The infamous Turkey UFO a yacht?

page: 35
48
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Honestly.. you are convinced it's a YACHT?

Why is one person's opinion so important to you, and deserving of your scorn?


Why can't anyone address the issues with it being a boat of any type?

I, and some others are not at all convinced THE DARK BACKGROUND OBJECT is a boat. But very few posters seem convinced that the lights at dawn are anything other than lights on a boat or ship. I'm happy to back that up by counting responses. If you disagree, I suggest you do that too.

In other words, STOP generalising and cherry-picking.


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.

So let's just clarify - we are now STRICTLY referring to the dark background object/s? If not, then you need to be more specific.

WHY did you specify 'current and swell'?. You've never seen a calm sea, a dead stationary boat at a mooring? And which bit of the footage is stable enough to make that call? Video and time please.

HOW do you know it isn't something in dry dock? And have you not seen the boat stands that are used in this region????

Where do you think that was taken??? Please tell us what, for example, the rounded prow of one of those boats would look like taken from low down on the shore. How much would it be moving...? Or you could just continue making unsupported statements, and rejecting possibilities on the basis of your opinions. Whatever.

Now, before moving on, dear reader, please note that I doubt if the 'd-b' object is a yacht, so the movement issue ISN'T a big one for me, however...


Even if it was anchored securely, it would move.

RUBBISH. On a calm night, either moored or anchored, the movement would be VERY slow - on a larger vessel it would be negligible - and THERE IS NO STABLE FOOTAGE. Plus, YOU CANNOT see the background, so it is IMPOSSIBLE to judge whether there is slight movement relative to something that IS stable. I'd suggest you spend some time at a marina with a camera (deliberately set to underexpose, of course...).


To suggest that you can't tell because of camera movement is ludicrous. It does NOT move.

Ludicrous??? OK, let's stop the waffling - I CHALLENGE YOU to nominate the footage that is stable enough to make that call, and let's do some photogrammetry, shall we? I'm also happy to get some footage from local marinas to make the point.


There are too many issues to just throw this one away

How ironic!!!


I'd expect he would not be fooled by a boat.

Which is ONE of the MANY reasons why some of us are pointing at the likelihood of a hoax, and unless:
-the original footage is presented
-BETTER new footage is provided
-the alleged but never verified 'witnesses' come forward
-the object is finally recognised
then the SIMPLEST solution is that it is likely to be a hoax - especially given what we now know about:
-Yalcin and the people he is associating with
-the fact that they DIDN'T have the footage properly investigated
....

Until something changes, and people provide something other than uninformed handwaving, there it is.


When he saw them every day

SOURCE for this comment?


probably saw them in every situation

Oh for heaven's sake. PROBABLY? Why don't you make up more stuff and throw it in....


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.

But you just said he saw them every day, and *probably* in all sorts of weather!!!???


Finally, just because some crackpot "investigator" has hooked up with him since, does not invalidate the original video.

At least 3 actually, if you count Akdogan, Maussan and Ytturia/Garza. And no, it doesn't invalidate it. (The videos largely invalidate themselves..). But the fact that those lowlifes are in on it, virtually guarantees that we will never see a PROPER FULL investigation, and that the original footage will not be released. Because it PROBABLY contains details that would give the game away...



[edit on 7-8-2010 by CHRLZ]




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
ATS Team:

Think about the "name" for a moment.

The "Turkey" UFO.....

Is it possible?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
@ deccal
You seem to misunderstood me. I didn’t mean that the attempts to identify the alleged ‘UFO’ are fruitless but that a further analysis of the TÜBITAK report would yield no answers (the term UFO itself in this case is nonsense btw, not the slightest indication that it is flying at all). Besides you should know that those guys are astronomers and not some video analysis specialist of any kind.

@CHRLZ
Why don’t you contact the YouTube member ‘foxmulderd’ and ask him for the original footage? He is the guy who edited the version which was given to TÜBITAK. He is also the admin/moderator at siriusufo.org forums aka ‘foxmuld3r’ and a close friend of Haktan Akdogan.

@lupelius
Selamlar,
First of all thank you for your efforts.
Does Yalcin Yalman still claim to have an alien implant in his brain?
Could you please do me another favour and take some shots of the lamp posts around that area?

@Maybe...maybe not

Talk turkey please..............



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by necati
 


Necati.....

Well.....

What if the whole thing is just a joke?

What if the appalling Maussan & the appalling Garzi & the rest of that appalling lot were sitting around having a few drinks in Turkey during one of their UFO hoax funded junkets.....

______________________________

Maussan to Garzi:

"Listen my little friend, what if we saw a UFO here.....do you know what that would be called?

