That is, you can't observe any kind of tendency or intention of hiding something. There is always a first impression, and it even can be subjective, and by the way, preliminary.Īt first look, it called my attention to the honesty of the takes. It is a lot of material and when the moment comes I will complete this publication with more findings.įIRST APPRECIATIONS RELATED TO THE VIDEOS The analysis will be exposed in a chronological and sequential way, in the same order that the research and results came.įinally, what I present here is only a portion of all that was extracted from the videos and from the image analysis. I met with Haktan personally to comment about this incident and I was very grateful of him handing me a copy of the original tape, with which I could accomplish this work.
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. You could say that my expectations were to "find the string of the puppet". It was 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. To be honest, at the beginning my idea was to analyze the videos hoping to find some elements in them that would be evidence of a possible fraud, taking in count the spectacular manner in which the case was labeled (announced that for the very first time a UFO was videotaped with its occupants precisely inside one of the objects) not a minor issue for those of us who are obsessed with these themes. Therefore, the debate has concentrated more over the nature and origin of the objects filmed by Yalcin Yalman. So far nobody has been able to demonstrate that the recordings are product of tricks or some type of manipulation. In his appreciation, José Atenas also came to the same conclusions that the images are authentic. In Chile, I asked professor José Atenas to technically examine the videos, an expert in graphics and video with more than 30 years of experience on television. Other analysis was done by video specialist, image edition and special effect companies from Japan, Russia, and Turkey, all ending up with the same conclusions. So the conclusion of this report is that the observations are not a model, marquette, or a fraud" and 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 of (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)". "The objects observed on the images have a structure made of a specific material and are definitely 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. Once the analysis was concluded, they gave an official report from which we took the following fragment:
#NLO IZNAD BALKANA TV#
The original tape was handed to the TUBITAK representatives on live TV in their own headquarters. 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, toys, or CGI. It also started a great debate between the official members of the Turkish scientific community. This case made big news in Turkey and in other countries as well. One singularity of this case was that the images were made with a camera that had an adapter for close ups of 200X optical, achieving a great amount of detail of the objects.Īt first, the videos were analyzed and made public by the SIRIUS UFO organization, directed by the researcher Haktan Akdogan. The objects were spotted over the sea near Turkeyīetween 20 and witnessed by local residents). Note: (This analysis has to do with the Turkey UFO video. Yalman was able to film many video segments, some during the day accompanied by witnesses with whom he spoke to while he was filming. Its main witness was a night guard named Yalcin Yalman, who while on duty registered video of strange objects that appeared at sunrise like floating or changing while in flight over the sea on the coast of Marmara. This case developed in the location of Kumburgaz between the years 2007, 2008, and 2009. Original Raw Videos: 2007-2009 Original Videos Analysis of the Kumburgaz, Turkey UFO VideosĪNALYZED BY MARIO VALDES SANTIAGO - CHILE
0 kommentar(er)
