Kumburgaz, Istanbul UFO Info wanted

Stray Cat · 27th January 2009, 05:36 AM

Hi there

Not been around much recently, but I've been doing some work on this footage hailed as the best evidence of UFO's ever. Filmed in Turkey a few years ago.

http://www.siriusufo.org/tr/?fx=sayf..._kumburgaz.asp

Before I spend a vast amount of time on it, I was wondering if any of you good people have any web resources you could point me to, just so that I am not repeating what has already been done.

I have done a forum search and it doesn't seem to have been discussed.

Just to make my viewpoint clear. I firmly believe this is a stationery object, or indeed a stationary object... yes, it could well be a sticky tape dispenser! or a building.

Taking a screen grab from the video date stamped '1st August':

I then superimposed a screen grab date stamped '12th August'

They are off set here so you can see both images clearly

Then we put one directly on top of the other and bravo...

Both filmed from exactly the same angle. This UFO which MUST have the ability to travel the universe (otherwise it would just be stuck in exactly the same place in the sky over Turkey) is at exactly the same angle and facing in exactly the same direction as it was 11 days previously...

But there's more....

Then going back to screen grab date stamped '1st August':

I then superimpose a screen grab date stamped '7th August:

Then put them directly on top of each other:

Wow - Apart from the object being lit from the other side (I did flip it and as it's symmetrical it didn't really make any difference), again it is at exactly the same angle and facing in exactly the same direction once again...

But there's more....

Then going back once again to screen grab date stamped '1st August':

I superimpose a screen grab from footage date stamped '24th August':

You can guess what's coming?

Again the object is lit differently but it is still at exactly the same angle and looks to be pointing in exactly the same direction.

Interesting to note that once again we NEVER see this object 'arrive', nor do we see it 'depart' it always just appears to be there, in the same place at the same angle, pointing in the same direction... Strange!!!

OK... well the night time shots are a bit dark and this guy has filmed this object in much lighter conditions on a few occasions...

Here's a screen grab of one date stamped 'July 2nd' Bearing in mind this is now 12 months since he filmed the night time shots:

OK, some lights in the distance (the lower set of lights is the reflection off the sea)... Mmmmm... the other fishermen don't seem to be taking too much notice of it...

Oh well, luckily he had spotted and filmed it earlier that year on 16th June.
So taking a screen grab and overlaying it we get:

And once again if we then put one directly on top of the other, we get:

Exactly the same, at exactly the same angle, with exactly the same lights.

So come on... if this is a UFO how come it never seems to move?

Now some of the above pics I had to enlarge or reduce to fit (the camera apart from never staying still constantly zooms in and out in all the footage, meaning that some adjustment was required to compensate for zoom and camera tilt.

Anyone?

Starthinker · 27th January 2009, 06:21 AM

Nice. To me it looks like a building nestled between two hills. The jumping and zooming in and out almost appear to be an attempt to keep you from getting a clear picture.

Stray Cat · 27th January 2009, 05:19 PM

Yes I was working on looking for possible buildings in the local area... of course there are many Mosques, which have metallic domes and there is a nearby office block made from metal and rounded (picture below)... Nothing 100% positive yet though.

Sunsneezer · 24th March 2010, 07:15 PM

Thank you Stray Cat for your work at demonstrating how the ship is always at exactly the same angle. It looks to be very much immobile and not flying at all the whole time. The only movement there is camera shake.
I don't get all the excitement this video generated it sure is not less dodgy than all the other UFO videos I've been presented with. In each shot either the UFO or its context is mostly feature-less, making scale, speed and distance evaluation all but impossible for the close-ups.

The only video that shows the detailed close-ups along with a reference is the May 27, 2008 video which has a pan to the moon at two points. I looked up the moon phase and it seems to match the vague blur that is said to be the moon in the video. Filming conditions are such that even the freaking moon needs extrapolation to identify. Let alone unknown phenomena

About the blur, it seems the camera is on manual focus because there is not the usual automatic focus-searching that cameras tend to frantically do in low light situations such as these. There is growing blur radius as the cameraman zooms in and sometimes it changes, but always slowly and never back-and-forth until it resolves. Maybe it's just due to a cheap or lazy auto-focus mechanism.
It is really deplorable that nobody told that guy to set his manual focus to infinite... for 3 years. And that as a result this video fails to convince me that there are two alien dudes in there, strafing in a flying saucer.
ETA:
Found something else that would be consistent with the building-top theory:

Notice how the bottom edge, in the yellow square, is sharper than the top edge. That could mean there is a dark object closer to the camera than the UFO itself. A dark object that is obscuring the bottom part of the building. Or that could be a compression artifact, or frame tearing...