Garzi to Maussan:

"Well I don't know. What would it be called?

Maussan to Garza:

"It would be called a 'Turkey UFO', you dopey bugger.

Garzi to Maussan:

"It's a what?

Maussan to Garza:

"Listen you plodder.....it would be a 'Turkey UFO' as in it would be a big Turkey.....you know.....a joke.....we could make a joke UFO.....the 'Turkey UFO'! "

Yalcin to Maussan:

"How friggin' funny would that be! We could just video a dinner plate with a torch & say it's a 'Turkey UFO' & never even tell a lie!"

Maussan to Yalcin:

"Yeah baby.....& if anybody complains, we can just tell them to kiss our hairy butts 'cause we'll be at a UFO conference in Acapulco!"

Yalcin to Maussan:

"Yeah baby!

Garza to Maussan:

"It's a what?

Reed to Maussan:

"When can I take that alien out of my freezer?

______________________________


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by necati
@CHRLZ
Why don’t you contact the YouTube member ‘foxmulderd’ and ask him for the original footage? He is the guy who edited the version which was given to TÜBITAK. He is also the admin/moderator at siriusufo.org forums aka ‘foxmuld3r’ and a close friend of Haktan Akdogan.


Woah!!! Thanks, Necati - but obviously I've missed seeing some important facts here... So what you are saying is that the Tubitak report was based on NON-original footage????? OK, I shall delve deeper and talk to that guy - but in the meantime, is there a particular forum thread or some other source for this aspect - I'd be very interested to hear how/why 'foxmulderd' got involved, and how/why exactly he edited the footage...

If he is Akdogan, then....



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Woah!!! Thanks, Necati - but obviously I've missed seeing some important facts here... So what you are saying is that the Tubitak report was based on NON-original footage????? OK, I shall delve deeper and talk to that guy - but in the meantime, is there a particular forum thread or some other source for this aspect - I'd be very interested to hear how/why 'foxmulderd' got involved, and how/why exactly he edited the footage...

If he is Akdogan, then....


Ooops, I have to apologise. I can’t trust my memory anymore, it seems. Well, he was the guy who edited the YouTube uploads not the TÜBITAK version. Sorry for having confused that.
However he might be the right one to ask for better copies of the footage.
You can find an ongoing discussion of the Kumburgaz footage here. The relevant statements of ‘foxmuld3r’ can be found on page 13 of the above mentioned thread.
Sorry again...........................and oh, I've never said that he's Akdogan himself!



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by necati
 


Necati.....

That seems about right.

I still believe Maussan & Co control the original version video.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by necati
Ooops, I have to apologise. I can’t trust my memory anymore, it seems. Well, he was the guy who edited the YouTube uploads not the TÜBITAK version. Sorry for having confused that.
However he might be the right one to ask for better copies of the footage.
You can find an ongoing discussion of the Kumburgaz footage here. The relevant statements of ‘foxmuld3r’ can be found on page 13 of the above mentioned thread.
Sorry again...........................and oh, I've never said that he's Akdogan himself!


Thanks, Necati. I'll look at it and see where to go next. And I should apologise too - I wasn't clear with my reference to Akdogan. It just occurred to me that if this guy was at SiriusUFO, he might conceivably be Akdogan himself -so I was just wondering out loud...


Thanks for your contributions, Necati - *very* useful stuff.


ADDED:
Google translation doesn't work all that well on turkish, sadly.. As an example, may I quote from SiriusUFO's forum (names removed to protect the innocent..):

The best you continue to shut up
Who are you in? : I (xxxxx)
According to this logic as I will not quit (or you're sure of that care) that are currently wasted or even written by the above sentence who is funded by the writing? I
Has written what can be called wasted? Donkey
In this case, who says divorce is like a donkey at the moment? I (xxxxx)
You're now learning that stereotype sentence bunada course. "I Bend"
Xxxxxxx. Her have done when I'm looking for the meaning of the word.
I wonder why someone else come out of the Fox business into an animal and likeness..


Well, there you have it. Any questions?


One thing that is clear from browsing that thread - it's not just some of us at ATS who are unimpressed with the Tubitak 'report'....


[edit on 8-8-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   


LQQKS about right to me!




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ


The best you continue to shut up
Who are you in? : I (xxxxx)
According to this logic as I will not quit (or you're sure of that care) that are currently wasted or even written by the above sentence who is funded by the writing? I
Has written what can be called wasted? Donkey
In this case, who says divorce is like a donkey at the moment? I (xxxxx)
You're now learning that stereotype sentence bunada course. "I Bend"
Xxxxxxx. Her have done when I'm looking for the meaning of the word.
I wonder why someone else come out of the Fox business into an animal and likeness..





