Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Paola Harris statement on italian UFO footage

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by gyroscope

Here is a clearer version. It appears to be a manned Rotax disc of the Italian Air Force.


Manned Rotax disk? Do you have any more info on this? What is it's method of flight?


According to some engineers I spoke with, these pilots are submerged into a neutral gravity plazma capsule that counteracts the G Forces of the craft, keeping the human pilots internal organs fully intact. Also note the disc slightly tilting on it's axis before the gyroscopic stabilizers pop up and it trusts away. One of the best modern peices of footage this forum has ever seen.
www.youtube.com...


I don't see how those pop ups can be "gyroscopic stabilizers" even though it does seem that they do perform some method of stabilization. They activate at slow speed maneuvers and then retract when the craft begins to move away. Could it be the appendages keep the craft airborne at slow speed? Then aerodynamics keeps it up at speed. But what accounts for the awesome acceleration?

Neutral gravity plasma? How does it work? How does it negate Newton's laws? I mean, even if gravity was nullified any conventional propulsion would still impart Gforces to the crew. The only way that I can think of Gforces being cancelled would be if a gravity type force was used as the propulsion. It must be a force that acts on the entire craft and it's contents. There are so many things still not answered.


10538




posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 02:25 AM
link   
You manipulate gravity by amplifying mass (like a sound source for a speaker). When the fins close it seems to be focusing energy and 'cranking it up'. Take the term 'terrestrial' very literally in this model, I don't believe this device is made to be used outside of our atmosphere.

The thing I see that throws me off is that it doesn't look like there's enough room inside the craft to hold both fins (top and bottom pair) when retracted at the same time.

Like I've stated before I've seen a craft very similar to this in central Alabama in 2002, so I'd really like closure as to what this is.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   
By the way, there are no g-force that the occupants must endure. The craft is NOT moving when it 'zips away'. It is a trick of the eye, you are outside the craft and observe the 'jump'. The occupants are in a stationary craft that is litteraly putting what is in front of it behind it. At a certain point the craft will be moving thru space so fast that light will not be able to bounce off of it and hit your eye, thus causing it to 'jump' or 'become invisible'. That is how gravity propulsion works, imo of course.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily
Need an expert on physics, not gravity propulsion. I just want to know if the way the 'stablizers' raise and lower are at the appropriate times for the craft to move in the directions it does. If it is CGI, that is a lot of foresight on both the animator and the photographer.


Again, if you don't have a theory of gravity propulsion, i.e. some new physics, then it's impossible to say!

Actually, there is one very likely fact about some hypothetical magic ET gravity-propulsion which we could deduce from current physics.

If it is really gravitational, then you would expect to see strong optical distortion effects near an operational gravity-manipulating craft. In a few UFO reports you hear about reports of 'shimmering' of 'popping in and out' and at night, of lights separating and merging. These are ones which might intrigue me. Some hypothesize then that these are some kind of "transdimensional beings" or some sort. What about a simpler hypothesis? (other than "human error, no ETs are here") Gravitational lensing. I.e. all the effects are gravito-optical illusions. The craft doesn't 'wink out of existence', it just looks like it did from one observer's viewpoint. It aren't splitting into many parts, it just looks like it is.

And if the source modification of gravity were not just ordinary mass (as in Einstein GR) but some hypothetical magic technology squillions of times more powerful than mass, the patterns could be even weirder than gravitational lensing as we know it, which is already pretty weird.

en.wikipedia.org...

Another consequence of hypothesizing gravity manipulation for ET craft---when they turn on their warp drive, they might be blind. Normal vision requires some kind of flat spacetime and that probably precludes weird gravity manipulation. If they're in a warp bubble protecting them from inertia then maybe it protects them from electromagnetism coming in? Is that why they fly in 'spurts'? They pick a point to go, and then look out to see where they really ended up. Or at least there would be some kind of gravitational distortion & red/blueshifting as they looked out.

A real example of one light source producing four apparent points of light.

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course this level of gravity manipulation takes a galaxy worth of mass as we know gravity according to Einstein.

BTW the Gravity Probe B (a stunningly amazing spacecraft in development for 50 years!) showed first result totally consistent with Einstein. This was a fine grained probe of a small GR effect. Next will be frame dragging, an even tinyer effect.

In real world physics, we have never seen any violation of Einsteinian general relativity; it's amazing.


By the way, this is one way how the John Titor hoax was debunked. The hoaxer got one thing right---that gravity (the supposed micro blackhole using time machine) will warp light and so there was a picture of a red "beam" bending down supposedly due to gravity.

But in reality, the background of any such true picture would also have been warped in odd ways, and it wasn't.

