It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Filiberto Caponi Close Encounter 1993 (w/Pics) Genuine?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 11:06 AM
No idea what became of the creature but am curious to know if anything further has since come to light. Fake or real I for one want answers either way.
One thing I had wondered about and still wonder about, was how the eyes absorb all light and don't seem to reflect anything.

The tube apparatus looks so bizarre that if it were faked people responsible might have removed the tubes before producing and distributing the pics.


posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 11:06 AM
Genuine or fake

Who here can prove it.

One thing that puzzles me is why there were no 'head on' shots. In the pictures listed, the aliens head always seems to be tilted just enough that you are unable to get a full 'frontal face' view.

Not sure if there is any meaning behind it or not, just seems a bit odd. I personally would want to get some head-on face shots, showing the whole face rather than just a partial.

And in respect to all the " armchair skeptics ". as mentioned, try to put a little thought into your attempt of debunking the photos/story. To just say it is fake and leave it at that, sort of blows.

Maybe give some reasoning for your conclusions, rather then boosting your post points.

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 12:00 PM

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Caponi was a plastic and CLAY sculptor. Looking at this particular figure, it looked an aweful lot like it was composed of clay-like material.

It is, and it's a particularly inept job of sculpting. This one's been discussed before.

Now they're trying to excuse the weird look with "burned in an accident." We need to deny ignorance here and say "no, Lame Sculpture." In the standing photo, for instance, the thing is terribly off-balance (off the center of gravity.) That's just not possible.

The feet are badly designed (rounded bottoms... right. YOU try walking off-balance on feet with rounded bottoms. And, please, no "the suit has antigrav" because it was supposed to be partly melted to the alien's body.)

And then there's the issue of something that has just had cloth/material welded to its body...and no cracks showing and it doesn't die of burns or dehydration.

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 12:02 PM
By the way, take a close look at the second photo, where the doll is posed to be sitting and a profile can be seen.

The mouth is clearly just scraped into the clay/plasticene. It's a doll's mouth, not a mouth that could open.

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 03:50 PM
These pictures disturb me to say the least. I don't really know if it's real or not but I most certainly feel compassion for the apparently crippled extraterrestial. I felt incredible sorrow and simply wanted to aid it. If this is a fake then Caponi should be ashamed of himself for diluting the pool even further when we all want to know if there are other lifeforms from other worlds or interdimensional travelers.

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 06:45 PM
Okay, look...
I'm not taking either side here.
I'm not a believer OR a skeptic.
Just want to make that clear.

Now then, I have a few questions:

#1) If it is a suit that's melted to the alien's body, then with all of the damage done to the suit itself, why aren't the tubes damaged?

#2) Is there something special about earth to begin with? How come all of these aliens come here?

#3) If all of these space creatures are so advanced, how come so many of them crash here?

#4) Why does the alien seem laquered solid and not have any particular points of articulation? If it is vitrified, wouldn't it be totally solid, preventing any kind of movement what-so-ever?

#5) If it is indeed a suit, then how come it has a mouth hole? Is that thing a helmet, or is it the thing's head? If it is it's head, how come it's melted and discoloured the same way the suit is?

Um...okay, I think that's it for now.
Again, just want to reiterate, that I'm not picking a fight, intentionally displaying ignorance, supporting a potential hoax or looking down on those who do.
I am merely curious.
And you know what they say about curiosity...

It's the gateway to knowledge.


posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 10:25 PM
.................... It looks to be a third rate movie prop. .......................

If I we're you I would back up my claims that this is from the movie industry with evidence other than critizising this discovery. Have you skipped the entire thread to post your ignorance?

7A, There you go....all fixed. Truth be known the thing is a captured demon, except how do you explain the Harley tattoo on it's arm...........


posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 08:37 PM
There's my cousin!!!

The translation really doesn't help an English person interpret any discrepancies in the story. Can someone please tell me what this means:

:"The first photo showed a small shadow, as Caponi stated. The effect of the mysterious combustion of the two first pictures, altering the zone where the being was, resulted in this. May 24, 1993."

- Altering the zone where the being was?

The mysterious combustion of the two first pictures? Turned over to police in the same box with a corrosive battery as the last 4 pictures?

"The problem is that all the material, including the wooden box, have been delivered to the Police officers of the station of Arquata of the Tronto, subsequently to their first publication in a magazine. "

As a result of his knife-filled, hunting dog expedition in the middle of the night?

The first photos of May 24 do not appear to be of a being running from him but more closely resemble his account of his photo-less first encounter of May 9. That does not look like a shadow in the first photo, but a bag. The creature is supposedly 70 cm long, how large are each of those tiles? Assuming they're about 4 - 8 inches long, it does fit a scale.

The second photo of May 24 also appears to corroborate his encounter of May 9th more than his encounter of May 24, in which the being is still and then 'running'.

Text"Then I went into the house, took the Polaroid camera, and looked at it through the Window. It was still here, so I went down and made one photo of it. In the light of flash the being turns its head, raises, tilts its back, turns and runs away. Then I said to myself that I have photographed it just right, and I hoped the photo does not get ruined like the others, and I decides not to say anything not even to my parents and I held it in the drawer."

Those tiresome and annoying habits that mess up the chance for any biological evidence. Like the bloody gauze left 'under' a washing machine in the yard, that is then supposedly carried off by a dog.

"the father found a "medical gauze covered with blood" but he did not take it home because it was disgusting and instead he put it under an old washing machine in the courtyard, planning to go to Ascoli Piceno in order to have it analyzed.The next morning, Filiberto's sister went to control the gauze, but it had disappeared. "It must have been a dog that smelled the odor of the blood,"

Or the off-chance that he placed the all the photos n a box for safe-keeping with an outdated corrosive battery.

"I found the cover of the box curved, blackened underneath, filled with smoke. I ask what can have happened . Then I opened it I feel a smell of burnt similar to burned plastic's odor. The photo was burned around and where the being was shown, it was swollen and ruined... I detach the second photo and the image was also swollen, only in surface, it was not destroyed."

Did a doctor examine his curiously blackened foot?

The annoying habit of not using a better camera,

""No, it was always with the Polaroid, I literally lived with it, while a friend of mine lend me another one, I declined, I gave it back to him without having ever used it."

I'd say the best chance of it not being a con is the sheer incompetence. But then the clumsiness of the artifice would carry over to either a poor job of sculpting plastics, or a very strange being..

The headless and 'limbless' chickens are a curious addition. Since it's like the animal mutilations seen everywhere. Why didn't he fill his yard with chicken wings? Or that might have attracted only his carpenter friend who spilled the beans?

From this evidence it's impossible to determine that it's real. As far as scaring the heck out of his grandma, I had an uncle that made his aunt scream with an effigy he hung from a lamp-post on halloween.

There is a strange pathos in the photos nonetheless. A tug on the heart, and the heart assures us our instincts are seldom wrong. If that's not my cousin, he's still to come.

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:02 AM
If this is such a stunning real event, why we never saw this in the "big" news network? Like CNN, BBC etc. None that I can remember.

Does anyone know if there is any current update on this?

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by searching_for_truth
If this is such a stunning real event, why we never saw this in the "big" news network? Like CNN, BBC etc. None that I can remember.

Does anyone know if there is any current update on this?

It was a stunning event back when it happened in Italy, it got publicized and that's that. It's been a long time since this event and CNN or BBC would NOT be interested in this.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 08:26 AM
The case is strange because the creature pratically come from no where: no ufos or lights in the sky before/after the event. I think this creature could came from another dimension.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in