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.


A list of UFO videos/pictures that have yet to be proven fake.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 02:54 PM
reply to post by Nohup

Other 'tells':

o matching up the moving background with the foreground motion. Perspective;

o air distortion effects, blowing leaves, debris, grass movement, shadows, or lack of same;

o avoiding bleed or motion artifacts (as in proportional zooming out into the upper quarter);

o too 'good' of a model, too ambitious flight path (too zippy, as here), flight path doesn't make sense;

o Forgetting not to center the frame too much;

o Doing things that a person actually filming wouldn't do. (for instance in the Zapruder film one criticism is that 99% of professional photographers would have dropped the camera down when JFK was shot, but Z kept filming. He was a different kind of 'pro', or so it's been suggested (mob photog?) ).

...and a few other things.

[edit on 23/9/2008 by Badge01]

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by Badge01

When i first saw the video i thought fake... it screamed it, for the reasons you guys listed and it is just too good... but if internos says that it has been studied by CGI experts and others, i would like to see these findings.

I think it is a great video, and now with this info that i did not know... i will have to do some more digging

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Nohup

That's my wacky theory, anyway. You can stick with alien flying saucers if you like. Who knows? Maybe it was crippled enough by the artillery to drift off and crash in the desert of Nevada. At Area 51!

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Nohup]

I hope my writing wasn't so unclear as to leave you with the conclusion that I think there was a flying saucer. I think the whole thing was due to a false alarm and frayed nerves.

The Navy said it was a false alarm, there were no airplanes. The Army said a few (1-5) airplanes of unknown origin had been sighted. The War Department chose to go with the Army's analysis, probably because the huge reaction to a totally false alarm would not have gone over very well. If there was any conspiracy is was of the cover your ass type.

Is there any indication that any of those "enhanced" images of the original come from an original negative?

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Phage]

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Phage
I hope my writing wasn't so unclear as to leave you with the conclusion that I think there was a flying saucer. I think the whole thing was due to a false alarm and frayed nerves.

I guess I was unclear by my use of the word "you." I meant, "anyone." You made yourself pretty clear.

The Navy said it was a false alarm, there were no airplanes. The Army said a few (1-5) airplanes of unknown origin had been sighted. The War Department chose to go with the Army's analysis, probably because the huge reaction to a totally false alarm would not have gone over very well. If there was any conspiracy is was of the cover your ass type.

That's what I'm thinking. This was at a time when the Army could pretty much do whatever it wanted, and didn't need people thinking they couldn't get their act together.

Is there any indication that any of those "enhanced" images of the original come from an original negative?

I think there was one good image from the Los Angeles Times that somebody found and did a high-resolution scan of and presented on the site at one point. Otherwise, we know other photos were taken, because there are photos of people holding newspapers with photos in them that are different. Also, the photo printed in the Times and the one that was scanned are not the same. I tried to do a stereo 3-D match up of the two, but it didn't work. Too grainy.

I'm not aware of anybody going down to the Herald Examiner archives in the Library to dig through those and see if they got anything. I'm too lazy to do it. Somebody at the Long Beach Press-Telegram might have also got some shots, but nothing's turned up. The newsreel footage (if it's really related to the event) doesn't really show anything but searchlights on clouds.

People have tried various enhancements, including me, and there does appear to be a kind of football-shaped thing in the middle of all the flak. However, the clouds and smoke and the bad contrast all make that a bit problematic to say for absolutely sure there's something really there, other than a smoke cloud lit by searchlights.

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 10:20 AM
OK, finally i have some minutes

Thanks again to acidstatic for starting this here and to some of my favourite posters who gathered in this discussion.
What is important to know about the UFO from Aviano:

  • The video, in VHS format, was given ANONYMOUSLY to an italian freelance researcher, 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: so far, is NOT clear who sent the copies to whom.
  • The VHS in question was esteemed to be a seventh generation one; this means that the original footage was copied to another magnetic tape, then from there was copied to another magnetic tape, then copied to another magnetic tape and so on until it was copied to the VHS in question. Every time that you make a copy you leave some "fingerprints": they were found during the analysis. This means a HUGE loss of data, and raises the first doubts: was this series of copies a deliberate attemp to hide something, or was simply the result of some process involving a specific hyerarchical order? The most logical explanation is the second one: if one was playing with CGI then he would have been able to hide the details wanted without a general loss of data.

