Monday, February 25, 2013

Case Overview

 "The objects in the footage have the structure of a specific material that
 is definitely not made up by any kind of computer animation, balloon, prop, 
model, or special effects used for simulation in a studio."
The Science and Technology Research Board of Turkey 

This unidentified disc shaped object was witnessed 
and filmed over the sea near Turkey.

 Turkey has a long history of unexplained aerial phenomena dating back centuries. The Kumburgaz UFO incident is a more recent case that took place over multiple dates between 2007 and 2009 when there were multiple unknown aerial objects reported across Turkey. During this time a series of interesting videos were taken by the local resident Murat Yalcin of anomalous objects hovering over the sea. They were described by many people who live in Kumburgaz as unusual round, disc, and cigar shaped craft. They submitted reports with the Sirius UFO and Space Science Research which is Turkey's primary UFO reporting organization. This case was like no other because the video footage captured extremely close views of the objects.

 The footage was recorded with a camera that had a lens converter adapter capable of filming at 200 times optical achieving a great amount of detail. In addition there is one factor that makes this case credible. The video was analyzed by "The Scientific and Technology Research Board of Turkey" and "TUG National Observatory" which are both sponsored by the state and highly influential. They reviewed the footage intending to discovering a hoax but were unsuccessful. The original cassettes of film have been studied by people from Japan, Chile, Brazil, and Russia. After several attempts, to this date nobody has been able to successfully debunk the videos and they remain unidentified.

2009 Original Footage

The objects were not close to the camera but filmed from a long distance away
hovering several feet above the sea surface.

 The events of 2009 took place between 5-13 and 5-17 and were the third straight year of sightings that Yalcin recorded on video. The objects in the video were witnessed by multiple people. Some were residents, others were fishermen, while many were attending an International UFO conference that was taking place in Turkey at the time. This is when respected UFO researcher Roger Leir and approximately 7 to 8 other people witnessed the unknown crafts. He describes what he witnessed in the following audio: Roger Leir Interview

The location and vantage point of the camera. 

 2008 Original Footage - Part 1

2008 Original Footage - Part 2

2008 Original Footage - Part 3

 The 2008 footage was taken between 5-22 and 9-28 during day and night. Yalcin was a night shift employee at the Yeni Kent building located on the shore which gave him a good vantage point. An object hovering over the sea began to catch the interest of local residents and media. Yalcin continued to film the area using a 300 mm lens with a 200x zoom tele-adapter which gained a close perspective. Just like 2007 the 2008 incident was discussed in the Turkish media and gained interest from some people in the scientific community.

 June 8, 2008 Footage

- Multiple Sightings Over 3 Year Period
- Various Shaped Craft

SIRIUS UFO Space Science Research Center 

 At first, the videos were analyzed under the direction of noted researcher Haktan Akdogan. SIRIUS UFO and Space Science Research Center firstly spoke with all the witnesses separately and then did the analysis of the videos. With participation of the members of their science board they enlarged the video images. They did all the detailed analysis, checked their pixels, and went through frame by frame. Haktan Akdogan stated: "After doing all the necessary analysis which went on for several weeks, the board came to a definite conclusion with no doubt that these are 100% genuine videos. The objects sighted in the aforementioned footage that have a structure that is made of specific material are definitely not made up by any kind of computer animation nor are they any form of special effects used for simulation in a studio or for a video effect therefore in conclusion it was decided that the sightings were neither a mock up or hoax. And it is concluded that these objects in the sightings that have physical and material structures do not belong in any category such as; planes, helicopters, meteors, Venus, Mars, satellites, fire balls, Chinese lantern, fire balls, weather balloons, natural or atmospheric phenomenon etc. and but rather fall into the category of UFOs."  

Video Explanation By Haktan Akdogan and Murat Yalcin
The director of the Turkey UFO organization and the primary witness Murat Yalcin
discuss the details of the video.

Camera Details:

The camera was a MiniDV Canon DM-GRI-A based on the NTSC system with a diaphragm set at the maximum of 1.8. It's a 3CCD 20x optic 100x with a tele-converter mounted on a 58mm adapter. Tele-objective is a Sony brand vci hgd 1758 model lens, x 1.7.

This is a map of the Sea of Marmara and shows the nearest land object in the field of view. The distance from the camera to land ranges between 27 miles and 34 miles.

This is the approximate location of the orange lights seen on July 2, 2008 and a daytime 
photo taken from the same location.