Trent Wray · 24th March 2010, 08:04 PM

Can I offer a "possible" theory?

It honestly looks like the cockpit to an F-15 or something similiar, reflecting in the night light.

That sharply defined bottom edge, the shape of the dome, the fact it never moves. I can envision someone sitting at night and filming the cockpit to a plane of some sort that's sitting stationary on a runway, outside a hangar, etc. It doesn't have to be a jet either, I suppose it could be any plane with a similiary shaped domed cockpit.

It's that sharp, bottom edge that's so defined that makes me think you're seeing only half of what's there, or the abrupt end of the dome ends into something completely unreflective.

Now the color changes? IDK. I'm just telling you what my initial impression of it was

Hell, it could even be a Lego toy spacecraft dome.

Sunsneezer · 24th March 2010, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by trentwray

Now the color changes? IDK. I'm just telling you what my initial impression of it was

Hell, it could even be a Lego toy spacecraft dome.

If the object is close to the ground, the headlights of a moving car would have an effect similar to the lighting change that is seen in the video.
So here we are again, with a real video of something that could be anything. Not enough visual information to debunk or prove anything... Just like the victor alien interview: It doesn't do anything that a very basic puppet couldn't do and indeed looks a lot like one but yet there are no unequivocal signs of fakery.

...Another one that I won't be able to shake off my UFO-enthusiastic friend.

Trent Wray · 24th March 2010, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Sunsneezer

If the object is close to the ground, the headlights of a moving car would have an effect similar to the lighting change that is seen in the video.
So here we are again, with a real video of something that could be anything. Not enough visual information to debunk or prove anything... Just like the victor alien interview: It doesn't do anything that a very basic puppet couldn't do and indeed looks a lot like one but yet there are no unequivocal signs of fakery.

...Another one that I won't be able to shake off my UFO-enthusiastic friend.

Yeah I was immediately thinking of a car's headlights as well, or any other moving objects that give off light. Even clouds moving overhead reflecting slow transitions.

But yeah, there's not enough in the video to show anything one way or another to say what is is definitely. I agree. So from that standpoint, I'm going with Occam

. I'd personally call it a UO, not a UFO

Jack by the hedge · 25th March 2010, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by Sunsneezer

The only video that shows the detailed close-ups along with a reference is the May 27, 2008 video which has a pan to the moon at two points. I looked up the moon phase and it seems to match the vague blur that is said to be the moon in the video.

That's just what I did too: At 4'29" there's the waning moon and, although it's hard to be precise, it's roughly one day past last quarter. That doesn't match the Aug. 7 2007 datestamp. More like the 9th or 10th.

Then I noticed the startlingly obvious thing I'd completely overlooked: the timestamp says 5.08pm. Obviously wrong.

Not that this leads me to any startling conclusions, except to doubt that the footage was shot when it was claimed.

Meantime, my spider senses are telling me this is the corner of a building, as seen from over the corner of the wall of an unlit compound and filmed by a bored security guard. <shrug>

Edit to add: The "UFO" appeared time after time, over a few weeks and the guy never thought to bring a tripod to work - just kept bringing his shaky video camera. Pity he didn't mention it to anyone else, or they might have got some better pictures. Somebody would be bound to be interested - after all this was within 20 miles of Istanbul's main airport...

Starthinker · 25th March 2010, 01:10 PM

All the UFOs in Constantinople live in Instanbul, not Constantinople so if you're a UFO in Constantinople you'll be floating over Instanbul...

I've had this song stuck in my head for weeks and now this thread resurfaces. Coincidence?

Marduk · 25th March 2010, 01:26 PM

Blimp

Stray Cat · 26th March 2010, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Then I noticed the startlingly obvious thing I'd completely overlooked: the timestamp says 5.08pm. Obviously wrong.

In one of the interviews, the Turkish UFO guy (can't remember his name now) does explain that the camera's time clock was incorrectly set.

Jack by the hedge · 26th March 2010, 08:52 AM

Did you identify exactly where the footage was shot? I can't google up a match for "Kumburgaz Yeni Kent". It looks like that's the "New Kent (Hotel)" in Kumburgaz, but the only Kent hotel I can find locally is right in the middle of Istanbul itself.

