Yup, that's the one Xeros I must have viewed it in slow-mo fifty times through the years, as the way it shrinks then blinks-out grabbed my attention. Extremely bizarre stuff.
Thanks for taking the time to find & post it Xeros.. this copy better quality than mine.

Dallas

Originally posted by Connected

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
Nice Video, but sadly it is screaming FAKE at me. For a start there is no disortion of the surrounding area that usually comes in genuine sightings. The disortion is apparently caused by the anti gravity propulsion system used in the ailen craft. This particular video as people have already pointed out is a remote controlled toy. Cleverly done though and kudos to whoever put the film together, but still a fake.

LOL.. everyone that has called this video fake has done nothing but speculate. Come one people... are you like experts on the size of aliens and ufos? Are you experts on the anit-gravity propulsion systems? Geezzz...

I keep seeing answer like: "It should look like this", "it should look like that". Do you really believe you know what it should look like?

A TOY?! LOL! ATS makes me laugh every day.

Ain't that the truth! They come on here looking for something like this every day and when it actually shows up they all scream FAKE. I've heard all the excuses. It's too good to be true or CGI. They'd believe a fuzzy point of light but not an up close video. You people really need to ask yourselves, do you really seek disclosure? Or just continuing the status quo.

I'd really like to know why the Moderators close duplicate postings but they have yet to close any of the new threads, even the most popular thread on the Board Home page that is obviously duplicates of this posting?

Yes Promomag,

You had the original thread. It really does not matter to me what thread gets the traffic. I would just like to see some more info on this thing. Some have said it's a small remote controlled device. But how many terrestrial aircraft can warp out like this one does? Somebody put out theory that this is where the CGI part of the footage kicks in. Could be. I do know the first part is not CGI. Freespirit says this footage was analyzed by a lab in Boulder, CO and certified legit. I wish somebody could decifer how big the thing actually is.

While it's hovering three distinct areas open up on both the top and bottom.
I wonder what that would be if it's a toy. They don't look aerodynamically designed. More like something to gather an air sample or something because they close back up before it moves to the left for the exit. Would be feasible with cgi I supposed...
...not sure why someone would want to though.

Very strange.

I see there is a new post of this video hosted on Google video, but the quality looks better on this one.

I could believe that this was real for only one reason, if anything:

The "jerky" mostion of its acveleration and deceleration. In the last bit, it speeds up some while changing overall size. Then it just disappears. This matches what fighter pilots have reported for 70 some years. It also matches other eyewitness accounts, as well as being a better match for predictions made regarding how the system would work.

I do not agree that the image doesn't scale properly when it moves twards the camera. it seems to scale very well in this video especially (other versions have been darker and more grainy).

Ok, I may be able to help. Im a 3d animator and compositor, plus I have a strong interest in UFos. Upon viewing this for the first time, naturally I was skeptical. Using a good 3d program, a tracking program and a compositing program, this kind of effect can be produced. One thing though. Unless you did this for a living or immersed yourself into it in your spare time, this kind of effect is not easy to do well. As it is a 3 or 4th generation copy and not the original, lots of artifacts are produced in colours and edges and makes this not as easy to simply discredit as a fake. For every argument, there is also a counter claim. What impresses me to start if it is the detail and mechanics of the craft. It is not just a simple run of the mill disc seen in so many fakes. The apparent motion blur on the craft also matches the background which is more typical in real life. What if the camera guy knew where to look in the first place, and his following of the craft in my opinion is typical of a camera operater following anything moving. If not for the rapid acceleration at the end, I would of concluded it was a terrestrial designed experimental craft. But as for the quality, it is hard to say. Funny though, we all want to see footage of alleged UFos, but when shown one, we all jump out and say it is fake. I recently sent some footage back home to my friends of an air show I went to in the Uk, and some of my mates reckoned I had done in 3d. So there you go. On a last note. That footage taken from a plane window was discredited years ago......................not so much as a fake, but simply as a camera trick
filmed unknowingly. The object was actually part of the wing of the plane and when the camera moved, the object seemed to disappear to due to the distortion in the windows glass. So some things are easer to explain than others. I would like to see the original of this Italian footage. If infact it is Cg......................I would hire the guy today.

Certainly, everyone has their opinions as to whether or not something "looks right" when comparing CGI to real life. And the lower the quality of the video, the easier it may be to make CGI appear realistic. The more noise, the more our brains fill in the gaps to make it real.

But regardless what it looks like, it's still nothing but mildly entertaining junk until a couple of basic, fundamental questions are answered:

1) What is the identity of the person who first took/supplied the video? Who are they? If we don't know, then the whole thing goes right into the trash. This is the most fundamental question everyone should ask, and if there's no good answer for it, then all the other speculation about whether it "looks real" or not is pointless.

If I showed up on this board with a doctor's report and x-rays that said you personally had cancer, what would be your first response? That it doesn't "look like a real x-ray?" No! You'd ask, "Where does this report come from? Who says I have cancer!" If you wouldn't accept such a report without knowing where it came from about your cancer, why on Earth would you simply accept a fuzzy video of a UFO without bothering to ask where the stupid thing came from?

