SUMMARY OF THE CASE
This case developed in the location of Kumburgaz between the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. Its main witness was a night guard named Yalcin Yalman, while on duty who registered on video these estrange objects that appeared at sunrise like floating or changing while in flight over the sea coast of Marmara. Yalman was able to film many video segments, some during day light accompanied by witnesses with whom he spoke to while he was filming.
One singularity of this case was that de images were made with a camera that had an adaptor for close ups of 200X optical, achieving a great amount of details of the objects.
At first, the videos were analyzed and made public by the SIRIUS UFO organization, directed by the researcher Haktan Akdogan. This case made big news in Turkey and in other countries as well. It also started a great debate between the official members of the Turkish scientific community. Specifically the NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE STUDY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (TUBITAK) got interested in analyzing the original footage, with the intention of determining that the video was nothing more than a hoax, gambling on the idea of scale models or toys, or CGI.
The original tape was handed to the TUBITAK representatives on live TV in their own headquarters. Once the analysis concluded, they gave an official report, from which we took the following fragment:
“The objects observed on the images have a structure made of a specific material and definitely itís no any kind of CGI animation or in any means a type of special effects used for simulation in a studio or for video effects. So the conclusion of this report is that the observations are not a model, maquette or a fraud”.
At the last part of the report, it’s concluded that the objects observed have a physical structure and are made of materials that donít belong to any category (airplanes, helicopters, meteors, Venus, Mars, Satellites, artificial lights, Chinese lanterns, etc.) and that it mostly fits in the category of UFO’s (Unidentified Flying Objects and of unknown origin).
Other analysis were done by video specialist, image edition and special effect companies from Japan, Russia and Turky, all ending up with the same conclusions. In Chile, I ask professor José Atenas for his cooperation, expert in graphics and video edition, with more than 30 years of experience on television, to technically examine the videos. In his appreciation, José Atenas also came to the same conclusions that the images are authentic.
So far nobody has been able to demonstrate that the recordings are product of tricks or some type of manipulation. Therefore, the debate has concentrated more over the nature and origin of the objects filmed by Yalcin Yalman.
To be honest, at the beginning my idea was to analyze this videos hopping to find some elements in then that would evidence a possible fraud, taking in count the espectacularity in which the case was labled (announced that for the very first time a UFO was videotaped with its occupants, precisely inside one of this objects, not a minor issue for those of us who are obsessed with these themes). It was like that, from skepticism, and ¿ why not say it ?, with a quote of prejudgment , I decided to take some time and checkout the fragments of the movie. You could say that the expectations were “to find the string of the puppet”.
To make the analysis, I used electronic copies of the original videos, given to me by the Turkish investigator Haktan Akdogan, who picked up this case, first handed. I met with Haktan personally to comment this incident and I very grateful of him handing me a copy of the original tape, with which I could accomplish this work.
The analysis will be exposed in chronological and sequential way, in the same order that the research and results came.
Finally, what I present here is only a portion of all that was extracted from the videos and from the image analysis. It’s a lot of material and when the moment comes I will complete this publication with more findings.
FIRST APPRECIATIONS RELATED TO THE VIDEOS
There is always a first impression, and it even can be subjective, and by the way, preliminary, I find it interesting to comment.
At first look, it called my attention the honesty of the takes (to say it some way). That is, you canít observe any kind of tendency or intention of hiding something. Itís clear that the filmman does everything possible to configure his camera the best way to capture the objects; he makes constant changes in light entry and zoom, trying to show as clearly possible what is happening while he films. He also worries on registering different reference points and at the same time making very powerful close-ups
Even at first if the appreciation can be subjective, as I mentioned before, must be considered in the context of an attitude and disposition totally open of the witness, who has shown his face and delivered all the background of this case, including the video camera and the original tapes.
After the first look, the hole (IMAGE: film grain, illumination, close ups and reference points.- AUDIO: ambient sound, narration and witness attitude
agrees totally with an authentic recording of objects at a great distance, filmed at night time (the ones used in this work). There are also daytime recordings with interesting details, but in this analysis will be only the night ones.
Having these observations in account, plus the reports from TUBITAK and the opinion of professor José Atenas, is that I’m willing to do and expose the following graphic analysis.
Click on main page picture to read the full story
ANALYSED BY MARIO VALDES
SANTIAGO – CHILE
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
[...] Read more… Share this:FacebookEmail [...]January 4, 20123:16 am