Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,969 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,321,023
Pageviews Today: 1,632,124Threads Today: 303Posts Today: 4,719
11:59 AM

Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing

Very Interesting (Mind Boggling actually) Analysis of Kumburgaz UFO Videos. Done by a Chilean Engineer.

Red Hot Chilean Pepe
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 24021611
09/18/2012 05:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Very Interesting (Mind Boggling actually) Analysis of Kumburgaz UFO Videos. Done by a Chilean Engineer.
It's written in English. Bear in mind that this engineer is skeptic, and "hardcore" skeptic.

[link to archivosovni2.blogspot.com]

Conclusions here:

My conclusion is that this case is, up to the moment, a real event and of high strangeness, with the characteristics here exposed, that does not have a conventional, convincing and demonstrable explanation and that therefore, to my understanding, is kept like not identified.
All great truths begin as Blasphemies.

GLP is like a diamond mine of information, in the sense that you have to shovel mountains of crap to find the diamonds, but it's still worth the pain.
Red Hot Chilean Pepe (OP)

User ID: 24021611
09/18/2012 06:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Very Interesting (Mind Boggling actually) Analysis of Kumburgaz UFO Videos. Done by a Chilean Engineer.
Some of the text, respecting the less than 50% rule, just to get you enticed to read the rest:


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 the 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 its 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 don't 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 Turkey, 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 labeled (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.


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 can't observe any kind of tendency or intention of hiding something. Its clear that the film man 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.
All great truths begin as Blasphemies.

GLP is like a diamond mine of information, in the sense that you have to shovel mountains of crap to find the diamonds, but it's still worth the pain.