  • Aviano is what you would call the perfect UFO hotspot: i've been there for some time, and especially the old people recall to have spotted UFOS that in some days were visible at breakfast, at lunch and at dinner. We are talking about people who shared their stories with me, in front of a fire, no attention seekers, no paranoid.

  • Aviano AFB is claimed to be the european Area 51 (more properly, AS4): people see airplanes landing and literally disappear below the level of the ground.

  • The (relatively) better quality of the video on youtube is this one,
    titled "UFO over a river in italy":

  • This is the video of the first time it has been disclosed on TV:

  • The footage was taken here:

  • This is 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:

  • This is the distance between Aviano AFB and the sighting location:

    On Google Earth, THIS Ponte di Giulio does not appear in the search results (The column visible in the film is the one of a hydroelectric grid).

These are more or less the elements available regarding this footage. This video, was claimed to have been debunked because some guy called a local TV ANONYMOUSLY and claimed to be the author of the footage, a CGI.


He never provided the native 3d model etc (for instance, look what did Barzolff provided about UFO haiti)
He claimed to be able to duplicate it in "half an hour" starting from ZERO: EVERYONE who has even a rough knowledge in CGI knows that half an hour is barely enough to decide what general shape to give to the UFO, not to mention its 3d appearance, its texture, its reflection, the environment, etcetera. Keep also in mind that this is supposed to be a POST PROCESSING CGI: a post processed UFO is EXTREMELY hard to be created:
you have to make reflections, shadows, motion blur etc consistent with what was previously caught on tape: at the time, there weren't serious motion tracking softwares available: i mean yes, there were some, but they weren't user friendly at all.
The guy who called the TV was a crock, plain and simple.
Today it would be easy to create it, at the time it was NOT.
Today we have Maya, Rhinoceros, Poser etc for 3d modelling, we have all the VUE series, after effects etcetera: at the time, the really powerful software were mostly based on command lines, not exactly what you would expect by some guy who wants to make some prank.

The footage was examined in Hollywood by Rob and Rebecca Gordon: their take was that the object seen in the footage was an actual one.

The attempts to debunk the video.

Mostly the attempts to debunk it were good for a laugh, but some of them were absolutely to be taken seriously.

The motion blur:
This is a technical detail that by itself is able to debunk the majority of CGI UFOs: no exceptional skills are needed, you just have to train your eyes.
when you have to give to some object the motion effect, you can use a trick: basically, the trick is to "anticipate" its movement, frame by frame.
Now, whatch this video:

In cases like this one, you'd have to watch at the video frame by frame when it closes up:
some of these people, is used to superimpose the object as it will appear in the next frame to the current one, in order to create "a motion blur like" effect: the more is detailed the image, the more you have some chances to spot it: in this case it's obvious.

Now, look carefully at this sequence:

you will notice that the "cloned" part falls exactly where the object will fall in the next frame:
basically, it anticipates its movement.
The advantage of this technique is that when one watches the video in real time may get a very convincing motion blur effect, and the general impression is the one of a REAL object; its fault, has been roughly explained above: the trick by itself is a fingerprint.

The motion blur spotted in the Aviano footage is consistent with the one expected from a REAL object: don't think that in hollywood they made some ultra-advanced analysis: they just made this check, watching the footage in some huge screens, frame by frame, for some hundreds of times

Now, show me where the motion blur is anticipated, and you will have debunked the Aviano UFO footage.
In my opinion, what we see is some unmanned military aircraft, and the last part was simply accelerated in order to create the ultra-hight-speed effect.
This is, more or less, what i know about this story: i don't want to convince anyone, i'm happy when someone tries to prove me wrong with some valid points, so feel free to argue: this is what a forum is made for.

[edit on 24/9/2008 by internos]

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 10:32 AM
I like the video very much. There are not many clips that show ufo's nice and close only to dissapear in a splitsecond afterwards.

If it was fake, from personal experience I can tell it's not CG. But simply observing the close up it appears the ufo suffers from what I call the 'pendelum effect'. How this video was shot I can't tell. But from a directors point off view, this video has the feel of a modern car commercial.