2007 Original Footage

The 2007 video begins on 6-20 and films several days before ending on 8-31. During that time round, disc, and oval shaped craft were seen and filmed maneuvering over the sea while occasionally changing direction. The same thing happened again in 2008 and 2009.

May 14, 2009

 This newly discovered video was taken on May 14, 2009 outside a UFO conference taking place in Istanbul, Turkey. A crowd of witnesses can be seen accompanying Yalcin Yalman. Yalcin is the person who filmed the majority of the video seen in this blog. The date is important because it happened after May 13 and before May 17 which is right in the middle of the 2009 flap. As mentioned before there were multiple witnesses to the Kumburgaz sightings.

The Panel of Scientists Released Their Report on National Television

At first the scientists in Turkey were highly certain that it was a hoax. At that point Haktan Akdogan, who had already analyzed the videos frame by frame and confirmed their authenticity, challenged TUBIAK representatives on television to check themselves. When they were finished they released their report in a two page document which is translated below.

The National Council for the Study of Science and Technology 

 On January 31, 2008, a MiniDV format video cassette holding 35 minutes of footage was brought over to "TUBITAK" The Science and Technology Research Board of Turkey (a Scientific Institution owned by the state that is highly reliable and influential) National Observatory (TUG) by Mr.Tolga Ozdeniz, the Editor of "Reporter" that has been aired on ATV Channel. The footage on the cassette was said to have been recorded by a Canon GL1 MiniDV digital camera on a beach of a holiday village in Kumburgaz/Istanbul by an amateur. 

The images were examined by TUG- National Observatory Image Processing Unit. Because, it would take quite a long time to analyze all of the images, only randomly selected parts were pre-examined. During this process, emphasis was not placed on images produced by optical clarification effects which a number of point light sources generated. Here is a portion of their report: “The objects observed on the images have a structure made of a specific material and definitely are not 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, mock up, 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 do not belong to any category (airplanes, helicopters, meteors, Venus, Mars, Satellites, artificial lights, or Chinese lanterns etc.)"  TUBIAK National Observatory Report

May 15, 2009 Similarities (Night and Day)
33 Minute Separation

4:59 AM                                  5:32 AM

 (2 frames combined for comparison)

A segment in the footage dated 5-15-09 was taken at sunrise in the morning. The segment starts with the time stamp of 4:59 AM and continues to film until 5:32 AM. It starts with the background being completely dark and eventually after sunrise it turns daylight. With the camera pointing in the same direction we finally see the horizon and the location of the UFO. For an unknown reason what previously appeared as a metallic oval craft is now 4 red orange pulsating lights  This could be a plasma effect caused by the craft changing configuration or just a reaction to the sun and different environment, however this is only speculation. When combining both the day and night frames and overlaying for comparison, as seen above, the shape matches almost perfectly. Make up your own mind if you think we are looking at 1 object in both frames. There has yet to be any further explanation to explain these anomalies in the video.

Explanation of 33 minute segment

Dr. Roger Leir

On March 31, 2013 Roger Leir appeared on Coast to Coast with George Knapp and during the interview explained what he saw in Turkey. During 2008 and 2009 Roger Leir was present at a conference among many others at the time of these sightings and reports.

 More Blog Posts:


  1. How can there not be intelligent life outside of earth? We think were so high and mighty and that were the only species that is highly intelligent. Think about all the planets we have yet to discover.

  2. Google: Operation Blue Beam

  3. Good evening,

    I lived in Turkey from 1968 through 1970 and again from 1972 through 1974. My father was in the US Air Force and was stationed at the Karamursel Common Defense Installation (KCDI) for both tours of duty. During our second tour there myself, my brother and sister, and a couple of friends of ours were walking home after dark on summer evening (I believe in 1973) when we noticed a light darting about in the sky to our left (which I assume was the western sky). It was a bright light but we couldn't tell what the craft, if any, actually looked like. It caught our eye because it was literally darting about in the sky. What's more, I consider myself extremely interested in UFO's and have read about and followed them for many years but I only recently remembered this episode. I was about 15 years old at the time.

    The information you provided regarding Cappadocia was very interesting and I look forward to digging up some more info on the underground paths, etc.

