Has this footage ever been "debunked?"

I think it could be a genuine phenomenon and not CGI...and here is my reasoning why. Played at 25% speed at the 18 second point, there is an extremely sleight and faint glow at the rim of the upward slope on the volcano, on the right, before it merges into the clouds and four seconds later, the orb [or whatever it is] appears out of the clouds on the same trajectory.

Personally, I think a CGI hoaxer producing a clip of this low quality would not have included such a minute detail, instead, opting for the orb disappearing behind the volcano and emerging from the clouds...not traversing the ridge-line. Again, what is the motive and reasoning for producing this clip, if CGI?

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Crisis

If it hasn't it should have been , it's CGI , obvious at 20 seconds into the video.

And your reasoning for reaching that conclusion is...

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Crisis

It does look totally CGI to me and besides, there's better footage from Costa Rica, which isn't debunked or CGI:

Has the OP's clip been debunked? If you know this for sure, please provide a source and a link.

originally posted by: TheMZA
Ovni is spanish for hoax

No it isn't...'OVNI' is Spanish for 'UFO'.
At least get your facts right...or use Google translate.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Crisis

If it hasn't it should have been , it's CGI , obvious at 20 seconds into the video.

And your reasoning for reaching that conclusion is...

Because it clitches at about 21 seconds , CGI.

They didn't do the best job of making the dot look like it was going behind the cloud at the beginning. You can see it disappear before it gets all the way behind it. I'd say CGI from that alone.

ETA: At 0:21 you can see the dot appear out of nowhere before glitching out. Definitely CGI.

originally posted by: free_spirit
a reply to: Crisis
Hi Crisis, this footage discussed here in 2009 recorded by Nico Pisani in 2003 in front
of the Arenal Volcano, Costa Rica. I researched this case and published the complete
information here in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Once again, thank you Free Spirit.

originally posted by: TheMZA
Ovni is spanish for hoax

farsa.

a reply to: fromtheskydown

Has the OP's clip been debunked? If you know this for sure, please provide a source and a link.

Steady, I don't think the footage is very remarkable and I'm just expressing my opinion, there's pixels around the object which could be an indication of CGI, additionally it's almost as if the object is flying for the camera with its movements, the effects on the cloud also scream CGI, although the quality is just so bad anyway, it could be any number of things, if it isn't CGI

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

originally posted by: TheMZA
Ovni is spanish for hoax

No it isn't...'OVNI' is Spanish for 'UFO'.
At least get your facts right...or use Google translate.

I was wrong, ovni is spanish for aspergers apparently

a reply to: Crisis

Thanks for posting this, OP!!
Maybe some of you remember a thread I did about a sighting I had with my girlfriend 2 months ago. This thread

Well, the UFO in your video looks and behaves exactly like what I described in that thread! Only difference is that there were more of them in my sighting and they were closer.

Read where I describe how they lit up brighter as they passed behind the clouds, just like can be seen in your video.

These are real! No doubt in my mind.

soulwaxer

Uhhh..... I'm not sure.

originally posted by: TheMZA

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

originally posted by: TheMZA
Ovni is spanish for hoax

No it isn't...'OVNI' is Spanish for 'UFO'.
At least get your facts right...or use Google translate.

I was wrong, ovni is spanish for aspergers apparently

Haha!
Could be!

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

My apologies, I didn't mean to come across as being shirty.

Some of them do seem to be interested in Volcanic energy or access points.
Interesting share

The issue here is not so much, "Is it a UFO?" It is by definition. Yeah, it could be CGI, but let's pretend for a moment that it 'passes all the tests" and is deemed "real." So what do you have?

A light in the sky. That's all you've got. Surely no one is going to claim "Aliens from space!" from that brief light. This is the lowest on Hynek's scale, not even a "close encounter." It's not even worth debunking because you can't go anywhere with it. All you can say is, "This guy filmed a light in the sky."

Next?

The fact that most still think inside the three dimensional box and yes that there are to much CGI software out there that make real ufos easier to debunk makes it troublesome.

As someone who does a lot in CGI but know some things are to difficult to reproduce and to perfectly blend a fake scene especially video then white moving dots are the easiest to create.

A white cloud and white moving dot could easily blend in a video and hard to follow it's contoured sillouet behind a blue sky.

Although we do know that craft like these are possible in real life yet we still seek for authentic video or picture to convince us or others.

Start investigating space images and especially life links from the ISS or planetary photographs there are a lot of credible things in there that can be appointed to go outside the boundaries of footage on earth that always obstruct or easily targeted to undermine it's authenticity.

Only direct news chanel footage or your own footage seem to uphold any credible and could withold constructed evidence for a brief moment.

Most of us know that we are not alone and we surely are not the most sophisticated race in the universe that knows how to cross vast distances.

originally posted by: 0bserver1

Most of us know that we are not alone and we surely are not the most sophisticated race in the universe that knows how to cross vast distances.

Most of us ASSUME that--without any real evidence. The question here is, why do you jump to (a) "sophisticated race in the universe that knows how to cross vast distances" from seeing a light in the sky? The conclusion is not warranted by the evidence. You can't even tell if it is a "craft," much less where it came from and who, if anyone, is inside it. And if you insist on all that, why would it fly into an erupting volcano again? None of that makes any sense at all. What you have done here is take a light in the sky and transformed it in your imagination into "aliens from space" with no justification at all. It's a nonsensical conclusion.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

one of my personalo favorites!

a reply to: jedi_hamster

i have seen similar cgi clips