Edit - OK, scratch that - Yeni kent translates as "New City", and one of the videos mentions a "residential area". No wonder I couldn't find a hotel...

Stray Cat · 26th March 2010, 12:25 PM

Yes, it's west along the coast from Istanbul. I did have a pin in Google Earth last year, but I've probably deleted it by now. I didn't pin point the exact location I dont think because as usual, there just isn't enough information. Which as you will know is par for the course because if anyone knew the exact location, it would be quite simple to solve the 'mystery'

aduarte · 31st May 2010, 04:27 AM

They are yacht side windows.

Full article in spanish: "Los ovnis de Kumburgaz son ventanas de lanchas"
English summary by Kentaro Mori: "Kumburgaz, Turkey UFO: Yacht Window Reflections"

As a new member, I could not post the article links.

Kuko 4000 · 31st May 2010, 05:07 AM

Welcome aduarte, here's the link:

http://forgetomori.com/2010/ufos/kum...w-reflections/

Stray Cat · 31st May 2010, 05:15 AM

Thanks for that... Interesting stuff aduarte.

Was going to post the link but I see it's already been done

Welcome to the forum BTW

Kuko 4000 · 31st May 2010, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Sunsneezer

About the blur, it seems the camera is on manual focus because there is not the usual automatic focus-searching that cameras tend to frantically do in low light situations such as these...

Nothing too important, but to me it clearly looks like he has the camera on auto focus (like most folk), having it on manual would not give any auto-focusing at all, which can be seen when he zooms in to the moon. Also it looks to me that the last moon and "object" shots were shot by an unexperienced videographer using extreme digital zoom with a cheap tripod, instead of shooting handheld which was suggested here. What leads me to suspect this, is the movement of the camera, which looks very mechanical when zoomed out, and that when you are zoomed in about 300-700 times using digital zoom even the smallest wind, movement or touch to the handle makes the screen look jittery in normal consumer level tripods. And he is panning all the time.

aduarte · 2nd June 2010, 04:46 AM

Thank you for the welcome.

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

Nothing too important, but to me it clearly looks like he has the camera on auto focus (like most folk), having it on manual would not give any auto-focusing at all, which can be seen when he zooms in to the moon. Also it looks to me that the last moon and "object" shots were shot by an unexperienced videographer using extreme digital zoom with a cheap tripod, instead of shooting handheld which was suggested here. What leads me to suspect this, is the movement of the camera, which looks very mechanical when zoomed out, and that when you are zoomed in about 300-700 times using digital zoom even the smallest wind, movement or touch to the handle makes the screen look jittery in normal consumer level tripods. And he is panning all the time.

Sometimes he uses his maximum available zoom: 40x optical zoom, 5x digital zoom, 200x total zoom.
He may be unexperienced, but somewhat astute, he seems to adjust exposure time and accommodates behind a tree to hide any reference points, except moon.
And sorry for my english, I am not good with foreign languages.

MG1962 · 2nd June 2010, 05:06 AM

The night shots are Venus

Jono74 · 19th February 2011, 09:49 PM

Does anyone know if anything more has come of this? Has it been outed yet here, or any more good theories? This is all I could find here, but I seem to be having trouble searching the forums.
And StrayCat - again awesome work with the images! I'd never realised the angle of the thing was always the same, even though it was staring me in the face the whole time.

Jono74 · 21st February 2011, 01:03 AM

Um...Hello...? [echoes....]

Stray Cat · 21st February 2011, 02:22 AM

No, nothing came of it. As usual no one followed up on anything, sometimes I've seen reports refer to it (without any of the possible explanations offered), but overall, for what was claimed to be the most exciting detailed footage of a UFO ever, it didn't live up to it's own hype. In the link above provided by Aduart (and made a clickable link by Kuko 4000) a theory of yacht windows is put forward. I'm not sure there enough evidence to reach such a conclusion, but it can't be ruled out.

Personally, as the area is quite a busy one for the Turkish oil companies, I think the solution is more likely to be oil rig related. Certainly the rows of orange lights taken as day is breaking look like an oil rig out at sea, but again, not enough info to conclude that is what it is.