    1. See...that's the kind of thing I would be interested in seeing sometime...not on video but in person. Because you say..'darting' across the sky. I mean..what does that? Nothing! Right? To do something like that it would have to be sooo powerful. And it couldn't have been anything that we've invented yet (far as I know). Because anything we would build...that somehow, someway, be able to dart across the sky...It would be LOUD! The engines would be loud and the sound bearier (spelled wrong..sorry). You would hear sonic booms going off. But I assume these machines didn't make any noise (or at least not like that) or else you would have included it into your re-telling of that night.

  4. Interesting things has the documnetary movie "Men in Black" that Medvedev was talking:

  5. Those are some great video clips. I think only fools would doubt the existence of aliens at this point, or that UFOs have been visiting Earth. I think our governments have known this fact for a long time but have been keeping it from us.

  6. This went on for several days, and all we have is one shaky video? There should have been all sorts of cameras and scientists out there after the first or second sighting. Hogwash.

  7. My first response when I saw, I believe it was the May 14 or 15th 2008 vid was, Oh my gosh, that doesn't look real! And I wondered why the camera-person didn't at least show the ground before zooming in on the object. But, later in another video the camera operator did just that and that video was (in my opinion) quite legitamate.
    I am by nature very sceptical about these kinds of videos and sightings. But the more I watch these clips certain things still seem to bar my objectional mind from dismissing this one away.
    1. Like I said...THAT's not what I pictured visitors to travel in...Which is probably why I can't dismiss these things. They look....ugly. In a weird sort of way.
    2. Maybe this is just me but the metal color is strange. First they're a gold color then it's a dull grey. That gold color is very goldish looking. Why? Why would anyone that was trying to 'trick' us...use that color?
    3. Did you all see it when it 'changed' shape? It was very blurry butI believe I saw it specifically 'shed' it's outer shell down to the back of the ship...or maybe that was my eyes..
    4. Of course there is the experts on digital effects and trick photography stepping in. I don't know them...but assuming they are trustworthy (and scientist/analysis data collecting people...really arn't very good liars...that's why they stick to the facts (LOL...JK). In any rate, I don't see any purpose for them to lie to us.
    5. Another thing! Those second type ships...they were stranger than the first one (the one they are saying looks like a disk (but it certainly wasn't a perfect or full disk all I was weird.) But! the other ones were stranger. I mean...once again. At first I would have been tempted to just laugh at the simplisity of their shape. They looked like (four) shapes huddled together. Four spheres just dangling in the air (like balloons) with a thin? wire-like metal connecting four more spheres. Simple right? I know....yet...they wern't balloons. They wern't anything I've HEARD ABOUT that we've invented that can hover in air (outside of a balloon) that's made of metal....It's just weird man...

  8. Quite a fascinating story. How much of it is reality, is another thing. Because, as usual, the denial has been the line repeated by all the govt. in such incidents. And, even if some confirm it to certain degree, more info is never released to public. The interesting factor also is that all these UFOs look like quite similar that too compared to ones which are shown in movies as well. This is definitely puts some shadow over these being actual things. But who knows!

  9. You're looking at the town of Esenkoy about 40 miles away over the horizon. Do some research on the mirage effect "Fata Morgana". Or look at my post in the URL linked with my username.

    1. Sorry, try this URL

    2. Hi you gave a desperate try but failed miserably.

      Now that the flying cruise ship theory has been debunked its obvious you are flip flopping over to an entirely new theory. But as I said you have failed to convince even 1 person. Sorry about that.

    3. Also please look at this post. All your questions have been answered and the cruise boat theory is no longer.

    4. When you are done reading the link I provided let me know.

    5. I don't subscribe to any cruise ship theory. I think what you're seeing is a fata morgana, as I stated.

      Similar thing happened in Monte Hermoso (Argentina)

      Check out the wiki page on Fata Morgana

      In particular look for the effect of the Farallon islands mirage as seen from San Francisco. They are 30 miles distant, a similar distance to the nearest landfall in a direct line of sight from the Turkey observer and the phenomenon.

  10. You failed to mention which date. Unless you are completely unaware or unfamiliar with the case I can go ahead and help you. There are 23 separate dates of video taken many different shapes. Also there is daytime video taken. It appears you think there was only 1 day.

    Secondly, in order for your hypothesis to work the weather conditions have to be just right including a "duct". If you want people to buy this theory you might want to do some research and provide weather conditions to prove it.

    1. No, I'm aware that this occurred on many different dates. That, and the fact that it appears in the same place each time, lends credence to the theory that it is a mirage showing a distant town several miles away over the horizon.

