new info: Pre-911 WTC UFO

I am skeptical of the skepticism regarding the authenticity of the pre 911 wtc ufo for many reasons.

I wanted to point out one reason that I have not seen addressed.

At the begining of the available clip the woman (Barbara) says "are you getting all of this?". Getting all of what? It is apparent at this point that she has not yet seen the pre 911 wtc ufo as it passes in background view between the 2 towers. *She is watching, and her company is filming, white streaks descending from right to left above the towers.* You can see 3 clearly during the clip. I believe that they were witnessing (and would be apparent in the earlier unavailable portion of the video) these white streaks in rapid succession of one another when she says "what is that?". That was when they noticed the pre 911 wtc ufo for the first time at the same location of the 2nd tower strike that occured later on 911.

The "acting" isn't nearly as apparent when we realize that they were both truly surprised at the appearance of the ufo at what would later become known as the 2nd impact point. This is real and it has been swept under the rug fairly successfully.

Here is a clip for your convienience:
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 27-3-2007 by imrippinit]

The footage is NOT REAL. It was one of a series of promotional clips created for the Sci-Fi channel. The identity of the production company and the fact that their creation was a complete fabrication from the onset has been discussed to death on this and other boards.

Don't waste your time on this clip.



[edit on 27-3-2007 by Inca_Roads]

That was an attempt at a fairly successful cover up. The only tangible evidence anyone ever offers is that Sci-Fi and Barbara fessed up.

There have been plenty of other instances where witnesses were forced to change their story one way or another.

Always loved this video....

If you have seen the high quality footage in QuickTime format, (where you can progress frame be frame) you will see the pilot does an extremely abrupt left roll in reaction to the object. Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but such instant and abrupt maneuvers in civil helicopters can cause a condition known as mast bumping. It is more prevalent in a abrupt nose over, however could not such an rough an immediate roll input, in a heavily loaded ship, also risk putting the helicopter in a negative-G condition, and thus risk mast bumping?

From what I remember, mast bumping put simply, is when the rotor system contacts the mast, causing extreme blade flapping and sometimes separation of the entire rotor from the helicopter. (Enjoy the ride down, Mr. lawn dart)

Does anyone think that a commercial pilot in command, with at least three people, and rolling cameras on him, would risk this for a T.V. stunt?

Besides what would be the point of doing this pre 9/11?

It's real, and was on shown on Sci-Fi to pre-empt any meaningful discussion about it.

And an obviously fake CGI chemtrail added for "authenticity"

[edit on 27-3-2007 by ivymike]

Interesting.

The vapor trail is also an interesting point. The vapor trail left behind is a compression vapor trail. That is water vapor is squeezed out of air when it is compressed. If you watch the Blue Angels you will occasionally see such a small vapor trail created off their wing tips during violent high speed maneuvers. This observable vapor trail is nothing compared to the width and length of the one seen in the video.

I read an analysis by a former defense contractor from skunk works where he was amazed at this feature (I have been unable to relocate this on the web). He said that special effects people would not even be aware of how prominent this feature should be due to the lack of experience we have with this kind of speed and performance. If it were even possible, pilots would pass out and could die under this type of maneuver in the aircraft with which we are familiar.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by imrippinit]

Hi,

I can confidently predict that this thread will be locked very shortly. A link to this video continues to crop up on Above Top Secret and other forums about once or twice per month...

The relevant video was a television advertisement for the Sci-Fi Channel's website.

I've added some tags to the bottom of this thread. Just clicking on any of them will give you links to a few of the previous relevant threads here on ATS.

For anyone that doesn't know, the woman in the helicopter is Barbara Sicuranza, a New York City actor, writer and director. Her website is at:
www.mysteriousmysteries.com...

The resume on that website includes the following entry:
“SCI-FI Promo (The Blimp) Principal Sci Fi Channel”

A detailed technical analysis Alejandro Franz highlighting some of the compositing errors in the video can be found here:
www.alcione.org...

Even Jeff Rense has debunked this video:
www.rense.com...


At some point, someone is going to have to write a full article about this video so that anyone can just be given a link to the full background.

I've made some notes myself, but before writing any article:

(1) I'd like to see the other videos in the same Sci-Fi advertising campaign ("Sci Fi Happens"), i.e. "Magnet Man" and "Geometric Bugs". (If anyone has links to these videos, I'd be grateful if they could let me know). Some material relating to these videos (but not the videos themselves...) are available at the website below:
web.archive.org...*/www.scifi.com...

