The infamous Turkey UFO a yacht?

reply to post by deccal



Thank you Deccal!

Then why was this inserted in one of the two statemens? This sertion is a lie!

"Furthermore in the last part of the report, it was concluded that these objects in the sightings that have physical and material structures do not belong in any category ( such as planes, helicopters, meteors, Venus, Mars, satellites, fire ball, Chinese lantern etc..) and but rather fall into the category of UFO’s (Unidentified Flying Objects.)"


Prof. PhD. Zeki EKER in other word is saying there is NO DETAILED ANALYSIS

"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 unidentified object, but it certainly doesn't mean an "alien spacecraft".


THERE WAS NO DETAILED ANALYSIS PERFORMED! NO SCIENTIFIC TESTS PERFORMED!

Passing these videos off as ALIEN SPACECRAFTS IS A BLANTANT LIE!

Deccal, that was great!! thanks!

Originally posted by deccal
First of all, at the upper left it says: Subject: The preliminary report

So does it give any clues at all about the involvement of "Tolga Özdeniz"?

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

Hmmmmm. The *supposed* English translation of that point says:

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…

Can you verify that there is NO mention of 'studio re-created images or models'? If that isn't there, it seems like someone is embellishing this report significantly, and that 'someone' would very likely be SiriusUFO, aka Haktan Akdogan.

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.

I'm still left a bit puzzled by that.. But the different interpretation is useful to show that the way it is translated makes a difference.

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".

Just a small point, but is there actually a 'certainly' in there, namely "it certainly doesn't mean an alien spacecraft"?

If there is, again, that emphasis was deliberately removed in the SiriusUFO translation.


Thanks, deccal, that was a very useful addition to this.

Haktan Akdog weighed in. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/87e79e67c783.gif[/atsimg]

by rotfiloticle
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 above is a comment on the '07 footage which you can find here on YouTube.]

This is exactly what Haktan Akdogan wants to make believe.

I've already translated some parts of the TÜBITAK report here (22-6-2009).

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'

Again: Prof. Dr. Zeki Eker said: "It could well be a hoax but that it can neither be proven nor disproven with the given footage."

Haktan Akdogan like the "flying humanoid" Santiago Yturria Garza and our well known friend Jaime Maussan is an unrivalled baloon expert. You shouldn't miss his appearance on Turkish TV........



Haktan Akdogan is the guy on the left of the image




further reading here............

reply to post by deccal

Something I found interesting about the report is that in the translation it says that the tape was received on January 31, 2008. The date of the report; January 31, 2008.

It seems that less than a day was spent on the analysis. Off course, it was a preliminary report. I wonder if a more in depth report was ever made.

I'm not seeing "scientists" getting off their asses to analyse wobbly UFO footage. Sorry but the science community is underfunded enough without doing crappy work like that.

So either:

1) They got paid to 'find the ufo' and come up with favourable results.

2) They got paid to 'find the ufo' as a means of generating tourism. 'Come to Kumburgaz, twin town to Roswell!!!!' or something like that (its a recession man).

3) They are poor fringe nutjobs who believe that stuff without question and would find any means of 'proving' the video correct.


Either way the fun bit is now over if people are wrangling over documents.

Oh Necati is here
Can you help the guys here with translation? Next two days I am too busy, even not on the internet. Check what CHRLZ was asking. I think his/her questions are on the night track.
Yes Phage, the "research" is done and written maybe in less than a few hours. And they have done it because of a request of a private television.

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:

[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.

The logic in this thread is beyond ridiculous at this point.

It's a completely different scene.

Mine had a dog and a beach and yours did not.

We weren't comparing videos, we were comparing screen grabs.

My screen grab was useful, and yours was not because it had no reference points.

The obstinacy in your post is shocking.

The fact that anyone starred your post shows how deep the bias runs in this thread.

The "bandwagoners" in this thread have fallen victim to a severe case false dichotomization. They think that if it's not a boat it must be a Flying Saucer, so they are defending the boat theory mulishly.

Have fun pretending it's a boat when it is overwhelmingly clear it is not.

[edit on 8/3/2010 by JPhish]

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....

I have only one word:

FOG





[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3f93cdf05dd9.jpg[/atsimg]


Enough of your bulldinkery there pish!

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....

CHRLZ, did you ever see a fish pish?

reply to post by deccal


Hi deccal,
I can’t see what hasn’t been already covered so far. The TÜBTAK report is a hasty, shallow examination of the Kumburgaz footage with rather strange conclusions. Its mere purpose was to be able to refer to the grand TÜBITAK in coming interviews and statements.

As far as I can see the trick is plain and simple: whenever Haktan Akdogan mentions the scientific research which was thoroughly made by scientist for over a week he refers to his staff of ‘experts’ and ‘scientist’ knowing that the listener will think that the TÜBITAK and its report is meant.

I can’t see what a further analysis of the report might yield. Its conclusions are anyway hasty and irritating in several points.
For example it is claimed that because of the lack of reference no particulars can be made regarding location, distance, size or the nature of the object itself but they come to the conclusion that it was no model (???).
They can’t definitely determine whether it’s moving at all but come to the conclusion that if it is moving it’s only moving slowly (??? (6)) No reference points given!!!
Sometimes the object is lit up by the moon which is positioned according to the respective date; else it is lit up by other surrounding lights (???(7)) What were they thinking of here?

I think Kizzy already hit the nail right on the head with his “Top Cat Marine Lighting Explanation”. His example image even provides the aliens . Remember that there is always an obstacle with a sharp lined edge covering the lower half of the video, thus it also covers the reflections on the water. That above mentioned obstacle might be a jetty between the camera and the filmed boat or any other kind of building or whatsoever. This goes for all other craft filmed by Yalcin Yalman.