      This a well-documented phenomenon that has been known about for many years. It happens all over the world.

      I don't need to spend time on the weather conditions, it would be nigh on impossible to get the appropriate data as you need a temperature gradient, with cold air under a layer of hot air. My explanation fits all the available evidence, is a well-known phenomenon that has caused fake UFO sightings in other parts of the world.

      I know it's nice to have an unexplained mystery that you can think of as a UFO sighting, but the reality is you're looking at a mirage. Mysteries can be more fun than reality, so if you want to continue thinking it's a UFO, knock yourself out. If on the other hand you're trying to discover the truth, regardless how mundane that truth may be, then you've got your answer.

      Anyone else who's reading the page can come to their own conclusion, it doesn't bother me either way.

    2. You failed again.

      The objects were not in the same spot time after time. They were in different locations with various shapes.

      This is why it is advised you actually do some research and analysis before you make such a proclamation. I have not seen 1 single piece of research presented by you.

      Secondly. I have a challenge for you.

      Prove it.

      When you make a claim it is your duty to provide sufficient evidence to back up your claim. Yes it is true that the original claimant was Murat, me and others and we have presented a lot of data and analysis as displayed in this blog.

      So far you have presented zero proof of your claim.

      I am surprised you were not aware of your responsibility to provide data to support your counter-claim. Real skeptics such as myself understand that making a counter claim still requires due diligence.

      I am sorry to inform you that what you are practicing is what is called Pseudo -Skepticism. You qualify as one. See here:

    3. characteristics to pseudoskeptics:[5]

      Denying, when only doubt has been established
      Double standards in the application of criticism
      The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
      Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
      Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
      Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
      Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
      Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim

  11. Since you have not done any homework to prove the fantastic "miracle mirage" theory I will go ahead and create a post with all the weather data and satellite weather info which proves that a "duct" of hot air or cold air was not present at the time because the weather conditions were not applicable.

    The cruise boat theory has already been debunked.

    After the miracle mirage theory is debunked I wonder what story the pseudo skeptics will scribble together next time. It appears they are running out of creative stories.

    1. I was referring to the specific incidences that allegedly show a close-up of a flying saucer with aliens on board. They're all in the same place relative to the observer. There was some other footage, for example a white dot moving in the sky near the moon on one video (let's just leave it as UFO in the strictest sense of the word). Clearly I'm not suggesting that was a Fata Morgana on that occasion, but specifically the others that have previously been claimed to be a cruise-ship are in the same place, at least according to the maps I could see in the videos. If I didn't make that clear in my earlier post then I apologise.
      I should also clarify that the "cruise ship" UFO, and the "orange lights" UFO, may or may not be in the same place. I've subsequently identified 2 or 3 locations that could be visible via a Fata Morgana. It's difficult to be certain without knowing the exact GPS coordinates of the camera, and the compass heading. Since we don't have that data, we can only make assumptions and extrapolations.
      The locations I would have as potential candidates are towns on the north west coast of the Armatlu peninsula (such as Esenkoy) or the island of Imrali Adasi. I was initially drawn to Esenkoy due to the orange street lights on the harbour front: there may be others.
      Can a Fata Morgana be visible at the distances involved here? The distance from the coast at Silivri to Esenkoy is 50 miles: Imrali Adasi is 38 miles distant. There are records of Fata Morganas being clearly visible at distances of at least 56 miles (Toronto as seen from Buffalo). I've also seen evidence that Corsica is visible from Genoca in a Fata Morgana (100 miles distant). So clearly these 2 locations would be possible candidates based on their direction from, and distance from, the cameraman.
      The "miracle mirage" aka Fata Morgana is not a miracle, it is a well established scientific fact. There are numerous instances of this happening the world over, and being mistaken for something else by people who didn't understand the phenomenon. I've provided a link to a video where they initially thought it was a UFO.

