iPhone app,    iPad app,    Android phone app,    Android tablet app,     More
Focus:

Secondary menu

You are here

Graphic Analysis On The Videos Regarding UFOs Over Kumburgaz, Turkey

Primary tabs

Mario Valdes's picture

GRAPHIC ANALYSIS ON THE VIDEOS
REGARDING UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
FILMED OVER KUMBURGAZ, TURKEY,
BETWEEN 2007 AND 2009
(SUMMARY)

ANALYSED BY MARIO VALDES
SANTIAGO - CHILE

 

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, 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.

SOME CONSIDERATIONS

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.

THE BEGINNING OF THE ANALYSIS AND THE FIRST OBTAINED PHOTOGRAMS

As I mentioned before, the objective of this review was to find elements that would reveal a fraud or a setup in the sequences of the video. For this I realized and exhaustive observation of the images, with a considerable close up and frame by frame process. The video segments used in this part correspond to the June 8th 2008 and May 13th 2009 (1 and 2).

Given that the most spectacular aspects of the case rest on the alleged presence of UFO occupants in the footage, the observation point was centered primarily in the center zone of the object, that's where, according to the witness; there was "someone", what has been interpreted as the occupants or crew. In summary, the records of the case indicate that in the center of the object would be found some type of door or window that at times remains opened and from where it's possible to see two "heads", which would correspond to the slippery occupants.

So well, a short time after reviewing, I could observe a couple of photogram's that caused me strangeness and amazement. My first reaction was to say, “ì Bingo! Here there's something”... After a second view of the fragment, I was able to isolate a sequence that seems, to say the less, interesting. Not just because of the clarity of the takes, also because the investigation started to turn more complex from the point of view of the different explanation theories possible. In fact, at this point is where a series of questions appear, that later on I will comment.

In concrete, the sequence shows with acceptable clarity the moment in which one of the figures, apparently of humanoids characteristics, raises the look (for saying it somehow) and it remains for a fraction of time looking rightly at the front. The appearance is that of a head with two relatively big and dark eyes. Also it is possible to interpret what part of the body of the figure is left to see as a body or small torso in relation to the head. (3 and 4).


One of the photograms of the sequence. This is the original image, just as it appears on the recording.


In this image only one level filter was applied, increasing the luminosity of the scene. This allows the extraction of the most data possible that the camera could capture, without modifying the image quality.

After checking uncountable times this photogram sequence (5), I got the conviction that the figure in question is not static; by the contrary, it's in permanent movement, in general with the “view” looking down, with the exception of this segment, in which the figure happens from this position to look fixedly at the front, to then lower the “view” again.

In the first, the figure starts to raise its head, while
the image start to lower in relation to the settings.
(more ahead I will explain the importance of this detail).

In the second frame, the figure has its head straight, in “look front” position.

In the third photogram the figure keeps its position.

Finally, in the fourth frame, the figure returns to its original position.

 

HERE IS THE COMPLETE SEQUENCE IN SLOW MOTION
AND WITH AN EMBOSSMENT OF THE LIGHT LEVEL
(the sequence will loop every 2 seconds)

To compensate for the differences between displays, the two options.

.

This sequence is produced while the image, that is to say, the object, begins to lower in relation to the setting, which in my opinion owes to an ascending movement of the camera. This movement in general produces a distortion of sweep in the image, a species of out of focus in movement. Well then, simultaneously, while this happens, the figure realizes the action to raise the head, being opposed to the decrease of the image and annulling the sweep of distortion. That is to say, a synchrony of the image takes place in the zone where both opposite movements are, producing clarity and sharpness in the zone. When the figure returns to lower the head, it does it in the same descending sense of the image, returning to generate the out of focus of movement.

In the following close up sequence, (6) it's possible to see that the "humanoid" figure is visible even without the need to apply zoom.

Though it is true that the previous images are clearer that I could have obtained of the central figure, there are great the sequences and stills of interest that I have selected. Nevertheless, for motives of space and time for explaining them, I have chosen the following three stills (7, 8, and 9)that support the hypothesis of which the figure in analysis is really in the recording and is not product of games of lights and shades or a bad interpretation of any another element. In my opinion, the figure humanoid is in the filming and is in constant movement.

Article continues here: http://www.archivosovni.com/analisis-kumburgaz/kumburgaz-ingles.htm

Categories: 

Author articles

PageRank Checker