New UFO video on Google (I think)

Originally posted by V Kaminski
I love the vane actuation of this thing as it pirouettes... way slick - not often do you see an obvious mechanical aspect to such a filmed staged test flight without it meaning to be seen... test flights are meticulously planned.

I was looking at this footage trying to get a handle on exactly what the purpose of the "vane actuation" is. It looks like it cruises in right to left and then begins rotating while the vanes open and close. Could the vanes enable the rotation? The object does dip slightly when it stops. This would indicate it is subject to inertia, maybe.

I don't know what the vane actuation does specifically and is one the the things that "bother" me in a good way about this particular clip. I can't recall any saucer configuration that uses this feature... it is the single example of this that I can recall.

I don't see any "wash" coming out of them... or any dust being kicked up. They would seem at first to be some sort of aspect of a flight control mechanism but I still have reservations as to what the function is.

I've looked at every saucer doc I have - none has this feature. I poked-around a bit and apparently Timothy Good in the UK has some files on Aviano associated with a "Hanger UFO" photo and there has been some speculation about an underground base associated with the site. I have no way of confirming this but I thought it interesting.

Vic

I find it continually frustrating that these "clear ufo films" are actually not clear at all. They are ugly, pixelated, visually highly unappealing. I feel the main reason for this is (sadly) to hide any possible composition flaws - you would be far more likely to get away with a hoax if the encoding is as low-fi as possible - all you are left with is speculation as to the details itself.

Now I'm sure the original footage must have been shot on a clear Hi-8 or DV camera - how come the film wasn't encoded in a high-bitrate DivX format - if you had genuine footage like this, wouldn't you want to post it up in the highest quality possible? When you rip a DVD with DivX or XviD, normally the compression is so good, you can barely distinguish it from the original dvd. Now why didn't they post it up in a high quality format? Simple - because they have something to hide and the footage is not genuine at all. Well that's my hunch.

Your point is pure speculation but none the less a valid one. But we do not know the history of this video. We don't know how it was brought to light. It says it was from the Italian Air Force. But I don't think it was the IAF that posted it to YouTube. I'm glad we have what we have. Maybe more info about the clip will turn up later.

I come to this forum to discuss UFOs and such. I don't come here attempting to disprove sightings. I will give legitimate looking pictures and footage the benefit of the doubt for no other reason than to have a stimulating discussion. So I ask that all refrain from the knee jerk "CGI" accusation. In this day and age anything can be accused of being CGI. Make a video of yourself and post it here and I can accuse it of being CGI and dare anyone to prove me wrong.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by 10538]

At 38 and 39 seconds when the craft in question disapears. I personally am more interested in the light anomaly in the top right corner.

Originally posted by h3akalee
At 38 and 39 seconds when the craft in question disapears. I personally am more interested in the light anomaly in the top right corner.

I think the best possibility is that it's a small hole in the cloud deck and has nothing to do with the UFO. What are you thinking it is?

Maybe it is just that. Maybe

Moderators, please close this thread, it's a duplicate video posting, this video is being discussed here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This video could be genuine looked at the pixelation it matches pretty well with the rest of the video - background etc. What would be the point of spending a hell of a lot of time doing this, integrating it into the video clip etc plus its italian they are known to be quite lazy (in a good way) no offence ment. The camera wobble is also quite relative between model (if it is) and background scene.

Anyone who has done 3D work unless they have access to multiple linked Processors must agree that the level of detail is 10/10. Alien craft are exotic in nature and most people including most of us would surely agree that unless they seen one themselves then they would be sceptical of other peoples viewings. I guess its the scientist in us coming out the whole invisible world playing out.

Anywho thanks for the replies some interesting points especially the italian connection. Which leads me to think not a US new tech but ET tech.

What do you mean by this

So I ask that all refrain from the knee jerk "CGI" accusation. In this day and age anything can be accused of being CGI. Make a video of yourself and post it here and I can accuse it of being CGI and dare anyone to prove me wrong.

The whole point is not to be taken in or duped by person/s with their own agendas. Conspiracies, ufo sightings, etc are either true or staged thats why its almost as important to validate these type of films as real or not. Surely you understand this or we could spend a long time ( a lifetime) chasing a lie.

I think that there is a saying about check out everying you can so what is left must be the truth. WHich makes it hard for the (authorities) to say it was swamp gas if you get my point.

Munro_DreadGod,

What I really meant was if you are going to claim CGI be prepared to back it up. Of all the good looking UFO videos I have seen, most were accused of being CGI. Only one time that I can remember was evidence given to support the accusation. It was clearly illustrated that the masking around the object was imperfect as it passed behind a tree.

Originally posted by 10538
What I really meant was if you are going to claim CGI be prepared to back it up. Of all the good looking UFO videos I have seen, most were accused of being CGI. Only one time that I can remember was evidence given to support the accusation. It was clearly illustrated that the masking around the object was imperfect as it passed behind a tree.

That's completely backwards. If you believe the video to be authentic, it's up to you to prove it. Indeed, we can't prove that something is NOT authentic. Nobody can prove a negative. Therefore, since the goal of the exercise is to prove something authentic, the only reasonable and logical course of action is to assume that it's inauthentic until we have evidence proving otherwise.

To that end, what positive proof do you have that the video is authentic? Anybody? Anybody? Beuller?