-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Turkey UFO Case & Videos- New Information - The Debate Continues
- Thread starter Skymon876
- Start date
Free episodes:
Skymon876
Paranormal Adept
I heard the Alejandro Rojas show and he mentioned that Frank Warren offered a theory that an inner lens reflection could be the cause of the objects seen in camera which we have come to know as the Kumburgaz images.
The only way to do this is to do an experiment and duplicate the conditions.
The only way to do this is to do an experiment and duplicate the conditions.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
I found this explanation to be patently ridiculous. I know you feel that the boat theory, like Rojas, to be as ridiculous but that's an enormous stretch and makes no sense whatsoever given the composition of the images we have seen.
Skymon876
Paranormal Adept
I can't disagree.
Skymon876
Paranormal Adept
If there is a Turkish speaking person please contact me.
Does anyone want to pitch in a few bucks and get camera of the same model and make so we can do some experiments to see if a lens flare is what happened?
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
trust me, after decades of shooting video that can not be a lens flare effect nor is it an internal reflection like those Ufo's of the 80's that produced geometric shapes from the Hi8 camera lens structure. The Turkey videos are an object and IMHO as stated previously the masking on the bottom of the image tells us that this is a part of an object. Rojas was completely wrong but I will not debate the boat as that's been covered thoroughly elsewhere many times over.
Skymon876
Paranormal Adept
This idea has been started by Frank Warren and from the start I agree with you that its an unlikely explanation but I have thought over what can be done. I came up with the idea to use the original camera, which John Rao and OM tv has in it's possession and try it out. I can almost promise that no lens effect could be reproduced, but it would have to be handled in a professional non-biased manner and see what the result is. I am confident that the result would be nothing similar to what we see in the original videos. Frank Warren will no longer have a case.
First of all this is all open source information All the videos and single frames are available for anyone to look at.
You seem to have more photographic experience than me. Perhaps you can help.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
That's OK - I know we have two different views on it. What bothered me from the get go about this case was the persistent lack of tripod, the incredible frequency of shooting dates and the highly detailed citation of the camera specs. Those things just don't jive together.
I have to confess when I look at a case that has technical components like this one I tend to dissect all that's wrong with it to see what other possibilities are more likely than alien visitation - the Roswell slides being a simple example. When you can dissect an image to reveal other features then other parts of a case can be looked at even more critically to see other flaws.
If proof of alien visitation is easy to get and repeat I think that's a big red flag. Alien visitation has to be the most incredibly rare of events on this planet and I would think proof of such an earth shattering event would reside in only the rarest of cases, and even then the body of evidence would be scant. Consequently Ufology has become a field about loose collections of massive amounts of data and the resulting speculations of what patterns can be found. For me this is guesswork but I can very much identify with the high desire to follow such avenues given the nature of the subject.
Stagger Lee
Paranormal Adept
I rather enjoyed reading the video analysis in this link. Really creepy stuff. Not sure what to make of these images, but I am not convinced it is a cruise ship floating on water, as that theory doesn't explain the particulars captured in these images.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Are we not concerned about how the image has been altered in this analysis to move from very limited pixel blips in the original masked image whose bottom has been sliced off, to then becoming "embossed" video and then, as you can see in the pixel editing that now we suddenly have aliens there? Because that kind of proffered analysis really is about manipulation on the highest order. What really is incredible though is the actual insertion of alien imagery where there actually was none before which is clearly evident in the very low res pixelated image that we have started with. Try blowing up those original images and see if you can get anything even close to the final results. If this is where the Turkey video analysis is going then there's not much to discuss at all.
Skymon876
Paranormal Adept
I have refrained from really talking about the alien part, because I thought getting the nuts and bolts of the case should be done first.
Here is what I know about that analysis.
Using the 400MB size original video file which is of course much more detailed than the Youtube ones a person named Mario Valdes from Santiago, Chile who came into this as a complete skeptic agreed to check out the video.
He used what is called a frame splitter which is a special technique that displays more original data or detail that was captured. It is something that from what I heard is a reliable thing used a lot and does not alter the image data by adding or subtracting it just displays a different field which was a part of the original.
When he did this he applied maximum zoom after applying this enhancement technique. Again it may sound suspicious but using a frame splitter is not uncommon for people analyzing video.
After he did that these are the images that could be seen.
Anybody who has the 400MB digital copy can do the same thing, repeat the same process and if done properly will get the same result. The alleged images you see of alleged aliens above were found in the 2009 video.
I have a digital copy of the 2009 original generation video its about 400MB.
The eventual plan is to have this process duplicated by someone here in the US who is reliable and credible. Burnt State mesage me if you want a digital copy I can send to you over Dropbox.
