This is part of a colloquy on Facebool, between Tiko Okit and Gilles Fernandez (mostly), the administrator of the UFO group, on Facebook, in which it appears.
The “discussion” is about the photos and apparently objects that look like UFOs, in the photos shown here.
I’m not showing you this back-and-forth for any substantive reason. It is sheer blather.
I’m showing you how silly some UFO discussions are, almost pathologically insane.
I’ve also did not capture all of the inane and totally useless copy.
That Gilles Fernandez, a Cognitive Psychologist, would engage in such ludicrous folly surprises.
This represents what is ubiquitous at French UFO blogs and web-sites, and among UFO enthusiasts everywhere: an attempt to pretend research or investigation but, more importantly, what has gripped the UFO discussion — madness of a kind.
UFO in Kumburgaz: probable scenario
So already I’ve never really dug this case before. Of course, I discussed this. But I never tried to figure out what could hide behind it. I thought she was inconclusive. Because the phenomenon is indistinguishable limit. So we can do all kinds of interpretation. And my first impression, when I discovered this case, it was the name of the city that inspired it:
Kumbburgaz. Since, I immediately thought of a despise with a gas tank (big round and white sphere), which could be located on a deposit in front, across the other side of the Marmara Sea…
Finally, without knowing the direction of the camera, this was still one hypothesis like another. Then it could be a misunderstanding with anything, like a boat, buoy etc.. Yet according to the various reports, it was investigated and then dismissed. In short, there were many conflicting arguments, concerning a case far from being really concrete. My
judgement was then suspended. Because I don’t reject the idea that this could be a singular object. I mean, UFOs exist.
Sometimes singular objects are found in matters far more concrete than this. At the same time, I also don’t reject the idea that it could be a despise. Or even a hoax.
It’s just that I’ve been discussing a possible fake with Gilles Fernandez (who doesn’t want to communicate with me anymore ^^) that I wanted to know more about this case. Because he explained to me that there was only one witness to the phenomenon. And that the video maker didn’t want us to look in his camera. So I searched, and checking, we find other witnesses. Then the video maker doesn’t seem to have banned others from looking into his camera (there are even pictures where he is offered). Then the opposite would have been amazing. Since the phenomenon has taken place over an extended period of time. And many people came around him. How would he ever dodge requests? By the way it says other witnesses saw lights in the distance. So the hoax…
So I’m going to repeat what I said on another post (that’s why Gilles doesn’t want to communicate anymore) is that you can’t prove a video (or photo) is fake, in reproducing this one identical. Because in this case, a witness provides me with a video, I reproduce it in CGI, and I conclude it’s a fake, period. In short, we can reproduce everything! This doesn’t prove anything. Even less, by reproducing something blurry by another blurry thing. So to suspect a fake, you need facts, clues, to go that way. And with this case, there’s no indication that it could be a fake. Although there are many rather strange points, I agree. Because for example, the phenomenon comes several times in a row, in the same place, and no one takes a boat to check… Or nobody comes to bring a telescope to better distinguish it… And etc..
In the end, context seems to show that the witness, thanks to a powerful zoom, has filmed something well in the distance.
And there’s little chance he invented this case. So unlikely it’s a fake. On the other hand, with the assumption I’m proposing today, it would have been amazing if he didn’t understand what he was filming. Finally, in time he should have understood it.
Or at least someone else… Anyway, I’m developing my assumption, that you understand what I’m talking about. So checking out the witnesses, I came across the direction targeted by the camera. And if this one does not target gas reserves around the Marmara Sea, it does aim at a city, which has a white roof mosque. This somewhat joins my first
assumption. So a misunderstanding, not with a sphere-shaped white gas tank, but with a very reflective half white sphere.
Because my research focused on buildings that could create this despise. And the mosque is doing the trick very well.
So I don’t know if the witness knew what he was filming. I don’t even know if this is the right solution I’m proposing now.