Jono74 · 21st February 2011, 02:37 AM

Thanks very much for replying.
hought I'd ask here first, as it seems pretty sharp on these, but yes, its awhile ago now alright.
I saw the yacht theory bit, thanks.
Too true re oil/gas flare, rig lights, etc. I personally could see no real similiarities between the day (early am) shots, and the night ones.
Certainly died away and dropped off the radar alright. I might go for a trawl around when I have more time, and see what can be seen.
Cheers

aduarte · 23rd February 2011, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by Jono74

I personally could see no real similiarities between the day (early am) shots, and the night ones.

They are not the same. Daylight ufos are 0.03°-0.07° angular size, night ufos are 0.2°-0.5°. See appendix 2, usuarios.multimania.es/aduarte/investigaciones/kumburgaz

Jono74 · 23rd February 2011, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by aduarte

They are not the same. Daylight ufos are 0.03°-0.07° angular size, night ufos are 0.2°-0.5°. See appendix 2, usuarios.multimania.es/aduarte/investigaciones/kumburgaz

Thanks Aduarte. I'll definitely have a look.

jnelso99 · 23rd February 2011, 12:22 PM

I picked up a UFO magazine at the grocery store a couple weeks ago (thought it'd be a laugh) that describes this incident. The author of the article saw aliens and an abducted person in the dark gap at the top of the thing. Had outlines and everything.

Yep, it definitely was a laugh.

aduarte · 25th February 2011, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by jnelso99

I picked up a UFO magazine at the grocery store a couple weeks ago (thought it'd be a laugh) that describes this incident. The author of the article saw aliens and an abducted person in the dark gap at the top of the thing. Had outlines and everything.

Yep, it definitely was a laugh.

I think you're talking about this:
sergiolacroix.blogspot.com/2010/09/ovnis-espectacular-analisis-grafico-de.html
Obvious paraedolia, but many people have taken it seriously.

27th January 2009, 05:36 AM	#1
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,510	Kumburgaz, Istanbul UFO Info wanted Hi there Not been around much recently, but I've been doing some work on this footage hailed as the best evidence of UFO's ever. Filmed in Turkey a few years ago. http://www.siriusufo.org/tr/?fx=sayf..._kumburgaz.asp Before I spend a vast amount of time on it, I was wondering if any of you good people have any web resources you could point me to, just so that I am not repeating what has already been done. I have done a forum search and it doesn't seem to have been discussed. Just to make my viewpoint clear. I firmly believe this is a stationery object, or indeed a stationary object... yes, it could well be a sticky tape dispenser! or a building. Taking a screen grab from the video date stamped '1st August': I then superimposed a screen grab date stamped '12th August' They are off set here so you can see both images clearly Then we put one directly on top of the other and bravo... Both filmed from exactly the same angle. This UFO which MUST have the ability to travel the universe (otherwise it would just be stuck in exactly the same place in the sky over Turkey) is at exactly the same angle and facing in exactly the same direction as it was 11 days previously... But there's more.... Then going back to screen grab date stamped '1st August': I then superimpose a screen grab date stamped '7th August: Then put them directly on top of each other: Wow - Apart from the object being lit from the other side (I did flip it and as it's symmetrical it didn't really make any difference), again it is at exactly the same angle and facing in exactly the same direction once again... But there's more.... Then going back once again to screen grab date stamped '1st August': I superimpose a screen grab from footage date stamped '24th August': You can guess what's coming? Again the object is lit differently but it is still at exactly the same angle and looks to be pointing in exactly the same direction. Interesting to note that once again we NEVER see this object 'arrive', nor do we see it 'depart' it always just appears to be there, in the same place at the same angle, pointing in the same direction... Strange!!! OK... well the night time shots are a bit dark and this guy has filmed this object in much lighter conditions on a few occasions... Here's a screen grab of one date stamped 'July 2nd' Bearing in mind this is now 12 months since he filmed the night time shots: OK, some lights in the distance (the lower set of lights is the reflection off the sea)... Mmmmm... the other fishermen don't seem to be taking too much notice of it... Oh well, luckily he had spotted and filmed it earlier that year on 16th June. So taking a screen grab and overlaying it we get: And once again if we then put one directly on top of the other, we get: Exactly the same, at exactly the same angle, with exactly the same lights. So come on... if this is a UFO how come it never seems to move? Now some of the above pics I had to enlarge or reduce to fit (the camera apart from never staying still constantly zooms in and out in all the footage, meaning that some adjustment was required to compensate for zoom and camera tilt. Anyone?