    2. I will concede that you are right in that I shouldn't be presenting this as a fact, more as evidence. Instead of saying it is a Fata Morgana, I'll say it may be a Fata Morgana. The available evidence supports that theory. Since you brought up the issue of pseudoskepticism, here's a quote from that page:-
      "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded."
      My claim isn't extraordinary: it's a well known optical effect with a rational explanation. I'd suggest you have a greater burden of proof if you want to prove that what we are seeing are alien visitors.
      In summary, here's the evidence which supports the Fata Morgana of a distant town theory.
      1a) Image appears low in the sky, just above the horizon (as it would with a Fata Morgana)
      1b) Image seems to be in same place in sky relative to the observer (would need more data to confirm this)
      2) Image changes shape slowly during each observation (as it would with a Fata Morgana)
      3a) Potential towns / islands are well within range of the observation point compared to known Fata Morganas
      3b) Potential towns / islands are in the observed directional angle relative to the observer (according to the maps on the website: needs refinement)
      4) Fata Morgana is a relatively common atmospheric phenomenon requiring a thermal inversion and an atmospheric duct.
      5) From Wiki:- "Thermal inversions occur most frequently along coastal areas bordering large bodies of water." The images are taken on the coast, looking out into a large body of water.

      These are all facts: not creative stories. Compare that to "aliens from another dimension or planet who enjoy spending long periods of time hovering over a particular spot over the Sea of Marmara in a craft that slowly changes shape with time" theory: ask yourself honestly, which is the more creative?

    3. No, you made a claim which is called a counter-claim. When you do this it is your responsibility to provide evidence to back it up. You have failed to do so.

      If your "miraculous mirage" theory is correct then you should be able to provide other similar videos and similar photographs which have duplicated this effect. This is simple science 101. It could be from a totally different event and location but the objects in question must look very similar to the various distinct shapes and colors represented in the Turkey video. I really hope you have actually watched all the video, but I am suspicious you have not taken the time to study them. In fact what appears to be happening is you are repeating a rumor you heard from someone else who heard it from someone else.

      Secondly, the reason your theory is failing so badly is because the objects in the video do not resemble any building structure or shape of anything located across the water. It would appear upside down of course. The video does not contain anything that is a resemblance of the city you have cited.

      The cruise boat theory advocates were just as confident as you are until my post debunked it. Stay tuned for the fantastic mirage theory to be debunked as well.

    4. Please let me know when you are ready to present evidence and data to back up your claim, which apparently you didn't know that you had to produce.

      Works both ways in case you did not know.

      And yes your claim is extraordinary in nature. It would be a feat of nature beyond anything seen before since there does not seem to be a series of video or photos on the record that look remotely similar to the objects tin the videos. If there are other examples that do exist please provide them.

    5. I've provided evidence, see the 5 points in my previous post. It is what it is, people can examine it and come to their own conclusion. All I'm claiming is that this 'could' be a Fata Morgana. It's impossible to prove (just as you can't prove that it's an alien spacecraft). I believe the evidence fits the Fata Morgana theory better than it fits the alien spacecraft theory.

      The problem with providing supporting evidence from other Fata Morganas is that they are unique. No 2 look identical. If this is indeed a Fata Morgana, then it would only look like this as seen from this location, looking in a certain direction, when conditions are favourable. That said, the footage at 5:14am Jun 16, 2008, and 5:15 amJul 2, 2008 looks remarkably similar to the 'UFO' sighting in Monte Hermoso I linked to previously.

      I'm not repeating a rumour I've heard elsewhere, it's a theory I came up with on my own. It may well have been proposed by other previously. Other people also proposed the "cruise ship" theory, I don't believe that theory is correct. I do think the Fata Morgana theory is correct (see 5 points from earlier post).

      A Fata Morgana isn't always a perfect facsimile or reversed facsimile of the object, sometimes they can appear distorted.

      Quick summary of why I think Fata Morgana is a better explanation than Alien Spaceship.

      A. Image stays in same place in the sky, just above the horizon. Doesn't move.

      B. Image slowly changes shape (compare 5:07 and 5:13 on Aug 7, 2007)

      C. Image is in same location, in each of three consecutive years. (An assumption I've made from the maps in the video, would need further forensic analysis to be certain)

      (Note: I'm referring to the images where the cameraman has zoomed in on the image for several minutes, not the ones looking in the sky where he was filming a white dot that could easily be a satellite or an airplane. For example, I'm referring to images such as that timestamped 4:50pm Jul 30, 2007, which is visibly not the same as the moving image he zoomed in on, in a different direction, at 5:14pm).

    6. So far you have provided less than zero evidence and it has resulted in you failing miserably.

      Let me know when you can provide 1 single piece of evidence or research to back up your extravagant claim. Your claim is even sillier than little green men.

      Now is your time to prove it.

      I am still waiting.

    7. I just did some research and nobody else anywhere is in agreement with you. You are the only one in the world who thinks a miraculous 3 year mirage is what caused this.

      And you can't find one example that looks similar.