But it seems so obvious, I don’t understand she wasn’t proposed before. Though, maybe someone did… But I never heard of it myself. And if this was investigated, why wasn’t the mosque hypothesis mentioned? Because, scientists argued the argument of the investigation is often advanced. Like these so-called E-looking characters. T’s… While checking out, you see mostly dark spots. In short, it’s far from obvious. What is already more is that this story has promoted this whole area a lot. So I won’t go so far as to say there was an arrangement between the witness and the city across the street. But it’s
amazing how this case went. And the corner is very nice by the way. This really makes you want to go on vacation there^^
Be careful though, because I haven’t watched all the videos. So my hypothesis might match some of them but not others.
Yet even for the lights, it could be spotlight mounted on the mosque dome (their position describes its contours). As for the different shapes seen in the phenomenon, they are the shadows of the trees or the lightning of the dome. The dome is, by the way, structurally grilled. This could play on the shadows. As for the altitude of the phenomenon, you should not rely too much on it. It is known how temperature differences, especially over such distances, can change the altitude of light radiation.
Finally here, I’ll leave you with a ′′ small ′′ scheme (it’s simpler ^^):.
PS (here I postpone the final text of the image, so that it can be potentially translated and therefore accessible to non-Francophones): Possible despise with a mosque and its very white dome, lit from the back and top. Shadows of branches and structure, as well as atmospheric disturbances, did the rest (pareidolia). More info: Most of the time, on the videos, the Moon is slightly right of the dome. Which makes this one often brighter on its right side. As for the city lighting, if it’s not visible like the dome, it’s, or its brightness isn’t enough to cover the 70 km, or it’s too low, or all at once (maybe it’s even cut off at a certain time). Another interesting question comes directly after. That’s why, if the Moon passes past the dome, and illuminates it directly (rather than from the back like here), why wouldn’t the dome be brighter, and thus even more apparent? Which logically, must happen often. And who would therefore lead this phenomenon, to be seen more often than the few times it has been. Well, we can assume that at that moment, the Moon floods the atmosphere with its brightness.
Which makes the dome not really visible anymore. Kinda like the stars, disappearing, if the moon is too bright (so we could check if this is consistent with a certain position of the moon). · ·
I’m posting the picture again, because in the post you don’t have access to its actual size (idk why):
May be an image of text ·
A very interesting question comes straight away, with this assumption. That’s why, if the Moon passes past the dome, and illuminates it directly (rather than from the back like here), why wouldn’t the dome be brighter, and thus even more apparent?
I think the object of Kumburgaz’s video is a wide angle CCTV lens. actually there are a number of objects or scenes shown, and that’s what I would expect from a video surveillance system passing through a number of video streams around the building or area. wide angle lens causes the view curve. You can also see an illuminating torch that casts a shadow on the object behind. I propose that the two ′′ alien heads ′′ are actually boats in the water.No photo description available. ·
May be an image of text
May be an image of ocean and text that says ’8:55AM AM 8:55 JUL. 19,2007′
and Gilles suggested that Kumburgaz’s video could be a TV screen in his blog.
The Turkish UFO case. Les vidéos de Kumburgaz (Turquie, 2007-2009), un Trucage et quelques Lumières dans le Ciel ?
The Turkish UFO case. Les vidéos de Kumburgaz (Turquie, 2007-2009), un Trucage et quelques Lumières dans le Ciel ?
Tiko Okit Chris Clarke :
Why not… It’s possible too… In fact, at this level, all sorts of assumptions can be advanced (and even an E vessel. T ^^).
But it’s in their probability, that’s going to be played. And according to the many returns, the witness real…
A big red flag re. the footage is the definition and the camera used. As somene pointed out in another group, how on earth would you get definition so good on such a zoom, ha ha!
Chris Fowler :
Heu… If the definition were correct (as you say), we would already know what it is. And then some people wouldn’t believe they saw E.T’s in it, where there are only dark spots. In short, if for you these images are sharp, the Rorschach images are also ������
Lost interest in the footage due to too many red flags and dodgy people, ha!
Gilles Fernandez Admin
Exactly Chris Fowler.
Here, the dôme of the mosque is situated at… 70 kilometers (if I read correctly the images here)! Anyway, if 10 kilometers.
The cam have an about 100x zoom + the Sony VCL-HGD1758 (about x1.4).
The object when he is zooming max is occupying the angular size of the width of the screen (!!!)+ such a definition! Totaly impossible for a distant object.