27th January 2009, 06:21 AM	#2
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	Nice. To me it looks like a building nestled between two hills. The jumping and zooming in and out almost appear to be an attempt to keep you from getting a clear picture.
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

24th March 2010, 07:15 PM	#4
Sunsneezer Thinker Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Montréal, Québec Posts: 161	Thank you Stray Cat for your work at demonstrating how the ship is always at exactly the same angle. It looks to be very much immobile and not flying at all the whole time. The only movement there is camera shake. I don't get all the excitement this video generated it sure is not less dodgy than all the other UFO videos I've been presented with. In each shot either the UFO or its context is mostly feature-less, making scale, speed and distance evaluation all but impossible for the close-ups. The only video that shows the detailed close-ups along with a reference is the May 27, 2008 video which has a pan to the moon at two points. I looked up the moon phase and it seems to match the vague blur that is said to be the moon in the video. Filming conditions are such that even the freaking moon needs extrapolation to identify. Let alone unknown phenomena About the blur, it seems the camera is on manual focus because there is not the usual automatic focus-searching that cameras tend to frantically do in low light situations such as these. There is growing blur radius as the cameraman zooms in and sometimes it changes, but always slowly and never back-and-forth until it resolves. Maybe it's just due to a cheap or lazy auto-focus mechanism. It is really deplorable that nobody told that guy to set his manual focus to infinite... for 3 years. And that as a result this video fails to convince me that there are two alien dudes in there, strafing in a flying saucer. ETA: Found something else that would be consistent with the building-top theory: Notice how the bottom edge, in the yellow square, is sharper than the top edge. That could mean there is a dark object closer to the camera than the UFO itself. A dark object that is obscuring the bottom part of the building. Or that could be a compression artifact, or frame tearing...
	Last edited by Sunsneezer; 24th March 2010 at 07:25 PM.

24th March 2010, 08:04 PM	#5
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	Can I offer a "possible" theory? It honestly looks like the cockpit to an F-15 or something similiar, reflecting in the night light. That sharply defined bottom edge, the shape of the dome, the fact it never moves. I can envision someone sitting at night and filming the cockpit to a plane of some sort that's sitting stationary on a runway, outside a hangar, etc. It doesn't have to be a jet either, I suppose it could be any plane with a similiary shaped domed cockpit. It's that sharp, bottom edge that's so defined that makes me think you're seeing only half of what's there, or the abrupt end of the dome ends into something completely unreflective. Now the color changes? IDK. I'm just telling you what my initial impression of it was Hell, it could even be a Lego toy spacecraft dome.
	Last edited by Trent Wray; 24th March 2010 at 08:06 PM.

25th March 2010, 03:43 AM	#8
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,422	Originally Posted by Sunsneezer The only video that shows the detailed close-ups along with a reference is the May 27, 2008 video which has a pan to the moon at two points. I looked up the moon phase and it seems to match the vague blur that is said to be the moon in the video. That's just what I did too: At 4'29" there's the waning moon and, although it's hard to be precise, it's roughly one day past last quarter. That doesn't match the Aug. 7 2007 datestamp. More like the 9th or 10th. Then I noticed the startlingly obvious thing I'd completely overlooked: the timestamp says 5.08pm. Obviously wrong. Not that this leads me to any startling conclusions, except to doubt that the footage was shot when it was claimed. Meantime, my spider senses are telling me this is the corner of a building, as seen from over the corner of the wall of an unlit compound and filmed by a bored security guard. <shrug> Edit to add: The "UFO" appeared time after time, over a few weeks and the guy never thought to bring a tripod to work - just kept bringing his shaky video camera. Pity he didn't mention it to anyone else, or they might have got some better pictures. Somebody would be bound to be interested - after all this was within 20 miles of Istanbul's main airport...
	Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 25th March 2010 at 05:11 AM.

27th January 2009, 05:19 PM	#3
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,510	Yes I was working on looking for possible buildings in the local area... of course there are many Mosques, which have metallic domes and there is a nearby office block made from metal and rounded (picture below)... Nothing 100% positive yet though.

24th March 2010, 08:36 PM	#6
Sunsneezer Thinker Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Montréal, Québec Posts: 161	Originally Posted by trentwray Now the color changes? IDK. I'm just telling you what my initial impression of it was Hell, it could even be a Lego toy spacecraft dome. If the object is close to the ground, the headlights of a moving car would have an effect similar to the lighting change that is seen in the video. So here we are again, with a real video of something that could be anything. Not enough visual information to debunk or prove anything... Just like the victor alien interview: It doesn't do anything that a very basic puppet couldn't do and indeed looks a lot like one but yet there are no unequivocal signs of fakery. ...Another one that I won't be able to shake off my UFO-enthusiastic friend.