(2) I'd like to see a translation of the comments from a mexican TV show which featured this video:
video.raelian.com...

All the best,

Isaac Koi

We are all entitled to our own beliefs. However, if evidence surfaces that contradicts our preconcieved beliefs it is only fair to allow presentation.

We all know that elaborate cover ups are put in place to disinform people regarding the existance of UFOs. It just so happens that this cover up was constructed before 911. It was 911 and the 2nd impact location in particular that caused a 2nd look at the pre-911 wtc ufo. Many people began to doubt the "television advertisement" ploy at this point. This is far from settled in the minds of many intelligent people.





[edit on 27-3-2007 by imrippinit]

(mod edit to remove unnecessary quote of entire preceding post)

[edit on 27-3-2007 by pantha]

ATS should supply verification certs for all these videos that are always going to pop up.
Google and YouTube can have an ATS authenticated cert overlayed on the video

Originally posted by imrippinit
We are all entitled to our own beliefs.

While we may all be entitled to our own beliefs, we are not entitled to expect others to take those beliefs seriously if:

(a) those beliefs are not consistent with the evidence, and/or
(b) the presentation of a belief fails to address the evidence against it.

In relation to the vapour trail that you find "interesting", it may also be interesting to note its shape and compare that shape with the Sci-Fi Channel's logo.

I've read that the other videos in the same series of advertisements also involve the Sci-Fi Channel's logo being formed (but I can't confirm this since I haven't seen all those videos - hence the request in my post above).

Kind Regards,

Isaac Koi

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Hi,

I can confidently predict that this thread will be locked very shortly. A link to this video continues to crop up on Above Top Secret and other forums about once or twice per month...

The relevant video was a television advertisement for the Sci-Fi Channel's website.

As I said before, "and was on shown on Sci-Fi to pre-empt any meaningful discussion about it. "

What's the point of doing such a good job on the craft, motion control from a moving helicopter cockpit and the chance of dropping a rather expensive turbine helicopter full of people on downtown NYC for a convincing PRE 9/11 WTC UFO.... Only to add that absurd chemtrail to the parting shot?

And what's more, most of us have seen the other videos in the series, none are even in the same league as far as content, interest and realism, almost as if they where done as an afterthought?

(mod edit to reduce quote of IsaacKoi's entire post)

[edit on 27-3-2007 by pantha]

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by imrippinit
We are all entitled to our own beliefs.

While we may all be entitled to our own beliefs, we are not entitled to expect others to take those beliefs seriously if:

(a) those beliefs are not consistent with the evidence, and/or

Not all of the evidence points to what you claim as the only possible conclusion. From my point of view only the most obvious and easily apparent of evidence points to your conclusion. All of the evidence is not consistent with either belief.

(b) the presentation of a belief fails to address the evidence against it.

This was covered in (a)

In relation to the vapour trail that you find "interesting", it may also be interesting to note its shape and compare that shape with the Sci-Fi Channel's logo.

I've read that the other videos in the same series of advertisements also involve the Sci-Fi Channel's logo being formed (but I can't confirm this since I haven't seen all those videos - hence the request in my post above).

I'm not seeing the similarity. The vapor trail doesn't remind me of the Sci-Fi logo in the least.

If Sci-Fi were to have staged this why would they have such an ambiguous detail such as these white streaks? Why would there be made no mention?

Obviously the focal point of the clip released is the UFO at the towers and it is obvious that the UFO wasn't the main focus of Barbara or her company until after it appeared at what would become known as the 2nd impact point (the initial driving cause for doubting the hoax story).

The ambiguity of the white streaks also fly in the face of the claim that the UFO footage was staged. If it were truly staged Barbara and company would have been focused on the UFO the whole time and there would not have been any ambiguous white streaks to distract the stars from giving a convincing performance.