Again, the object is really proximal, as again, t is a pity I cant found the same material to do some test invalidating that the object was distant. ·
Yet the results seem to be there… At least that sounds pretty blatant, right? Because the atmosphere and different layers of temperature must also be taken into consideration, which can lead light to travel very long distances sometimes. We could then face an optical phenomenon (we’re over the sea), so we’re a kind of mirage…
By the way, many people, pointed fingers, the marina with its boats, from Esenk öy… So there distances don’t seem to be problematic (yet the boats are lower and surely less bright than the dome of the mosque ^^).
Afterwards, it’s also possible that I’m wrong, indeed! Here I am making findings, which can ′′ possibly ′′ explain this phenomenon. But the explanation could be quite different…
And it doesn’t contradict the possibility, that the images of this misunderstanding with the mosque, could have been modified later… Or that they were filmed on a screen, after rigging…
The important thing in the end is to avoid falling into the claim, and try to clear the most likely causes. Because the solution, often complex, can have multiple causes.
Still, I want to nuance my words, about reproduction, photos or videos… Because, the work to try to reproduce pictures, by all kinds of means, is always very helpful. Especially with this kind of business. In short, when you’re looking to understand an event or fact, you have to use everything you have at your disposal. Knowing more, that this job, can always open up to other ideas and etc.. First and foremost, the priority is to seek understanding, and approach through it, always a little more to reality.
That’s why I totally respect the work some people put in, trying to find a match. And with that, maybe make a possible fake. Although in the end, and as I say in the publication, these results are unlikely to offer a perfectly sliced conclusion.
Because reproducing identical images, does not prove that the originals are false. And that’s exactly what I condemn! It’s the conclusions, often claimed as truths, that some people, do their jobs. But their work, I respect it. Like all the exchanges on this case and on this same page.
(It might be that nuance, you didn’t understand.. because when I say your conclusions are good, regarding Zimbabwe’s school, you accept that.. but when I criticize your conclusions about Kumbaz, Here you take it wrong ������)
Florent Michaud Admin
I haven’t investigated this case but considering the extremely small angular size of a 70 km mosquee (around 0,015 degree for a 20 meters roof), I agree that what we see on the screen doesn’t match.
Moreover, considering the angular size of the hypothetical mosquee, the fact that the witness doesn’t seem to use a stand for the camera would make the shakings well worth than what was recorded.
Tiko Okit Florent Michaud :
Vibration is not a valid argument. Here the phenomenon is distant, it is a fact. So more or less far…
Now, if you have a most probable hypothesis to offer, I’m interested. Because in that direction there is this mosque. And surprisingly, it matches perfectly. Then unless you are a specialist in the refraction of light on the atmosphere, I do not think you are able to reject the idea, that we are perhaps facing a singular optical phenomenon. For it would not be the first. Even if the distance seems insane.
Gilles Fernandez Admin
There is a footage (a genuine one) where he is zooming and dezooming max in a sequence* of one his footage,.
What is targeted is probably several kilometers behind him (the coast for example or at the “false” horizon) – I suppose he is using here a tripod -.
We can see what he obtained, as definition, as for the apparent size regarding the total field of his screen/captor occupyed.
When now we compare with the “metallic textured object”, and for the mosque hypothesis proposed here, again, how the hell he can obtain such a definition and apparent size (more than the screen/captor width?) if not a proximal object caught?
You must assume that the mosque (enlighted or by artificial light or by the Moon) would be very very little than what it is targeted in the “genuine” footage in apparent size for the naked eyes, as for the camera when max dezoom (if not invisible or a micro point of light). Impossible to obtain such a definition and apparent size for a dozen kilometers situated object.
- sequence starting at about 3’11” here:
May be an image of sky and text
Tiko Okit: Gilles Fernandez :
It must be said that with regard to these lights, the gauge looks very wide. But that doesn’t mean that this light phenomenon would necessarily be closer than the disc. If the light disk is from Esenk öy, these lights could also come from it. In this, we should know if the camera was pointed in the same direction. Because, if it’s obvious that these are two different phenomena, it doesn’t mean they aren’t linked. In this case, everything would depend on how these lights are fitted…
Let’s be clear, it’s possible that we’re here facing a very special optical phenomenon, where light is carried by the different layers of temperature, above the sea. Because it should not be forgotten that it is the light radiation, which comes to the camera, not the opposite. And it seems to me that with optical phenomena, we often have surprises. It’s even a principle, concerning most of the UFO phenomenon ������
In short, it’s true that a light that runs for almost 70 km, it seems aberrant. But it depends first on how powerful that light is.