24th March 2010, 09:11 PM	#7
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	Originally Posted by Sunsneezer If the object is close to the ground, the headlights of a moving car would have an effect similar to the lighting change that is seen in the video. So here we are again, with a real video of something that could be anything. Not enough visual information to debunk or prove anything... Just like the victor alien interview: It doesn't do anything that a very basic puppet couldn't do and indeed looks a lot like one but yet there are no unequivocal signs of fakery. ...Another one that I won't be able to shake off my UFO-enthusiastic friend. Yeah I was immediately thinking of a car's headlights as well, or any other moving objects that give off light. Even clouds moving overhead reflecting slow transitions. But yeah, there's not enough in the video to show anything one way or another to say what is is definitely. I agree. So from that standpoint, I'm going with Occam . I'd personally call it a UO, not a UFO

25th March 2010, 01:10 PM	#9
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	All the UFOs in Constantinople live in Instanbul, not Constantinople so if you're a UFO in Constantinople you'll be floating over Instanbul... I've had this song stuck in my head for weeks and now this thread resurfaces. Coincidence?
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

25th March 2010, 01:26 PM	#10
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Blimp

26th March 2010, 08:07 AM	#11
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,510	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge Then I noticed the startlingly obvious thing I'd completely overlooked: the timestamp says 5.08pm. Obviously wrong. In one of the interviews, the Turkish UFO guy (can't remember his name now) does explain that the camera's time clock was incorrectly set.
	__________________ It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

26th March 2010, 08:52 AM	#12
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,422	Did you identify exactly where the footage was shot? I can't google up a match for "Kumburgaz Yeni Kent". It looks like that's the "New Kent (Hotel)" in Kumburgaz, but the only Kent hotel I can find locally is right in the middle of Istanbul itself. Edit - OK, scratch that - Yeni kent translates as "New City", and one of the videos mentions a "residential area". No wonder I couldn't find a hotel...
	Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 26th March 2010 at 08:59 AM.

26th March 2010, 12:25 PM	#13
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,510	Yes, it's west along the coast from Istanbul. I did have a pin in Google Earth last year, but I've probably deleted it by now. I didn't pin point the exact location I dont think because as usual, there just isn't enough information. Which as you will know is par for the course because if anyone knew the exact location, it would be quite simple to solve the 'mystery'
	__________________ It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

31st May 2010, 04:27 AM	#14
aduarte New Blood Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 8	They are yacht side windows. Full article in spanish: "Los ovnis de Kumburgaz son ventanas de lanchas" English summary by Kentaro Mori: "Kumburgaz, Turkey UFO: Yacht Window Reflections" As a new member, I could not post the article links.
aduarte New Blood Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 8

31st May 2010, 05:07 AM	#15
Kuko 4000 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 1,559	Welcome aduarte, here's the link: http://forgetomori.com/2010/ufos/kum...w-reflections/
	__________________ Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM."

31st May 2010, 05:15 AM	#16
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,510	Thanks for that... Interesting stuff aduarte. Was going to post the link but I see it's already been done Welcome to the forum BTW
	__________________ It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

31st May 2010, 05:35 AM	#17
Kuko 4000 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 1,559	Originally Posted by Sunsneezer About the blur, it seems the camera is on manual focus because there is not the usual automatic focus-searching that cameras tend to frantically do in low light situations such as these... Nothing too important, but to me it clearly looks like he has the camera on auto focus (like most folk), having it on manual would not give any auto-focusing at all, which can be seen when he zooms in to the moon. Also it looks to me that the last moon and "object" shots were shot by an unexperienced videographer using extreme digital zoom with a cheap tripod, instead of shooting handheld which was suggested here. What leads me to suspect this, is the movement of the camera, which looks very mechanical when zoomed out, and that when you are zoomed in about 300-700 times using digital zoom even the smallest wind, movement or touch to the handle makes the screen look jittery in normal consumer level tripods. And he is panning all the time.
	__________________ Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM." Last edited by Kuko 4000; 31st May 2010 at 05:47 AM.