As far as the different shapes on other occasions are concerned Alejandro Franz' (alfafox) explanation in my opinion is the most likely one. There is constant cruiser/ferry boat traffic around that area.

www.alcione.org...

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 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.

I just thought I'd take the opportunity of pointing out that the above statements are complete rubbish. Anyone who has spent any time at all out at sea will know this from personal experience. I have seen large ships coming over the horizon many, many times. I have gone to the top of my mast to get an extra few miles of viewing distance quite often.

This may provce useful: Distance to horizon calculator.

You just enter the height above sea level in meters or feet and it gives you the distance to the horizon in kilometers or miles. As the film is shot from the beach we can make a very educated guess about the height. Assume he's six foot tall, the horizon would be ONLY 3 miles away.

Given the assertions in the quote above from JPhish, and its gross inaccuracy, I would say that all the other assertions made by this poster (that aren't backed up by evidence) should be ignored. If he is that wrong about the horizon, how can his opinion on anything else be trusted?

ETA: Sorry, muffed up the quote tags...

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Karilla]

Correct, Cap'n! Anyone who has spent a fair amount of time around the (or at) sea (eg you and me, at the least!) will know how that works.. as would anyone who has climbed a hill to get a better view.. Anyway, it seems no-one else wishes to take up JPhish's claims, and those lights are very clearly unrelated to the object/s in question.


Oh, and for the sake of off-topic completion... Kizzy, yes, I have indeed seen that. Funnily enough (but without going into great detail) much of my life has been spent working with and carefully observing a multitude of marine species. And indeed, *whenever* you see a fish swimming, you are seeing it 'pish'. Fish biology being a bit different to our own, they excrete a small amount of ammonia via their gills, continuously.. It's actually a bit more complicated than that, and depends on the species and its environment.. but this probably isn't the place.

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.

Deccal.....

I still think it's worth the effort to try to identify the object that was filmed, thereby damaging Maussan & his network of hoaxers.

Of course, that's easy for me to say when CHRLZ & others are doing the major portion of the work.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

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.

Me too!! But on the subject of me doing any work, I'm actually quite frustrated on this one, by being *unable* to do much of substance - either by visiting the location, or seeing the ORIGINAL footage.

Anyone have that footage? If only one of the free spirits that inhabit ATS would do the right thing and release that footage...

And if only I lived nearby - because I'd be willing to bet maybe a hunnert or two that if I was able to spend a couple of nights in the area, I would be coming back with a description of exactly what it is.

It would be great if a local (are you still there, Lupe?) could spend a little time at night, wandering around the beach and streets where Yalcin would be night-watching.., preferably holding a night-vision capable camera... I just have the feeling that there might be an AHA!-GOTCHA!! moment just waiting to be grabbed...

Great work here after further review Im convinced this is a Yacht, i doubted the Yacht claim at first. Had me fooled oh well now i can sleep better knowing the Cylon Raider's wont be stealing my curry.

Honestly.. you are convinced it's a YACHT?

Why can't anyone address the issues with it being a boat of any type? I'm hardly saying it's an alien anything. It could be a clever hoax (though I am thinking not), it could be some other misidentification. But a boat?

IT 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.

There are too many issues to just throw this one away as "oh, it's a boat!" The premise that this is a sole yacht that continually ended up in the same spot over the years to me is laughable. That the cameraman who lived on the coast was too stupid to identify a boat when he saw one? That the agency he took it too even for a brief study, was also too stupid to realize it was a yacht? The shots that show an object in the air are conveniently dismissed as a MIRAGE of a yacht. No anchor light. No movement. NO OTHER BOATS in the area. No MOVEMENT.

It seems people are convinced it's a yacht based on two facts: It's on the water, and it vaguely has the shape like some yacht windows that were dug up. As if these arc-shaped yacht windows are common as dirt.

The thing that strikes me is that: The cameraman DID take it to an agency to get it examined. Did he realize it would only get a short examination? I have no idea, but I doubt he knew what sort of study they would do. The mere fact that he allowed it to be studied by such an agency says to me that he at least, considered it legitimate. Again, it doesn't mean it's alien, but it means that if he felt it was worth being examined, it can probably rule out a hoax, or common things that someone living on a coast could easily identify. I'd expect he would not be fooled by a boat. Repeatedly. When he saw them every day, and probably saw them in every situation, including at night, from a distance, in bad weather and good.

If this sort of yacht-window-phenomena was so common as to allow him to catch it repeatedly, I'd think you would see scores more of these sorts of videos. Not a sole set of videos from one special yacht in one special spot that he managed to keep catching on film.

Finally, just because some crackpot "investigator" has hooked up with him since, does not invalidate the original video. I'd find it highly unlikely he even knew him (or any ufo investigator) when he took the videos. Someone coming in contact with him later doesn't instantly nullify the content of the video.

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.

Not necessarily. My boat weighs 53 tonnes. It takes a fair amount of swell to produce any noticeable movement at all. We have no evidence that there was any swell when the films were made. Couple that with distance and the movement of the camera, which is never still, and the slight movement of a boat at anchor would not be noticeable. I fail to see why this is "ludicrous".

The place where my boat is moored is surrounded by everything from trawlers and minesweepers to little speedboats and rowing boats. When the wind is in the east it kicks up a fair swell, especially at high tide, and I spend alot of time looking at new boats that have arrived or the trawlers coming and going. The amount that a boat moves when moored or at anchor depends on many factors and it just cannot be assumed.

This is simply NOT a reasonable objection to the yacht theory.