any time soon. Not while there are enough people in the world so willingly embracing the ignorance these charlatans are pedalling... and worse still, defending them.

IRM

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Then again, it might still be available...

I've copied it for *my* posterity, I dunno if it's too long to post for ATS's new-found copyright terror, but it would be quite useful to post it on this thread... here ya go.

www.ufoseek.com...

You'll need to scroll towards the bottom of the first post... Bear in mind that this translation was first provided by SiriusUFO, so there is still the question of how it was made, and it has NOT been signed off by the original author. But even taking that into account, read it and see if you can see the bit where they eliminate that long list of things (planes, helicopters, meteors, etc). It's NOT there.

Haktan Akdogan MADE THAT UP - it's a COMPLETE FABRICATION!!

What a bunch of lowlifes these people are.

Haktan Akdogan is a CON MAN!!??!!

So, he committed forgery on a document eh? He inserted his own words to manipulate

this document.

And where are the Scientific Reports themselves? I see none.

What are the tests performed? Where are the actual tests?

MONKEY BUSINESS?

Just thought I'd make a token appearance, haven't needed to add any comments myself, thanks largely to the great dialogue that is currently happening here, I just don't need to!

Big thumbs up to all involved!

If you could post the link of TUBITAK research here, I could try to translate some part if you want. But please no long paragraphs

Originally posted by deccal
If you could post the link of TUBITAK research here, I could try to translate some part if you want. But please no long paragraphs

Here you go, I believe these are purported to be the original faxes/photocopies..
www.indigodergisi.com...
www.indigodergisi.com...


The points I'm most interested in are:

- the third point on page one, about it not being 'studio re-created images' etc - there doesn't seem to be any supporting information whatsoever for that conclusion - in particular, is it definitively negative?

- the eighth point on page two, where it supposedly talks about "the center of the object has the same density as its background, namely is of a transparent nature". Frankly, that is close to gibberish and makes little sense in terms of digital imagery, so any other interpretations would be greatly appreciated.

Also, i find the mention of Mr.Tolga Özdeniz puzzling - did he request the report or was he involved? So it would be good if you could translate the heading information at the top of the report, and also perhaps the last sentence as Prof Eker signs it off..? Sorry, but you did ask..

Frankly, the translations I've seen don't look like any scientific report I've ever seen - it reads more like a quick opinion than any sort of analysis, even a preliminary one.

There is a Prof Eker, btw, but as far as I can tell, his expertise is NOT in analysing video camera footage or photogrammetry. Those are not essential skills for an observatory director.. As far as I know, Prof. Eker has not been contacted to verify (or clarify) his authorship of the 'report', or to comment on the translation, or the way it was (mis)represented by Akdogan. I'm tempted to do that....

Anyway, an alternative translation, even if only of parts, would be very useful, deccal.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by CHRLZ]

First of all, at the upper left it says: Subject: The preliminary report

in the third point ,page 1: he says: no computer animation, no video effect or cgi detected.

page 2, point eight, it says: the lights reflecting from left side of the object (in video of 10th August), is not a moon light. In this date, the moon was on new moon phase, and close to the horizan in 10 degree. The analysis made on the center of the object shows that the center of the object is too close to the background as if it is transparent.

Last paragraph: Even if we make a detailed analysis, we can't say what the object is, because we need a background information or a re-capture of the object in the same place. Therefore we can use the term UFO as it means unindentified object, but it certainly doesnt mean an "alien spacecraft".


It seems that this is not a detailed analysis and only a preliminary, a very rough analysis. They probably didn't find it interesting to analyse further. hope this helps.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by deccal]