2nd June 2010, 04:46 AM	#18
aduarte New Blood Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 8	Thank you for the welcome. Originally Posted by Kuko 4000 Nothing too important, but to me it clearly looks like he has the camera on auto focus (like most folk), having it on manual would not give any auto-focusing at all, which can be seen when he zooms in to the moon. Also it looks to me that the last moon and "object" shots were shot by an unexperienced videographer using extreme digital zoom with a cheap tripod, instead of shooting handheld which was suggested here. What leads me to suspect this, is the movement of the camera, which looks very mechanical when zoomed out, and that when you are zoomed in about 300-700 times using digital zoom even the smallest wind, movement or touch to the handle makes the screen look jittery in normal consumer level tripods. And he is panning all the time. Sometimes he uses his maximum available zoom: 40x optical zoom, 5x digital zoom, 200x total zoom. He may be unexperienced, but somewhat astute, he seems to adjust exposure time and accommodates behind a tree to hide any reference points, except moon. And sorry for my english, I am not good with foreign languages.
aduarte New Blood Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 8

2nd June 2010, 05:06 AM	#19
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	The night shots are Venus

19th February 2011, 09:49 PM	#20
Jono74 Scholar Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Auckland NZ Posts: 83	Does anyone know if anything more has come of this? Has it been outed yet here, or any more good theories? This is all I could find here, but I seem to be having trouble searching the forums. And StrayCat - again awesome work with the images! I'd never realised the angle of the thing was always the same, even though it was staring me in the face the whole time.

21st February 2011, 01:03 AM	#21
Jono74 Scholar Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Auckland NZ Posts: 83	Um...Hello...? [echoes....]

21st February 2011, 02:22 AM	#22
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,510	No, nothing came of it. As usual no one followed up on anything, sometimes I've seen reports refer to it (without any of the possible explanations offered), but overall, for what was claimed to be the most exciting detailed footage of a UFO ever, it didn't live up to it's own hype. In the link above provided by Aduart (and made a clickable link by Kuko 4000) a theory of yacht windows is put forward. I'm not sure there enough evidence to reach such a conclusion, but it can't be ruled out. Personally, as the area is quite a busy one for the Turkish oil companies, I think the solution is more likely to be oil rig related. Certainly the rows of orange lights taken as day is breaking look like an oil rig out at sea, but again, not enough info to conclude that is what it is.
	__________________ It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

21st February 2011, 02:37 AM	#23
Jono74 Scholar Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Auckland NZ Posts: 83	Thanks very much for replying. hought I'd ask here first, as it seems pretty sharp on these, but yes, its awhile ago now alright. I saw the yacht theory bit, thanks. Too true re oil/gas flare, rig lights, etc. I personally could see no real similiarities between the day (early am) shots, and the night ones. Certainly died away and dropped off the radar alright. I might go for a trawl around when I have more time, and see what can be seen. Cheers

23rd February 2011, 01:55 AM	#24
aduarte New Blood Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 8	Originally Posted by Jono74 I personally could see no real similiarities between the day (early am) shots, and the night ones. They are not the same. Daylight ufos are 0.03°-0.07° angular size, night ufos are 0.2°-0.5°. See appendix 2, usuarios.multimania.es/aduarte/investigaciones/kumburgaz
aduarte New Blood Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 8

23rd February 2011, 02:26 AM	#25
Jono74 Scholar Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Auckland NZ Posts: 83	Originally Posted by aduarte They are not the same. Daylight ufos are 0.03°-0.07° angular size, night ufos are 0.2°-0.5°. See appendix 2, usuarios.multimania.es/aduarte/investigaciones/kumburgaz Thanks Aduarte. I'll definitely have a look.

23rd February 2011, 12:22 PM	#26
jnelso99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 444	I picked up a UFO magazine at the grocery store a couple weeks ago (thought it'd be a laugh) that describes this incident. The author of the article saw aliens and an abducted person in the dark gap at the top of the thing. Had outlines and everything. Yep, it definitely was a laugh.
jnelso99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 444

25th February 2011, 02:06 AM	#27
aduarte New Blood Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 8	Originally Posted by jnelso99 I picked up a UFO magazine at the grocery store a couple weeks ago (thought it'd be a laugh) that describes this incident. The author of the article saw aliens and an abducted person in the dark gap at the top of the thing. Had outlines and everything. Yep, it definitely was a laugh. I think you're talking about this: sergiolacroix.blogspot.com/2010/09/ovnis-espectacular-analisis-grafico-de.html Obvious paraedolia, but many people have taken it seriously.
aduarte New Blood Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 8