Originally posted by deccal
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.
The footage images of the object which visibly have a certain configuration are not computer animations, special video effects or studio re-created images or models. The footage is genuine…
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".
hey people claiming this is fake, have you not read the news lately? it has been examined by the National Science and Technology Research Board of Turkey, and they have come to the conclusion it is 100% real. ...just sayin...
The so often quoted TUBITAK report is merely a preliminary examination (01/31/2008) which only btw refers to the prior sightings and as far as I know hasn’t be renewed for the recent footage. It only expressly points out (3) that it is neither CGI nor some kind of footage filmed in a studio. It also states (4) that it is dubious that the time code switches from PM to AM. It says (5) that because of the lack of reference no particulars can be made regarding location, distance, size or the nature of the object itself. It concludes that even if the footage is analysed in detail it can’t be definitely decided what the object is. It points out that it would be necessary to film other objects under the same circumstances using special equipment for comparison. The term UFO can be used to describe the object but this definitely doesn’t mean that it is a flying saucer of extraterrestrial origin. Prof. Dr. Zeki Eker has been quoted in the news media saying that it could well be a hoax but that it can neither be proven nor disproven with the given footage.
Quote:‘Birisinin şakası da olabilir. Ama bu görüntülerin şaka olup olmadığı da ispatlanamaz'
Originally posted by CHRLZ
As this is just getting ridiculous, with nothing but claims and no examples or supporting information whatsoever, I'll just focus on one issue:
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.
Originally posted by CHRLZ
If anyone agrees with JPhish, and is willing to debate with common sense and at least a basic understanding of how to 'read' video footage, please let me know....
originally posted by JPhish
If an observer’s sight were infinite, and the surface of a planet perfectly smooth with no obstacles; an object would have to be a considerable distance from an observer before the curvature of a planet would have any affect at all on the observers’ ability to see it. We’re talking hundred of miles. Depending on how large the planet is of course. The larger the planet, the farther you can see.
Contrary to popular belief, the earth’s curvature has nearly nothing to do with objects apparently "disappearing" as they gain distance from the observer.
I don't think you realize how large the boat would have to be if the horizon is where you claim.
Originally posted by deccal
reply to post by necati
Yes I agree. No need to spend time on this subject anymore. There are just greedy people everywhere who wants to distort the ambigious situations for their self-interest.
Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
I still think it's worth the effort to try to identify the object that was filmed, thereby damaging Maussan & his network of hoaxers.
Originally posted by fleabitIT DOESN'T MOVE. Ever... at ALL. Boats on water that have current and swell DO move. Even if a little, they MOVE. This object does not move, ever. It's not in dry dock for cripes sake. Even if it was anchored securely, it would move. Even behind a breakwater, it would move. There would be motion of some sort. To suggest that you can't tell because of camera movement is ludicrous. It does NOT move. It can't freely be resting on the water.