(Mod edit to remove unnecessary Quote of the opening post)


[edit on 27-3-2007 by imrippinit]

[edit on 27-3-2007 by pantha]

Chris Stein of the band Blondie was/is married to the actress in the clip, Barbara. Chris Stein has had a long interest in UFO's and the paranormal, but that's besides the point. On the Blondie web site, Chris talks about his wife's gig on this Sci-Fi promo.

ok, rather than going away my wife Barbara's ufo tv spot that was done for SCI-FI TV here is still pulling in comment and e-mails... the main reason being that the thing was shot using the world trade center in new york as a location... now we've gotten to a place in the culture wherein my denial of the 'reality' of the thing will undoubtedly convince various people of its viability but even though i personally wish that indeed it had been evil aliens who destroyed the trade center, the blame is unfortunately a lot closer to home and the now famous tv spot is just that: a tv spot with a fake photoshop (or whatever) ufo etc etc etc so once again the sci-fi tv spot with the ufo at the world trade center is not a 'real' film of a 'real' ufo, barbara is the person in the helicopter but she was just pointing at empty sky and the ufo images were put in later, neither she nor i have had any alien encounters, been abducted by space. or other aliens, and we are currently not hanging out with any space aliens and to the best of my knowledge have nevr met any creatures from outer space, have never been on a flying saucer etc etc etc

The rest, is here

this is interesting i have just e-mailed Warner brothers about the alien footage used in Independence day the movie.

I have asked them to release the originals

Originally posted by Rotoplooker
Chris Stein of the band Blondie was/is married to the actress in the clip, Barbara. Chris Stein has had a long interest in UFO's and the paranormal, but that's besides the point. On the Blondie web site, Chris talks about his wife's gig on this Sci-Fi promo.

I have seen that. I have scoured over her site that I don't believe even existed before the clip.

I will just say this:

There are many individuals, I am thinking of a radio personality that claimed knowledge of a UFO, recanted and soon after went back to his origianl story (and died in a strange accident soon after) as well as many military officers/enlisted who claimed one thing and then changed their story before fading into obscurity.

Is it so hard to believe that Chris and Barbara were also threatened/bought off? It seems very plausible to me. In fact, it seems more plausible than the stroy that this was just a TV advertisement gone out of control. It doesn't add up and it smells of a cover up especially when one studies the inconvienient evidence.





[edit on 27-3-2007 by imrippinit]

(reduced Quote)

[edit on 27-3-2007 by pantha]

Originally posted by imrippinit


are many individuals, I am thinking of a radio personality that claimed knowledge of a UFO, recanted and soon after went back to his origianl story (and died in a strange accident soon after) as well as many military officers/enlisted who claimed one thing and then changed their story before fading into obscurity.

I believe you have pretty much proven Chris Stein's point. It's clear that this is a deadlock. I suggest you bing some more evidence to the table and less circular reasoning.

does anybody have a link to a high quality version.

i would like to do a frame by frame analysis


cheers

I view the white streaks as new evidence.

Truthfully, were you aware that this is what Barbara was refering to when she said "are you getting all of this?".

The fact that this is now evident (along with other evidence already discussed) should cast doubt on the idea that the UFO was the intended subject of the clip.

Why even put the white streaks in there?

I am not trying to throw mud in the face of the detractors, but sometimes weird stuff is seen from aircraft, and sometimes it is caught on tape.

My first nighttime cross country flight had some high strangeness, departing from John Wayne Airport (KSNA), we where almost abeam the San Onofre power plant, flying over the water, when suddenly something shot out of that island like a hot pine cinder in a campfire and, I kid you not, must have gone directly to orbit in less then a second. It was bright blue, and was the ONLY bright light on the island at the time. We looked at each other, and I asked repeatedly, what was that???? My instructor at the time was cool as an ice cube, (like he had seen better before) , said not to worry about it and reminded me to watch the altitude as I had been distracted and was climbing a little.

No advisory on the radio, nothing... although with the recent track record of military radar responsiveness, I could have flown turns around a point, 500 ft AGL over the reactor for 45 minutes before an intercept aircraft would have arrived....

That is what brought me to ATS in the first place... I arrived home and did a Google search for "UFO Catalina island" and OMFG... Can-o-worms!

I only had 63.4 hours then, but I had already seen my first, and later another over KRNM, of a different type in daylight VFR. So as to be expected, I am not so quick to discount weird phenomena seen from aircraft. Perhaps it is a flaw of mine, but others I know have also seen U.F.O.s, both in flight, and as surface observations in this neck of the woods.

I believe this one is REAL.

FOR ME, the case was closed on first close inspection of the video.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
I can confidently predict that this thread will be locked very shortly.

I'm going to leave this thread open, although I have closed many many threads on the topic of this video in the past as it is most certainly one of the most repeated topics in this forum.
Despite the closure of these threads, the subject can certainly still be open for discussion. Perhaps it won't hurt to let this run as it has had some replies that have looked into the background of the footage and this will give a chance for those who haven't come across the video to discuss it