I'd love this clip to show a real ufo. But remember with all the advanced CG out there, trickery in video with alternative methods have almost become forgoten.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Benarius]

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by internos

Nice post, Internos.

I found a better copy!

I'm analyzing it now.

You can clearly see the fins and the way the camera is centered on the object. This was not a surprise. The cameraman actually anticipates the direction it's going.

Some preliminary thoughts:

French-designed hover-craft type prototype built in Italy?

Use of a VHS tape prevents easy examination by digital means

Putting the word 'I fear' on it is an attempt to guide the investigation, not an expression of actual fear;

Multi-gen VHS means a sophisticated ability to tape. Few people have two VHS recorders. Also shows a 'motivational' aspect; to hide something; to cover tracks (no pun int.)

People who find an actual UFO in a 'hotspot'. Convenient? Lucky?

Note the comment made here:

"Camera was on a tripod, waiting for the object to come out of the woods."

The photographer seems to anticipate the movemen of the object, zooming and pulling back just before it moves to the left. Only once does the photographer lose the object off the left edge of the screen;

Oddly when the craft goes off in the distance prior to zooming off, the camera stays pulled back and does not zoom in again. Later, the photographer appears to be tracking it over the bridge.

Why the vertical stabilizer fins? Seems to be a ducted-fan design.

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 12:35 PM
According to this page where the original researcher who received the video gave an interview:

Italian AF UFO video:

Italian researcher Chiumiento actually tells much more than what I described above, at times incorrectly. He received the video from an anonymous source and after seeing it immediately considered it a hoax, given the evident difference in sharpness between the UFO and the background.

He then received an email confession from the author, at the time, who made the video as part of a Computer Graphics class. He repeatedly emphasizes that no video, photographic evidence, no matter how good, is valid without a good supporting testimonial evidence. In this case it was also anonymous, so that’s another reason that he ignored the video.

This was before they examined it and declared it to be 'authentic'.

In addition, the video tried to show the craft was near the plant by hovering it in front of the stack. In actuality, the stack was hundreds of meters away as they point out on the site above.

However, this seems confusing, because if it was a CGI, why not show it hovering going -around- the stack? If it was a real craft, but not an ET-piloted craft, it makes sense it would have been dangerous to fly it around the stack. Likewise, if it was a relatively small RC-craft, since there'd be an unfavorable size comparison with the stack.

[edit on 24/9/2008 by Badge01]

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by blupblup

Why would the craft have 'fins'?

You can see the fins, right? They look like the ones on the YB49.

Also check the maneuver. It's as though the pilot is trying to display his craft to an observer (who always manages to keep it pretty well centered in frame) than do a site inspection fly-by.

Then we have the classic 'zoom off' into the distance. To me, there's several 'tells', though it is pretty well done.

Note when it crosses in front of the tower - you definitely can see pixel bleed along the top of the craft and a stripe on the tower.

2 cents.

The fins,i reckon,could be our feeble attempts at a stabalisation device. Some kind of prototype in anti gravity aeronaughtics. I also think that the unstable nature of its movevments could possibly be due to wind,or just plain bad driving

end of the day,it was in the air,it was filmed. According to lots of specialists,as refered to by Internos on the other page. (I was sure that I'd read on here somewhere that it hadn't been debunked as CGI ) I'll look forward to reading what you can dig up on it

edit cos you've already posted it up

[edit on 29/9/2008 by Acidtastic]

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 08:18 PM
OK, here's another very interesting case, somehow surprising ...

William Rhodes ufo photos | 1947-July 7 | Phoenix, Arizona

1947-July 7- William Rhodes of Phoenix, Arizona allegedly saw a disk circling his locality during sunset and took two photographs. The resulting pictures show a disk-like object with a round front and a square tail in plan form. These photographs have been examined by experts who state they are true photographic images and do not appear to be imperfection in the emulsion or imperfections in the lens. Often called the "Roswell UFO." some info taken from:

These images, often called "the Roswell craft" photos, (as it is widely reported that the Roswell craft was not a saucer, but a "delta" winged craft) appeared in several Southwestern newspapers around the time of Arnold's sighting and match his basic description of a heel shaped, domed flyer; These images were photographed the same day as the Roswell crash which took place in the evening of July 7, 1947, just one state away, in New Mexico.

