The video of the BALLOON was taken by Alberto Meyer, and I have been directly in touch with him: since he was and is an amateur astronomer, he decided
to share his documentation (and NOT just the video) with some of the most trained european astronomers, including the french one who recentrly
discovered one of the Moons of Saturn: someone else then simply downloaded the video, pulling it in fact OUT of its contest, and shared it. To watch
(and to "analyze") the video by itself is pointless, because what one needs is ALL the documentation: the object NEVER changed direction, this was
assessed by PROFESSIONAL astronomers after ANALYZING the WHOLE documentation: every attempt to jump to some different conclusion can't be taken
seriously, plain and simple, unless one would provide us with the calculations made on the whole documentation, especially on the spreadsheet
containing the data related to the movement of the Moon. That's the point: the telescope was tracking the Moon, and in order to assess the actual
flight path you'd have to subtract the movement of the Moon from the movement of the balloon, basing your calculations upon the SCIENTIFIC DATA
contained in the spreadsheet: if you would have done that, now you should be aware that it NEVER changed path, while it just showed some weak
acceleration perfectly consistent with the one of a ballon:
the object only "apparently" changes its path: we can see the change of path if we do not consider that the focus was on the Moon. But, since the
Moon was/is NOT still, and the focus was on the Moon, the apparent result is similar to the one of an object which changes path. The object NEVER
changed its path: just a few times changed its speed. We debated it some time ago: at the discussion partecipated even the French scientist who
discovered one of the newest moons of Saturn: after the discussion and the scientific analysis of the technical data, we assested that it
was most likely a balloon which diameter was between 11 and 15 inches, at an altitude of approx 4 miles.
You probably downloaded the excel file in which the data about the subtraction of the movement of the moon is missing.
they are just undecided about the inches, for this reason they say between 11 and 15 inches rather than, for example, 13 inches: ALL in the video
match perfectly the ballon EXPLANATION (not THEORY, scientific data based EXPLANATION): its appearance, its size, its focus, its speed, its behavious
in flight, all match the explanation provided by the professional astronomers after doing some SERIOUS analysis. The documentation is (sometimes)
: looking forward to see the calculations PROVING that the object changed its
path, but bear in mind that the author himself is 100% convinced that it was a ballon: if we want to discuss the facts, then these are the facts, i'm
not interested in convincing anyone, and i don't ask to anyone to accept passively the explanation: but in order to argue with it, one should perform
analysis at least of the same level or higher
Regarding the italian footage, some things important to know:
- 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
- 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:
- 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 CGI done in POST PROCESSING: a post processed UFO is not very easy to be created:
you have to make reflections, shadows, motion blur etc consistent with what was previously caught on tape: the guy who called the TV was a crock.
Today it would be easy to create it, at the time it was less easy because the software was at least less user friendly than today is.
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: but since the
footage was on VHS support, and since it was at least a seventh generation one, no one could ever be able to rule out possible modification in the
framerate: the CGI was ruled out, NOT possible changes in the framerate. In my opinion too it could be a remote controlled military aircraft: i don't
see how its size would rule out this possible explanation. Not just toys can be remotely controlled
[edit on 19/10/2008 by internos]