[edit on 8-8-2010 by CHRLZ]


Can you post the link please. This is a terrible translation indeed



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Hmm I read the forum little bit. Actually there are many people there who think this video is a hoax.

video.yahoo.com...

here is an analyse, claiming that the video is a hoax,
although there are subtitles, the analyse is in turkish, I am really sorry but I can't translate now. Necati, lupelius? (*runs away with gentle steps)



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Some cool mathematician debunkers at work


www.siriusufo.org...

here, the user foxtrotXXX is making very good claims and of course the admin of the forum seems little bir angry about it. But he is still not banned, thats good news..

[edit on 8-8-2010 by deccal]

[edit on 8-8-2010 by deccal]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by deccal
Hmm I read the forum little bit. Actually there are many people there who think this video is a hoax.

video.yahoo.com...

Necati, lupelius? (*runs away with gentle steps)



Some good points there!
You know how difficult it is to translate Turkish properly, don't you?!
Steals himself away and delegates the work......
Jawohl mein Herr........by Wednesday at the earliest, I think.
I almost regret having dropped by......................

@ CHRLZ
Yes indeed, the claims of Haktan Akdogan are absolute BS which at least one member of the forum over (t)here wasn't ready to swallow from the start.
However, due to its linguistic structure it is very difficult to translate Turkish into other languages (unless you are trained), therefore I would kindly like to ask some patience..............I unfortunately haven't got that much time...........

@Kizzzy
Starred!!!!



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
OK this is only a joke!

It's a Rolex watch!!!!!!!!






posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by KIZZZY
OK this is only a joke!


Nice one, Kizzzy! It may only be a joke, but that's exactly the sort of thing that could be used. I have a feeling it's bigger, but it certainly doesn't have to be. We really have no visual clues whatsoever about the distance of the object. It could indeed be a watch positioned behind some obstruction.


...... (cue dramatic music)
Actually... that may not be 100% true. There ARE a couple of short sequences in the videos that MAY contain a clue about the object's distance. But I haven't got around to studying them in detail. If I had the original footage, I would be more confident of being able to make use of these sequences, as the things I want to measure are VERY small and appear only very briefly... Frankly, I don't think I'll be able to prove what I wish to prove using the Youtube sized footage.

I don't wish to reveal which bits of footage are involved (just yet) - I'd love to see one of the 'proponents' prove their expertise by beating me to it...


I'm also thinking of challenging the video owners to provide access to these short sequence in original off-the-camera format... Any bets on whether they will respond? I'm also making some enquiries with a semi-pro owner of a GL1, to find out more about the nature of the camera's native files.

Oh, and to necati, deccal, etc, I very much appreciate your offers of translation - I do understand the difficulties of translating languages with different structures VERY well - that's why I expressed grave concerns about that ridiculously shallow and misleading Tubitak report. (Turns out the report is as bad as I thought it was, so it wasn't just the translation!) There are no specific parts of the forum posts I want translated - it's too hard to know what might be important. So all I would ask is that if you see anything that is relevant to the topics being discussed here, or that looks important to you, let us know. I'll trust your judgement! And it's great having some Turkish input - a turkish delight, one might say... (groan)



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Would have liked to edit the subtitles on the video but that would have taken too much time. I will try to translate the on-screen text as good as I can and add some comments if I feel the need to (italics).

Link to the video........

The video starts with:
Comments on the Istanbul Kumburgaz footage from 2007, 2008 and 2009
1. The analysis of the TÜBITAK report.
2. The cameraman’s equipment and the distance he filmed the object(s) from.
3. An evaluation of the filming (camera) angles.
4. The pixilation which occurs momentarily (on certain frames).
5. Suspicious dialogues while filming.
6. Moments when the object disappears from view.
7. How to recreate the video.
8. The missing four minutes.
9. The strange cut/notch on the moon.
10. An analysis of the light source.
_____________________________________

1. The analysis of the TÜBITAK report.
The TÜBITAK report says that the camera used was a Canon GL1. It actually was a Canon DM GR1 A
(The following part shows the interview led by Haktan Akdogan with Yalcin Yalman explaining the particulars of the camera and equipment used [00:58-03:45]).
The conclusion made is that thus the TUBITAK report has lost its validity in a technical (??) sense.
(I must admit that I can’t understand the sense of that objection since the TÜBITAK did not use the same type of camera for any further analysis. To me it only looks like a formal error.)