Although the reliability isn’t quite as high as the pictures taken in McMinnville, two shots taken in Phoenix do rank right up there. William A. Rhodes, a self-employed scientist living in Phoenix, reported that he had taken what might be considered the first good photographs of one of the flying discs. Rhodes said he had been on his way to his workshop at the rear of his house at the rear of his house when he heard a distinctive "whoosh" that he believed to be from a P-80 "Shooting Star" fighter jet. He grabbed his camera from the workshop bench and hurried to a small mount in his backyard. The object was circling in the east about a thousand feet in the air.

On July 7, 1947, William Rhodes took photos of an unusual object over Phoenix, Arizona.[45] The photos appeared in a Phoenix newspaper and a few other papers. According to documents from Project Bluebook, an Army counter-intelligence (CIC) agent and an FBI agent interviewed Rhodes on August 29 and convinced him to surrender the negatives. The CIC agent deliberately concealed his true identity, leaving Rhodes to believe both men were from the FBI. Rhodes said he wanted the negatives back, but when he turned them into the FBI the next day, he was informed he wouldn't be getting them back, though Rhodes later tried unsuccessfully.[46][47] The photos were extensively analyzed and would eventually show up in some classified Air Force UFO intelligence reports.

(can't open Project Blue Book website right now)


14 July 1947


On 8 July 1947, this Agent obtained pictures of unidentifiable objects, (Exhibits 1 and 2) from the managing editor of the Arizona Republic newspaper. The pictures were taken by Mr. Williams Rhoads, 4333 N. 14th St., Phoenix, Arizona, at sunset, on 7 July 1947. The subject object flew at unconveivable speeds, making three circles in the vicinity of Mr Rhoads' home. The pictures were taken with a box camera, size 620. The photograph (Exhibit 1) was taken at as the object passed in front of Mr. Rhodes, and Exhibit 2 as the object turned towards Mr. Rhoads. The height of the object was estimated at 1000 feet.

AGENT'S NOTES: See Exhibit 1 and 2, photographs of unifentifiable objects, enlarged aproximately 20 times. No further reports have been received by this office of objects seen by military personnel.

Lynn C. Aldrich, Special Agent, EIC - AAF, FDTRC.

The interesting facets are two: the first one is the date (the SAME of the crash at Roswell), the second one is the resembleance with the flying objects spotted by Kenneth Arnold:

The Kenneth Arnold Sighting - in his own words

Transcript of Ed Murrow-Kenneth Arnold Telephone Conversation

I usually don't like to make comparisons, especially between two inknown objects (it would be paradoxical to say the least), but in this case i think to see an interesting resembleance. Of course, the photo could have been faked in many different ways, but this case falls into the "unsolved" basket.

I would like to know some opinions about it

[edit on 10/10/2008 by internos]

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:46 AM
Great idea Acidtastic, strrd and flggd.
Here is my contribution so far.

I thoughts these two pictures fall also in this category.

McMinnville UFO Photos.
50 Years Later - Still A Mystery

DAYTON, OR - On the 50th anniversary of one of the most-famous UFO sightings in history, townsfolk don't seem to understand what the fuss is all about.

They don't understand why experts have worked for decades to debunk the photos taken from Paul and Evelyn Trent's back yard on May 11, 1950.

Fifty years ago, the most important event in human history happened in McMinnville when a local farm couple captured evidence of interplanetary visitors on film.

Or they merely snapped a couple of pictures of a still-secret military craft. Or maybe it was an optical illusion, or a hoax.

UFO skeptics have challenged the photos' authenticity, saying the story the Trents told of how the photos came to be taken was inconsistent. Maccabee, who interviewed the Trents many times, said he didn't find the inconsistencies significant.

Maccabee said he's convinced of the photos' authenticity. What he doesn't know is what Paul Trent snapped a picture of that day in 1950.

Even after 50 years, nobody yet knows what to make of the two photographs taken by Paul and Evelyn Trent a bit after dinner on May 11, 1950. Much has been made of the photographs, nonetheless.

On Road To McMinnville, Horn Remembers Mystery
The National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena went on to study the photos, eventually listing them as " of the top cases demonstrating very strong evidence for the existence for unknown structured objects in our atmosphere."

