Italian flying saucer video

[Maury Markowitz]

I have definitely seen a debunk on this video, but Google fails me. Anyone have a pointer on this one:


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UF0/comments/1kh6lv8/this_exciting_ufo_was_filmed_in_italy_but/

 

[JMartJr]

Interesting -- I watched it twice, the third time I got this:

Something about it really made me say "miniature set for a Godzilla movie," but I couldn't find such a scene, nor have I found a stack with those four red stripes near the top, in movie or real world...

EDIT: "Watched" is now spelled in a less stupid way.

 

[jarlrmai]

Really CGI looking stuff is usually the twitter debunker ufoofinterest's area of specialism, they used to have an account here I think but not sure

 

[Ravi]

Darn.
I think I recall this video. I am certain we have a thread about it here on MB? Looked rather CGI to me.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Interesting -- I wartched it twice, the third time I got this:

Yep. As of 11:05 PDT it's been removed. Must have been really bad.

 

[JMartJr]

Yep. As of 11:05 PDT it's been removed. Must have been really bad.

Yeah, that was my impression. Patently fake, the question would have been, "faked how?"

 

[Ravi]

Here is the original video, I guess. 18 years old!

 

[JAFO]

Interesting -- I wartched it twice, the third time I got this:
View attachment 80195

Something about it really made me say "miniature set for a Godzilla movie," but I couldn't find such a scene, nor have I found a stack with those four red stripes near the top, in movie or real world...
View attachment 80196

It's a real place. Found the stack.

Stack Location in Google Maps.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are a couple of zoomed and stabilised versions on YouTube


Source: https://youtu.be/akQKDtMHkiM?si=VvmK8Xu6bH4BKUCq



Source: https://youtu.be/IQzd2f-46WI?si=tEENT5Z50ZxafRTf


The video was apparently filmed even longer ago than 18 years: it dates from 2003 according to this Italian news clip:


Source: https://youtu.be/FzmVQq7ots0

 

[Mauro]

It looks even the 'UFOlogist' to whom the film was sent, Antonio Chiumiento, disowned the film as a fake meant to discredit him (I only found a forum post which is apparently quoting from an article in the 21 July 2004 Pordenone edition of the "Il Gazzettino" newspaper)

Questa volta a crederci poco, anzi, a non crederci affatto, è lo stesso Chiumiento, «per almeno un paio di
buone ragioni» - spiega. E poi elenca: «Primo, il disco volante si stacca dallo sfondo con una chiarezza che appare costruita ad arte. Secondo, non c'è traccia di ombra provocata dall'ufo, qualsiasi sia l'orario delle riprese. Terzo, la
segnalazione è anomala, perché non ha un volto, un nome». «Tutte queste ragioni - prosegue Chiumiento - mi portano a ritenere che siamo di fronte a un clamorosissimo falso, un facile tranello per mettere in dubbio le mie capacità investigative, dopo oltre 1400 inchieste condotte a termine in trent'anni di
attività nel settore.

https://www.freeforumzone.com/mobile/d/4290963/Chiumiento-smaschera-il-falso-ufo/discussione.aspx

This time, Chiumiento himself does not believe it, "for at least a couple of good reasons", he says [then he lists three...]. "First, the flying saucer contrasts with the background with a clearness which looks faked. Second, there's no hint of the UFO casting a shadow, whichever the time was when the scene was filmed. Third, the report is anomalous, because it does not have a face nor a name attached. All these reasons - Chiumiento goes on - make me think this is a blatant fake, an easy trap to cast doubts on my investigative skills, after more than 1400 investigations I made during thirty years of operating in this sector".

 

[Maury Markowitz]

Yep. As of 11:05 PDT it's been removed. Must have been really bad.

The poster in question was a bot account and everything they posted has since been removed.

Thanks for the links everyone, I tried searches in both Google and YouTube on various "flying saucer/ufo" and "Italy/power plant" and get nothing. It's amazing how these tools have declined in usefulness over the last few years.

 

[sigmops]

This clip has been posted to reddit multiple times in the past. I dont think this is correct but its been referred to as being filmed in Montereale, Italy. and also in Aviano, which I believe is correct as @JAFO found.