And then, environment, allowing him to convey it. This would be the atmosphere, which makes us see an image, closer than it really is. And I think that’s a possibility that should not be neglected. Especially with so many concordant points.
For as far as the phenomenon itself is concerned, the one in the form of a disk (and which corresponds perfectly-by its form-to the dome of the mosque), well when the witness makes a wide plan, there it is rather tiny:
2009 Turkey UFO Video – Kumburgaz UFO OVNI (Increased Quality Version) YOUTUBE.COM
Tiko Okit: (about the fakes)
Of course, there are many fakes. But especially on the internet. Because there is anonymity and you can hide your tracks.
With the Kumburgaz case, the witness faces, in person, the media and everyone. And the witness knows he will be directly suspected or charged with falsehood. So whoever decides to produce a fake under these conditions would be slightly unconscious. Since the case takes place over several years. And she makes her talk, while the phenomenon still happens.
Since many people could come and see this.
Knowing more, if I understood correctly, that it’s not the witness, who offers the images of these 2 grays. No, it’s someone else, who says they discovered these so-called beings in these pictures. But basically, the only images of the witness, are rather mundane (although original videos would have to be absolutely sure). And if you can consider seeing all kinds of things in these pictures, it’s precisely because they are hardly discernible. So wanting to see the ring of a photographic lens is kind of like wanting to see little gray ones. This is somewhat the same approach.
Because with this witness, who seems to have only filmed things he didn’t understand, we’re far from the fraudster who produces and vulgarly swings his hoax, or gives in the outbid. On the spot, he explained his disarray at these pictures. In addition, he must be given the benefit of the doubt. So it’s important at first, to consider the witness as honest. As you should also avoid starting from the idea of a fake. That is to say, not start from this solution, to seek ′′ by all means ′′ to validate it. Otherwise we can produce biased work. Because at first, fake is just one possibility among others. And it’s when we’ve eliminated all these other possibilities, that we’re going to fake it. But not before.
In short, ′′ all means ′′ must be used, for ′′ all assumptions “. They must be ′′ all contemplated “. Therefore, we must go back, from the basic facts, to check if other facts can match and etc.. And when we do, well the mosque seems to match (and if so, this phenomenon could still happen, depending on the position of the Moon). So the witness may have been the victim of despise. And in this case he would be perfectly honest. As a result of this, others were able to use the images of the witness, to alter and embroider around, based on pareidolism (the story of the 2 little grey ones). But these people could also be honest. Since if they thought they saw E’s. T’s in these pictures, they might have wanted to edit them, to show what they saw and etc.. So no need for fake. No, just the overflowing imagination of human beings, period.
(Which doesn’t eliminate the possibility of real exotic gear walking around our airspace)
Gilles Fernandez Admin
′′ It must be confessed that with regard to these lights, the gauge looks very wide ′′
I said light gauge?? I just said that for your ′′ mosque ′′ hypothesis, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get such a definition and apparent size (from the mosque dome for your hypothesis) at such a distance – that you measured yourself -, as it is on his videos.
When you photograph at night, a point of light, whatever it is, and distant, from the moment you zoom into your sensor’s maximum capability, this one will saturate that one (as is the case for comparison) that I proposed): from there it is impossible to have such a definition, details, as it is here and if it was the dome of the mosque, or an object distant several kilometers and only it is bright.
Even less such an apparent size on the film. It is also strictly impossible for the dome to occupy the full width of its sensor with such material (and level of detail, definition) given the distance between the cameraman and your mosque. Try yourself at photography ^^
In addition, the mosque is in the city and the city should be assumed, blackout, no other artificial or other light from the city can be captured by its sensor, when it is in dezooming: just the dome of the mosque…
In short, an abracadabrant hypothesis, so much to reject and on which, I will not return.
http://ufocon.blogspot.com – The UFO Iconoclast(s)
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 888-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 888-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video)