By the way as well, some of the reports I've seen from Bob Lazar also report, in effect, tabletop gravitational lensing effects though he never used those words.

[edit on 21-4-2007 by mbkennel]



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
OK. Well the main question about the video is what is the aircraft? Paolo Harris says the craft is made by humans. But then the question becomes what type of technology does it employ? Is it conventionally powered with fans or jets? Or is it alien technology that was reverse engineered?

One thing has been proven, that the craft does indeed exist. Does it really warp out at the end of the video or is that part CGI? If it does possess real acceleration of that magnatude then it can be safely assumed that this is alien technology. In that case this video would be proof of a government conspiracy and that we are living in a matrix type world.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
The fly away, if it was a CGI add in, is very well done. It is consistent in it's acceleration, looks exactly like what I've seen, and the photographer is scanning the sky as if he is expecting a turn around. On the other hand it reminds me of those cute little flying things from 'Batteries Not Included'.

Also, has anyone mentioned what style 'airplane' that is at the end of the original video? The tape cuts, goes to static, and then shows that plane. That could give insight as to where and who made the tape.

I am seriously hoping for a debunk but things seem to be stacking in another direction.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily
Also, has anyone mentioned what style 'airplane' that is at the end of the original video? The tape cuts, goes to static, and then shows that plane. That could give insight as to where and who made the tape.

It looks like a F-117 stealth fighter when viewed from the front. I don't know why that is tacked onto the end like that on some of these youtubes. Could be it's part of the DVD that was sold at the Mufon convention.



I am seriously hoping for a debunk but things seem to be stacking in another direction.

Why hope for a debunk? I'm hoping for a major smoking gun that would blow the lid off a government conspiracy. I'm tired of feeling like I'm living in the matrix.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 10538

Why hope for a debunk?


Just looking for answers as to what I really saw that day in 2002. I will tell you for a fact that crafts like these DO exist and I have really seen one. Having a 3 second memory of something mind shattering is worse than not knowing at all.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by Spoodily]



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by lasse
... it's the same reason most will pass this test without a flaw.

Personally I don't even think it's good CG.


Ha! Speak for yourself Lasse. I got 5 out of 10 right. I thought I'd outsmart the test and concluded they were all CG. The ones I would have otherwise guessed were CG were actually the real ones, which means I should have gotten 0 right if I played it straight. THAT'S why I never post on these things from a strictly tech standpoint--I know zip about photography. Having said that and as long as I'm posting, the approach phase looks artificial somehow to me, as a couple others have observed. But I'm really suspicious that it just happens to hover back and forth right in front of the tower thing as if to say, "See how realistic this is? Just look at the background!" I reluctantly give it
.



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Looks very real to me, awesome video. I highly doubt the technology is completely terrestrial. Most likely reverse engineered from ET craft. As for those of you saying this technology should be released to the world, how naive are you...



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by yuefo

Originally posted by lasse
... it's the same reason most will pass this test without a flaw.

Personally I don't even think it's good CG.


Ha! Speak for yourself Lasse. I got 5 out of 10 right. I thought I'd outsmart the test and concluded they were all CG. The ones I would have otherwise guessed were CG were actually the real ones, which means I should have gotten 0 right if I played it straight. THAT'S why I never post on these things from a strictly tech standpoint--I know zip about photography. Having said that and as long as I'm posting, the approach phase looks artificial somehow to me, as a couple others have observed. But I'm really suspicious that it just happens to hover back and forth right in front of the tower thing as if to say, "See how realistic this is? Just look at the background!" I reluctantly give it
.


Heh yeah ok. I actually thought you couldn't click the thumbnails so I did without looking at the pics and I still did fairly well. But yeah, of course I didn't ace it.

Well, it looks CG, doesn't mean it would have to be. After all I've never seen anything like it. But..all in all the video is cool, seems like CG but it's just to low quality to be able to tell 100% any which way. If that Italian UFO researcher really wanted to give us something to talk about, why not drop it in higher quality, make the tape public, etc. It's stuff like that that make me iffy about these things... "look at my fantastic ufo video, in crappy youtube flash video format with pixels the size of of small car".



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily
I would really like a physics expert with an idea of how gravity/anti-gravity propulsion works to look at the way the 'stabilizers' raise and lower and the way the craft moves in relation to that.


You don't need physical stabilizers for anti gravity ships... you simply vary the 'field'

This thing is nothing more that a Coanda effect remote controlled craft.. similar but more sophisticated than JLN labs version... I bet the makers never intended it to be a UFO spectacular LOL. There are hundreds around the world building these models...

www.thelivingmoon.com...