2. The cameraman’s equipment and the distance he filmed the object(s) from.
During the press conference it was said that the distance to the objects which were filmed was about 6 to 7 kilometres. It was claimed that the footage which was taken at a distance of 7km showed creatures in the space craft.
Assuming that the heads of those creatures are 25cm in size the diameter of the craft is 8.5m, its height is 1.5m and the whole range of view is 16m² big.
It is questioned if a camera of the (same) type is able to resolve a 16m² big area at that distance showing the same detail. If the owners of the footage want to prove that the camera is capable of this, they are invited to film a 16m² area 7km away an showing us a person at the same distance.

3. An evaluation of the filming (camera) angles.
In all recordings the objects look like being filmed not from below but from the same height. The objects (allegedly) 60 degrees above look actually like objects at the same height (0 degree).
We should be able to see parts from the front (sides) as well as from the belly (underside) of a vehicle at an angle of 60 degrees above. However, we can only see the side which means that the objects are at the same height.

Let’s take a look at the tilted views of the object [5:32].
Was this an attempt to give the impression as if the moonlight lit up the object or was there a different reason for the tilted view? No one knows.

4. The pixilation which occurs momentarily (on certain frames).
The footage was recorded on digital tape so what is the reason for the pixilation? (Some examples from the footage [6:03-6:27])
Could this be due to errors of a device which was used to play back (previously) recorded film?
(I think they are referring to the recreation of such footage by using a prompter. Explained later on, point 7)

5. Suspicious dialogues while filming.
Reminder! Keep in mind that the camera (its zooming) was needed to see the craft which appeared like a bright star to the (unaided) eye. Hence someone who wasn’t observing the object through a camera would only perceive the object as a (point of) light with no detail.
The person named Salih seems to be able to see everything with the naked eye, though.
Yalman says that there is something in front of it (the ‘space craft’).
Salih immediately asks: ‘Are there two of them?’ What he might have meant? That he’d seen the two aliens with the naked eye?
(I have to add that Yalman responds: ‘No only one!’, so I think there is something else which they both referred to. Perhaps the number of objects.) [7:04-8:19]
Next Yalman is asking: ’Have you dimmed the light........have they been dimmed? Is there someone who dims (turns on and off) the lights (over) there?’

6. Moments when the object disappears from view [8:34].
The objects always disappear from view (image section) with a zoom out and a reduction of the object’s brightness/shininess first, accompanied by a rasping noise.
(Some examples from the footage [8:44-10:29])
[10:30] Once there is a moment of disappearance when even Salih’s sharp eyes can’t see the (very) bright flying object. (Yalman asks: ‘Where did it go?’)
[10:44] Haven’t you seen it? Take another look.

7. How to recreate the video [11:03].
If you would like to create footage of a UFO all you need is a LCD screen, a teleprompter and a camera. The glass of a teleprompter is different from ordinary glass. Orators usually read there text from such glasses.
([11:20-11:29] Well, this part of the video is quite self-explanatory.)
[11:30] In a dark environment you can film (something) previously prepared with a program like 3dsMax as if it is in the sky.
([11:36-11:41] Again, self-explanatory.)
(here’s another example of a sirius forums member humprey making use of an ordinary kitchen window: www.vimeo.com... you might like to check out some of his other examples as well)

8. The missing four minutes[11:42].
In this clip there is a missing time of 4 minutes. Furthermore there is a suspicious light reflection in the lower half of the view. This part with the missing 4 minutes should be made public.
([11:53-12:23] The above mentioned part of the footage.)

9. The strange cut/notch on the moon [12:24].
([12:29-12:33] An example of the above mentioned notch/cut on the moon.)

10. An analysis of the light source [12:34].
The light source seems to be too intense to be moonlight.
[12:44] When the light hits a tube/pipe on the object, a shadow cast on its left can be seen.
[12:51] The source of this light is a spot light.
([12:54-13:37] Some explanations and examples from the original footage.)
[13:38] Conclusion, in my opinion the Kumburgaz UFO isn’t real.

PS: @ Maybe...maybe not
Hmmm, I have written a similar plot

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit: link didn't work properly


[edit on 14-8-2010 by necati]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   






posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


Thank you very much for your eloquently presented contribution to this topic. I can’t understand the thing about the lights, though. You mean they can do without at night but find it necessary to turn them on as soon as it gets brighter at daytime?




edit: spelling



[edit on 14-8-2010 by necati]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by necati
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


Thank you very much for your eloquently presented contribution to this topic. I can’t understand the thing about the lights, though. You mean they can do without at night but find it necessary to turn them on as soon as it gets brighter at daytime?


Necati.....

You've missed the point.

He's saying that aliens must be able to swim because there are no liferafts on their spaceship.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not




new topics
top topics
 
48
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join