2) Does ANYTHING else exist relating to this thing? Other video or photographic material? Documentation? Blueprints? Testimony from the pilots or mechanics (human or alien), or maybe some government officials of some kind? A piece of the thing? A photo of a flattened patch of grass where it may have landed? Anything at all?

Because if there isn't, then you might want to ask why. You may wish to speculate the reason there isn't a single shred of other evidence is because it's all very top secret and not even a tiny bit of it has leaked out, other than this lousy video of the thing being flown in broad daylight (think about that logic). In other words, assume the existence of such other evidence, then assume some other things about why it's not available. Just keep stacking assumptions. Or you might want to just realize that the reason none of the hypothetical evidence is available is because it doesn't exist, and the flying saucer only exists in some moderately clever individual's hard drive.

Which makes more sense?

Without answers to some of these basic questions, then it doesn't matter if the video is "real" or CGI or a figment of your imagination. It's just mildly entertaining junk.



[edit on 23-4-2007 by SuicideVirus]

This particular footage clip is one of great discussion because it is one of the few videos that actually shows how this technology works. Many people who have seen this technology are usually in such amazement the only thing that they can attribute their sighting to is that of a toy. This video is quite real. There have been many threads here by reliable reseachers who can validate it's authenticity.

Originally posted by promomag
I'd really like to know why the Moderators close duplicate postings but they have yet to close any of the new threads, even the most popular thread on the Board Home page that is obviously duplicates of this posting?

Because the Moderators rule the boards with an iron fist, making decisions at a whim, or to strategically grant "favors" to selected individuals so that they will own them and demand horrible. morally corrupting payback at some future date.

Originally posted by Zanderman
Ok, I may be able to help. Im a 3d animator and compositor, plus I have a strong interest in UFos. Upon viewing this for the first time, naturally I was skeptical. Using a good 3d program, a tracking program and a compositing program, this kind of effect can be produced. One thing though. Unless you did this for a living or immersed yourself into it in your spare time, this kind of effect is not easy to do well. As it is a 3 or 4th generation copy and not the original, lots of artifacts are produced in colours and edges and makes this not as easy to simply discredit as a fake. For every argument, there is also a counter claim. What impresses me to start if it is the detail and mechanics of the craft. It is not just a simple run of the mill disc seen in so many fakes. The apparent motion blur on the craft also matches the background which is more typical in real life. What if the camera guy knew where to look in the first place, and his following of the craft in my opinion is typical of a camera operater following anything moving. If not for the rapid acceleration at the end, I would of concluded it was a terrestrial designed experimental craft. But as for the quality, it is hard to say. Funny though, we all want to see footage of alleged UFos, but when shown one, we all jump out and say it is fake. I recently sent some footage back home to my friends of an air show I went to in the Uk, and some of my mates reckoned I had done in 3d. So there you go. On a last note. That footage taken from a plane window was discredited years ago......................not so much as a fake, but simply as a camera trick
filmed unknowingly. The object was actually part of the wing of the plane and when the camera moved, the object seemed to disappear to due to the distortion in the windows glass. So some things are easer to explain than others. I would like to see the original of this Italian footage. If infact it is Cg......................I would hire the guy today.

You people are the ones who waste everyones time with this nonsense. Why would anyone animate of CGI a UFO, unless it was their job to do so to confuse people with fake footage and pollute the pool of real footage. Why do you create fakes?

This video clip has been going around for quite some time and has already been categorized as fake by most videographers and cgi experts.
It has nothing to do with the Italian Air Force, as originally claimed.
In any case, the problem with this type of video clips is that without any kind of documentation such as multiple eyewitnesses or any other documentation or definitive background information, is that these footages are not taken seriously.
Video clips alone is meaningless nowadays, with advances in computer graphics.

Originally posted by gyroscope

You people are the ones who waste everyones time with this nonsense. Why would anyone animate of CGI a UFO, unless it was their job to do so to confuse people with fake footage and pollute the pool of real footage. Why do you create fakes?

Even thought that was not directed at me it was. I'm one of "you people". I doubt the fakes are done by professionals. They are mostly done by wet behind the ears kids, students and people with a financial interest. If you think the documentary producers don't know the footage they show is fake think again. There are lots of people on this board qualified to spot a fake who are honest. I'm looking for the real deal. I believe it is possible real footage exists or I would not even look at these threads. A lot of videos and pics floating around are not intentional fakes. They are a case of mistaken identity. There are a few, very few, that may be the real deal. Without other evidence they are not conclusive though.

The first litmus test of authenticity is that the claimant provide the original photo or tape for review by an independent with no financial interest or connection to the person making the claim. These things always come from some unnamed source, or someone just wont let anyone else see the original or other nonsense. If I had the real deal, I'd have no problem sitting there while someone confirmed it was authentic.

This tape looks real enough and appears to be a simple terrestrial device. Maybe a prototype for a toy. No way to tell from a compressed Internet download. Waste of time to even try.

You people are the ones who waste everyones time with this nonsense. Why would anyone animate of CGI a UFO, unless it was their job to do so to confuse people with fake footage and pollute the pool of real footage. Why do you create fakes?
.................................................................................................

I think your gyroscope is malfunctioning.Did you actually read my post? You people............oh please . I made no claims of making fakes, I simply offered an insight into the process of CG. You need to redirect your efforts to someone else. It is your time that is being wasted, certainly not mine.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Zanderman]