As to propulsion look up the Air Force Research Labs work on "Plasma Actuators'

"Look Ma no Ailerons!!!"

AFRL is laying the groundwork to develop revolutionary hypersonic aerospace vehicles. Researchers are examining the feasibility of replacing traditional mechanical actuators, which move like wing flaps to control an air vehicle’s flight control surfaces, with plasma actuators that require no moving parts and are more reliable.



www.thelivingmoon.com...

As to 'anti-gravity' That is a really misused term... most use it to simply imply something that defies gravity... and that is not correct... anti gravity would be like anti matter... a force eqaul and opposite to gravity.. but if you put those two together... they would cancel each other out... ergo be useless LOL

An airplane defies gravity, but its using a principle now obvious to us...

What you need for a spaceship is a force that 'shields' from gravity...
I am not going into HOW that would take to long...

but rather than just sit here and guess and speculate why not try to use google for other sites than youtube? Seriously you guys need to get out more and see what's really out there

try searching the DoD archives... AFRL. LLNL and LANL

Go to Los Alamos National Labs archives (LANL) and search for 'gravity shielding'


But I suspect you don't really want to know... just argue about CGI and Fakes etc and show us all how much you really know about advanced MAN MADE propulsion system



BTW the force that crushes you against the wall in high speed acceleration is Inertia not Gravity .... in a properly controlled 'field' that surrounds your ship you are isolated within from the effects of Inertia...

Also you might want to look into 'jumping' If a gravity wave distorts the local space around your ship... you effectively only need to move slightly forward... and to an outsider it would appear that you just 'vanished' giving the idea of high speed...

To illustrate take a piece of paper and put two dots on it...

Fold the paper so the dots touch...

Now all you need to do is move from dot A to dot B (a short hop) then unfold the paper....


Simple huh? All you need is a powerful field generator that can 'warp' space around you

And this manuever would require almost no speed at all



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by V Kaminski
 


The film has been firstly sent by an Anonymous to Antonio Chiumiento, who is an ufologist.

In the box containing the film, there was written " I fear".
One year after, it has been sent to other researchers.
The (relatively) better quality of the video on youtube is this one,
titled "UFO over a river in italy":

it.youtube.com...


This is the video of the first time it has been disclosed on TV:
www.youtube.com...

It should have been filmed here:


a closeup of the sighting area


..some guys went to the area f the sighting time after the sighting took place, and took some pics:


Edit: resized huge pic.

... and the distance between Aviano AFB and the sighting location:

On Google Earth, THIS Ponte di Giulio does not appear in the results of the searches.

The column visible in the film is the one of a hydroelectric grid.
The case, IMHO, is still open, since neiher Paola Harris nor someone else provedided proofs of their statements. I honestly don't know the truth about this video: but is true that near Aviano AFB many UFO sightings have been reported.



[edit on 24/10/2007 by internos]



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos


Nice clip
has the same 'curved 'flaps' as the JLN's coanda craft in the video I posted... sorrry its windows media not youtube



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
As the elusive StargateSG7 who has previously commented on YouTube
about this particular UFO, I understand based upon personal experience in
Aviation circles that this craft is a medium scale UAV (Autonomous Aerial
Vehicle) craft that uses mostly COTS (Common Off The Shelf) parts
consisting of an aluminum airframe containing a large and very powerful
Rotax (i.e. Bombardier) motor that is attached to two counter-rotating
ducted fans (within the craft's centre-of-hull) that also has multiple
thruster ports (as per the blowup photo by Ortonos) to directionally
stabilize the craft on any axis.

The fins on the top of the craft are NOT necessarily used for directional
stability but rather used for directing airflow over the sides of the upper hull
so as to create faster moving air thus creating a slight vacuum that
provides EXTRA LIFT - Think of it as a "Virtual Airfoil" design.

As a video production expert and also being very mechanically inclined,
I think I can explain the sudden acceleration at the end of the video
as a video editing effect used probably for simple artistic reasons or
for "Future Potential" marketing purposes.

As per revelation on the makers of this craft, I did see a table-model
of something eerily similar at a sales expo at a certain American
Mil-Tech company (R**T***N) who's sales officer commented
that Bombardier Aerospace (Canada) had teamed up with an
Italian Motorcycle/Airframe Manufacturer, a French military aircraft
maker and a German electronics corp.

