Originally posted by necati
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).
Don't apologise, necati - all the stuff you contribute is very useful. You're going well beyond the call of duty.. I'll just toss in a few comments..
The TÜBITAK report says that the camera used was a Canon GL1. It actually was a Canon DM GR1 A...
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.
Correct. Simply observing that they may have got the model wrong is a completely worthless observation, unless it affects the obseravtion claims or quality of image. They have not linked the two, so that is just meaningless handwaving. A bit like the initial stupid waffle about using f1.8 - these are attempts by people to sound like they know what they are doing. But the content of the videos shows that they don't, from Yalcin to Akdogan to Ekers.
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.
How did they get those distances???? And as for the inference that those fuzzy blobs are heads of anything, let alone aliens... Absolutely ridiculous.
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..
This stuff is easy to determine - by knowing the lens/es used and the zoom settings, the angles are easy to calculate. but that does NOT give you the distances. There IS a chance that the distance could be pinned down somewhat from examination of the original footage, but the youtubed versiosn are just too poor for that. And by smply examining the footage you can see how well (or in ths case badly) the lens and sensor are resolving the image. That process would all be part of a proper examination, yet obviously was not done.
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).
It seems to be an ongoing habit with these folk - they make comments about what stuff 'looks like', based on their opinions. Worthless opinions, imo! You HAVE to provide supporting details for these claims, or they are baseless. And there are so many here, that the entire case is destroyed by their own incompetence and obvious desire to mislead and misdirect.
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.
AGAIN! Who the hell said it was a vehicle??? That type of assertion is simply ridiculous.
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?
Again, this stuff is just stupefyingly ignorant. ALL pixellation causes are VERY well known and understood, and a simple PROPER examination of the original media will INSTANTLY reveal the cause.
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
Agreed. Even taking into account different styles of language, the dialogue is very 'strange' and casts further doubt on the footage.
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.
Is this a reference to the little rapid clicks? That is very likely someone adjusting the aperture - again, easy to verify by simply examing the camera and .. er.. listening. Tricky stuff for these folk...
The glass of a teleprompter is different from ordinary glass.
Actually, most teleprompters use quite ordinary glass, shrouded to give the effect. It seems they don't even know tele-prompters.
This is ANOTHER example of them using diversions to sound complicated and important, as if they have properly investigated and know their topic. But any old window reflects things just fine, and can be used in this way at night. Why on earth raise the tele-prompter?
(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)
Prefect example of what I mean.
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.
Well, duh.
So there is a strong indication that Yalman or his publicity agent/s are refusing to allow access to the original media. DAMNING
information. PS - in case it isn't clear, my comments above are directed at the purveyors of this debacle, not Necati. Necati -thanks again for all this!
, but that's just a guess - Yes, it's certainly possible
to work this out properly. I would need to know what the mag ratio of his teleconverter is, and the REAL model of the camera. 
) 