I have no idea how to use a frame splitter so I have been intending on finding someone who is a pro.
Here is what I know about that analysis.
Using the 400MB size original video file which is of course much more detailed than the Youtube ones a person named Mario Valdes from Santiago, Chile who came into this as a complete skeptic agreed to check out the video.
He used what is called a frame splitter which is a special technique that displays more original data or detail that was captured. It is something that from what I heard is a reliable thing used a lot and does not alter the image data by adding or subtracting it just displays a different field which was a part of the original.
When he did this he applied maximum zoom after applying this enhancement technique. Again it may sound suspicious but using a frame splitter is not uncommon for people analyzing video.
After he did that these are the images that could be seen.
Anybody who has the 400MB digital copy can do the same thing, repeat the same process and if done properly will get the same result. The alleged images you see of alleged aliens above were found in the 2009 video.
I have a digital copy of the 2009 original generation video its about 400MB.
The eventual plan is to have this process duplicated by someone here in the US who is reliable and credible. Burnt State mesage me if you want a digital copy I can send to you over Dropbox.
I have no idea how to use a frame splitter so I have been intending on finding someone who is a pro.
Skymon876
Paranormal Adept
I also think the concern you have about a cut off bottom is a legitimate concern and one I had at the very beginning. It might have something to do with the quality of the video you watched.
In my opinion Roger Leir was not the type of person who would make up this extravagant story or conduct this large of a hoax. He was interviewed about 4 or 5 times before he died and luckily he described in detail what happened there in person. He witnessed an airborne object and not a prop or model.
Like I said everyone should participate in this and help. There is no hoarding or territory war going on its all open source for the public to figure out.
Focusing on the nuts and bolts and verifying the video should be first and then focusing on the alleged aliens should be done last.
What is really needed is someone who speaks fluent Turkish. I know of approximately 4 to 5 witnesses who can easily be contacted but I have been unable to communicate due to language and finding an interpreter has been difficult.
In my opinion Roger Leir was not the type of person who would make up this extravagant story or conduct this large of a hoax. He was interviewed about 4 or 5 times before he died and luckily he described in detail what happened there in person. He witnessed an airborne object and not a prop or model.
Like I said everyone should participate in this and help. There is no hoarding or territory war going on its all open source for the public to figure out.
Focusing on the nuts and bolts and verifying the video should be first and then focusing on the alleged aliens should be done last.
What is really needed is someone who speaks fluent Turkish. I know of approximately 4 to 5 witnesses who can easily be contacted but I have been unable to communicate due to language and finding an interpreter has been difficult.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
A frame splitter is essentially a video splitter which allows you to split a single video file into smaller files. Traditional digital video travels at a rate of 29.97 frames per second compared to film which travels at 24 fps. A frame splitter will allow you to access specific single frames so you can split your video at a specific frame point. It doesn't have anything to do with revealing more data than what is there.
The general rule of thumb in media is your final product is only as good as your initial recording. So low light video or audio that peaks can't really be repaired too substantially. Yes, you can filter out certain audio frequencies to remove noise and get a better quality sound. But with an image, still or time based like video, you can filter your negative space and generate some image quality out of blackness but nothing much of any quality will come from it.
Given the distance of the original object, a lightened video & a deinterlaced video, will still only reveal a very pixellated image, even in the original uncompressed video file. I will PM you, and see what I can pull out of the video, but it's plain to me, even in the compressed YouTube video, that there is very little quality or definition to what appears to be a 'craft.'
A 400MB file is still a pretty small file for video unless it's only a few seconds long. The results we are seeing in that analysis piece is treated, and by embossing new edges and dimensionality are being created through an effect where there was none before. Some of those video frames look more than treated - they look edited and manipulated. Blowing up a small portion of a video shot of an object at a distance at night can not reveal more detail. The more it blows up the more distorted it will ultimately become, hence my high critical levels of doubt. You just can't pull something out of nothing.
Skymon876
Paranormal Adept
Nothing was altered or manipulated. It may be hard to believe and I know it sounds crazy but after going over this video frame by frame multiple times and everyone else who has gone over it has come away without any idea of what it is. Even the famous Hoaxkiller forum has been unable to debunk the videos.
Stagger Lee
Paranormal Adept
I would agree. But you have to admit, those images, no matter how forced, are some creep show material.
Agreed. I was thinking also though that according to the late Dr Leir, he himself and others watched this object through binoculars and the naked eye. So basically I am saying if they did see something, supposedly in the same area where the cameraman claims to have been filming, well that cannot be an internal reflection surely?
I believe there was quite a flap going on at the time round Kumburgaz so we must take into account that whether 'the' film is a true UFO or not, people were claiming to see multiple UFOs around the area at that time.