Through some diligent digging, I believe that the Italian airframe maker
is Motobecane, the German electronics maker is Robert Bosch
(who make avionics) and the French D'assault who makes jet fighters
and Specialty CAD/CAM/FAE software (re: Airflow Simulation
and Finite Element Analysis products)

The Hystar connection came about when Bombardier was mentioned
in 1986 to 1988 being interested in making UFO shaped Lighter-Than-Air
ships to use on Forestry/Mining/Logging and heavy cargo lift operations
in Canada and around the world and thus they connected to
Hystar Aerospace Marketing Corporation of Maine (Hystar-Maine)
formed in 1986 and then merged into Nova Star Innovations of Nevada
and eventually shut down.

The Hystar design is the "Ancestor Design" of the Italian UAV craft but it
was too unstable and it's Lighter than Air leanings made it too unwieldy to
ever make it a commercial success BUT by adding vectored thrust and
POWERFUL navigation and Fly-By-Wire systems, the future Italian UAV
design is more than able to work as a Photo/Video Reconaissance craft,
Flying Sentry, Small Scale Cargo Lifter and as a Weapons Delivery Platform.

I also understand that it currently uses JP series aviation fuel
but that Diesel versions are in the works to increase the current
25 to 50km range to 200+ km by pressurizing the diesel fuel tanks
and using advanced fuel management (i.e. by R. Bosch GMBH)
to vastly increase range.

Based upon the design and the probable size of about 4 metres
in diameter by 1.75 metres high I suspect it weighs about 250 to 300 kilos
dry weight and based upon some further inquiry, I suspect a
larger and lighter version made of Carbon Fibre is being developed
which will increase the flight performance envelope and carrying
capacities. I would also NOT be surprised that the Rotax engine itself
will be eventually made of a heat-resistant ceramic/composite construction.

Based upon personal experience in real-time machine control
software design, that it's a real B**** to develop and test low-latency
software that can ACCURATELY control ducted fan airflow, thrust
vectoring nozzles, fuel management and still monitor & react to
surrounding flight conditions in an autonomous manner.

My own system that I am developing for Photo/Video recon
is pretty easy to build of Carbon Fibre and the Engine is a modified
Sea-Doo/Ski-Doo Rotax but designing and coding the SOFTWARE
for Remote Control (RC) has been an UTTER NIGHTMARE!

[edit on 30-4-2008 by StargateSG7]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
In continuation of my earlier comment, one reason that this craft is only
recently being seen is that UAV software is sooooo difficult to create
and that so many variables go into flight envelope shaping that
trying to design & test such control software requires a very diligent team
of testers and coders to create effectively.

Using "Field Effects" (i.e. Antigravity) is a waste of time for this
vehicle since there is nothing really THAT NEW about its design.
The Avro Aerocar was similar in shape when it was created in the 1950's/60's
but of course in those days they didn't have Fly-By-Wire controls
and Active Flight Control software with Machine Vision and
Terrain Following capabilities!

And based upon my own medium-scale RC design and manufacturing
experience, this craft is NOT that hard to build from aluminum
and COTS parts. Again is the flight control software that
will make or break a consumer, commercial or military version
of this craft.

Based upon some intelligent guesswork, I'd say the craft took
about 10 to 15 million US Dollars in Startup and Initial Development
costs and about $2 to 3 million for a first prototype.

Final Production Run Costs would be in the $700,000 to $800,000 range
and probably sold for $1.5 to 2 Million a pop to interested militaries plus
maintainance contracts at $400 to $500 per hour (2 mechanics)

For a diligent backyard mechanic, I can base home-build costs on
my own personal experience at about $50,000 to $60,000 for the
airframe and engine plus some FREE LINUX-BASED OPEN SOURCE
flight control software that won't crash your home built UAV
too often...which means I have an expensive hobby !!! ;-)

I suggest you start small and DEFINITELY get a small-scale
CNC machine and Autocad Inventor software so you can at
least machine your own parts!

You don't need to build something like the 4 metre version I did
but rather a small RC-type unit about 50 cm across and then
scale each newer version up by 50 cm until you get your designs
right and extensive low-level flight testing in hand.

My version has a range of only a few thousand metres
but then again, using a cheap gas-powered Ski-Doo Rotax engine
doesn't make for a very powerful or high-flying UAV.
Mine's still running in Ground-Effects mode until I straighten out
my flight control software which has been a complete nightmare
of convoluted design, illogically bundled open source and custom
code plus limited testing...I am now doing a complete re-write
of the flight control code using Borland Delphi for ease-of-maintainance
and also putting my craft through a cycle of Linux-based
finite element analysis and airfoil testing & simulation software
so I think I might get it all fixed in about a year to 18 months or so
....then I can finally do my own backwoods Photo/Video recon,
just-for-fun type stuff near my home town of Vancouver, Canada



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by StargateSG7


Marvelous post
Sounds like a 'Coanda effect' type prototype, especially if Canada is involved...