The Air Force couldn't find a better explanation. Neither could the University of Colorado, and researchers afterward concluded that the Trent sighting and its physical evidence was one of the best records ever made for a true UFO event. The story was placed on the Top Ten Best Evidence List and has remained there for the last 40 years.

[edit on 14/10/08 by spacevisitor]

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:35 AM
These two videos are as far as I know also not debunked yet.
I found them personally very convincing.

UFO over Mexico City on July 11, 1991

Mexico City UFO footage - 1997

[edit on 14/10/08 by spacevisitor]

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 05:55 AM
This case is in my opinion a very solid case and still not debunked.

September 4, 1971 - Lago de Cote, Costa Rica

The photo above (cropped and enlarged) was taken by a Costa Rican government mapping plane during an aerial mapping mission. This UFO photograph is unique for several reasons. 1) The photograph was taken by a high-quality, professional camera. 2) The unidentified object is plainly visible against the uniformly dark background of the lake and appears in sharp focus. 3) The camera was aimed downward and the plane was flying at a known, fixed altitude (10,000 feet), which makes it easy to calculate a maximum size for the object (683 feet).

Much analysis has been undertaken using the original negative, most notably by Dr. Richard F. Haines and Dr. Jacques F. Vallee. It seems safe to assume that it is not a double-exposure or the result of manipulation of the negative. All indications are that this is a photo of a large three-dimensional disk , or shallow cone, [hovering?] above, and possibly partially submerged in Lago de Cote.

There were apparently no witnesses to the disk's presence at the time of the photograph, but other incidents at that location had been reported by local farmers, involving strange, artificial objects moving around the surface or just below the surface of the lake. (NURMUFO)

For an in-depth, scientific analysis of this photograph, see "Photo Analyses of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica", by Richard Haines and Jacques Vallee, available online at:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Badge01
From Wiki - Battle of LA:

The blobs of light which show an apex of beam angles were made by anti-aircraft shells

Initially the target of the aerial barrage was thought to be an attacking force from Japan, but it was later suggested to be a lost weather balloon, a blimp, a Japanese fire balloon or psychological warfare technique, staged for the benefit of coastal industrial sites, or even an extraterrestrial aircraft. The true nature of the object or objects remains unknown.

Normally, they'd scramble some jets, and they alerted a squadron, but they remained grounded. They were described as 'objects' (note the plural) and they were moving but slowly.

Hi Badge01.
I thought you would find this interesting because I gut the impression that according to this CBS radio broadcasting there where indeed jets scrambled.
I can’t say for shore of course that it is a genuine broadcast, but maybe someone can.
Listen to the CBS radio report: Battle of LA - 1942

Los Angeles Air Raid of 1942: Wartime Jitters or UFOs?


posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:28 AM
Hmmm, nice exhaust plume at 00:27 of the Italian AF:

On the other hand, it's inconceivable that intelligent life's only example is this planet.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:41 AM
Lol it's just the hills in the background.

Actually it looks like they set up some kind of scale modelling.

Very Ed Wood.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 06:54 AM

Originally posted by undermind
Hmmm, nice exhaust plume at 00:27 of the Italian AF:

On the other hand, it's inconceivable that intelligent life's only example is this planet.

Nice one for spotting that. This is the reason i don't think that it's an alien craft,but one of ours. But that opens up a whole load of questiuons on how far advanced we are technologically. The speed that thing flies off at the end,would crush any pilot,unless there's an zero gravity device involved. Which,if you believe the official line,doesn't exist.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 09:02 AM

Originally posted by undermind
Lol it's just the hills in the background.

Yep. It's not an exhaust plume. It's already there before the UFO comes.

I may be wrong but to me the UFO looks fake -- it is not as heavily contrasted as the smoke stack in the background.

[edit on 2008-10-20 by nablator]

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:32 PM
The flight path doesn't make sense.

It rolls, yaws and accelerates like a radio controlled jump jet.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:35 PM

Originally posted by undermind
The flight path doesn't make sense.

It rolls, yaws and accelerates like a radio controlled jump jet.
maybe it's a prototype of some sort,and yet to be mastered. They need to give it a wii control and get my 6 year old nephew on the case.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in