Mind if I quote you?



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I just wanted to clear two things up....

The original Hystar was NEVER BOUGHT by Bombardier,
it just that they took a look at it during Expo 86 (I was there!)
thinking they MIGHT want to try their hand at UAV's
(and they HAVE - See Peanut Prop-based UAV).

and when the Hystar-Maine company was started, the Hystar company
tried to market a proposed Lighter-Than-Air heavy lifter for logging and
remote cargo transportation. Being so light, it was far too
susceptible to cross-winds and in 1986 there was no reliable
long-range Remote Control capabilities so this project simply
ran out of money and was shut down due to lack of interest.

Secondly, In my earlier posts and on my YouTube postings, I said
the companies that are involved in this are Bombardier, Motobecane,
D'assault and Bosch....I Should Have Said that
"I UNDERSTAND FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES
AND IT IS MY BELIEF" that these are the actual companies involved!

My earlier statements should not have been relied upon as an ABSOLUTE
FACT but rather an informed and logical estimate of the situation based
upon Aviation industry sources and intelligent fact checking.
I must therefore apologize if anyone took my statement as
ABSOLUTE FACT when they are actually reasonable
and educated guestimates.

...like I said earlier, I saw something eerily similar as a model
on a tabletop at Raytheon and a sales guy said it was from a large
Canadian Aerospace manufacturer (i.e. Bombardier/Canadair)
who just happens to also make the Peanut-shaped double-counter-rotating
propellor-driven UAV plus an Italian Motorcycle manufacturer
(which could ONLY be Motobecane in my judgement rather than
Ducati)

So I hope this clears up my answers on the Italian UAV/UFO sighting!

And in case anyone is wondering WHAT I AM DOING building a UAV,
I've had this in mind for many years (Since 1998) and it was the
Avro Aerocar that piqued my interest in making a new kind of UAV
for Television Broadcast applications and Fast Digital Street Mapping
uses...Like all projects of mine...it's taken 5 time longer than I thought
and 5 times more expensive!

What I thought was going to be a two year project has taken almost
10 years and cost $60,000+ CANADIAN and this year my final tally
will be in the $90,000+ range after I add my custom-built
16-processor IBM CELL Processor Motherboard plus 6 Hi-Def
cameras pointing in all 6 directions so I can do multi-axis, 60 frames
per second 1920 by 1080 pixel progressive scan, vision recognition
and autonomous terrain following in addition to GPS navigation.

I know that sounds like overkill, but I've been doing high-end video
programming and codec design for almost 15 years now and this
is the horsepower it takes. After fiddling with too many open source
flight control projects, I got ticked off enough that I finally decided
to write one from scratch using 16 milliseconds (and less) interrupt
driven, real-time code of my own design and so far it ACTUALLY
WORKS !!!!!!!

I have also used some custom-designed FAE software and airfoil
design to refine my ducted fan port designs and turbofan blade design.
Originally built of 8000 series aluminum, I crashed my first model
and am now building the airframe out of Carbon Composite Fibre.

And now that I have my own CNC machine (i.e. not using
the Electron-Beam Rapid Prototypers at work!), I can build a Rotax
engine and turbofan system out of Alumina-based Ceramic
which is heat resistant to 1750+ Degrees Celcius - That'll up my
max engine thrust to something like 2500 LBS+ of Thrust
which not bad for a home builder!

That means those 2000 MM gyroscopically-stabilized
lenses I've been building for the six Hi-Def cameras
can NOW be put on board my craft and still make it airborne
even with maximum fuel load (JP1)

I've not finished the terrain following part of my software
but the vision recognition, fuel management and thrust vectoring
software works great! Soon It'll Be No More Silly Ground Effects flying!



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Yes! You can quote me... I've got even MORE JUICY TIDBITS on some
exotic engine designs for UAV's like this Italian one using highly
pressurized LPG and even Specially Compressed Diesel for fuel
to increase fuel efficiency and extend range to Hundreds of Kilometres!!!!!

I've haven't gone that route YET, but after I complete my software and
IF everything works on MY UAV, I'll give the Compressed Diesel design
a shot since My CNC machine can machine Ceramic, Glass, High Carbon
Steels, Titanium and more exotic Ceramic Composites to ANY shape
I want since I'm pretty expert at using SoftImage XSI and
Autodesk Inventor at doing design & modelling and then
computer aided machining.

I hope my words have been illuminating....



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Fantastic post Stargate and welcome to ATS ..sounds like a huge amount of R&D ..kudos to you!

Any chance of some video or pics of this thing flying??





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join