FWIW here is a reddit discussion from 2021 with 129 comments:


Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/q23u0s/theory_this_one_is_ours/


Here is another from 2022 with 100 comments:


Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/x0hq8z/do_you_want_to_see_tom_delonges_ig_ufo_close_up/


I think there are others

Edit:

Another reddit convo, this one is from 2024 with 192 comments


Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/190jczy/yet_to_be_debunked_2003_italy_montereale_val/

 

[JMartJr]

There are a couple of zoomed and stabilised versions on YouTube


Source: https://youtu.be/akQKDtMHkiM?si=VvmK8Xu6bH4BKUCq



Source: https://youtu.be/IQzd2f-46WI?si=tEENT5Z50ZxafRTf


The video was apparently filmed even longer ago than 18 years: it dates from 2003 according to this Italian news clip:


Source: https://youtu.be/FzmVQq7ots0

So -- sanity check, please. Am I seeing protrusions come and go on the UFO as it turns, or is that likely just camera/compression.etc. artifacts? In the former case, it looks surprisingly like struggling AI, but it seems too old for that... Alternatively, it could just be the compression losing the distinction between the "bumps" and the background clouds as the UFO turns and the value of the gray on the bumps shifts as light angles change?

 

[Mauro]

I dont think this is correct but its been referred to as being filmed in Montereale, Italy. and also in Aviano, which I believe is correct as @JAFO found.

The site located by @JAFO is ~2km from Montereale Valcellina (there are two Montereale in Italy, plus a more famous Monreale, they all mean 'Royal Mountain'). The town of Aviano is ~10km away, the Aviano AFB ~12km.

 

[Trailblazer]

The site located by @JAFO is ~2km from Montereale Valcellina (there are two Montereale in Italy, plus a more famous Monreale, they all mean 'Royal Mountain'). The town of Aviano is ~10km away, the Aviano AFB ~12km.

The nearest town to the filming location is Vajont, which was built to house survivors of the 1963 Vajont dam disaster.

 

[Matzor]

So -- sanity check, please. Am I seeing protrusions come and go on the UFO as it turns, or is that likely just camera/compression.etc. artifacts? In the former case, it looks surprisingly like struggling AI, but it seems too old for that... Alternatively, it could just be the compression losing the distinction between the "bumps" and the background clouds as the UFO turns and the value of the gray on the bumps shifts as light angles change?

I see it too, a bit too big to be compression artefacts, I think. So I don't know what the bumps are, but they seem to indeed be there.

The entire object moves a lot like it's suspended from a string in the middle of the top surface, which would also explain the spinning.

 

[Zaiger]

The first time i saw this it was being called "The Aviano UFO" and it was being promoted by Paola Harris at the time. If you slow it down and watch around the 30 second mark, you can see that they got a little lazy as the craft moves with the camera.

 

[Max Phalange]

This stabilized version shows how janky the motion tracking is:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGgvKKUOJt0

 

[John J.]

Here is the original video, I guess. 18 years old!
Source: https://youtu.be/YdyQu5Zx8xw/&t=24s

The way the UFO spins around its (approximate) centre, while "orbiting" a nearby point in the air, might suggest a small model suspended on fishing line
(approx. 24- 36 seconds into Ravi's video, timestamped here at 24 seconds in).
The spin/ circling largely ceases when the alien pilot/ geezer with fishing rod resumes more rapid lateral movement from right to left.

The way the UFO's leading edge (at the left of the "craft" as we view it) bobs down and up again approx. 7-8 seconds into this video might suggest the same thing:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGgvKKUOJt0

 

[qsek]

There are many versions of this video online. The longest one has already been linked

Spoiler

Here is the original video, I guess. 18 years old!

All of them are low quality, processed and often originated from the tv broadcast from Antenna Tre. The digital camcorder already has some frame dragging or frame combining. The tv broadcast changed the resoultion and framerate and added interlacing on top. Whoever recorded that tv broadcast added his own video processing settings. So those sources should not be used to argue about motion blur and image dragging.
I found a digitally clean segment of the video in the documentary:

Spoiler: ETs Among Us 1 - UFO Witnesses and Whistleblowers 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT419_PL7d8&t=1488s

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT419_PL7d8&t=1488s

This one should be the best quality, uncropped segment you can find.

I've combined it with the lower quality tv segments at the start and end:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0bQMBTUff0




From this, it is clear that this "stabilized version" is either a deliberate attempt to debunk the video with adding this effect or more likely a drag and drop AI enhancement filter that simply does a bad job and adds artifical jumpyness to the object which you can not see in the original footage.

This stabilized version shows how janky the motion tracking is:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGgvKKUOJt0

Also it is often overlooked that this event has a witness.

Here is the source video with the witness:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7BI7OKtwr8&t=501s


Here is an english dubbed version:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-W5YpqWgnQ

Description:
Stefan from Austria went on the UFO related swiss channel Hangar18B in 2019 and reported what is shown in the video.

He confirms that this event was happening in 2003 in mid to end August (1m:41s)
He was on a road trip in his car with his family, driving along SR251 from Maniago down south towars the bridge when he spotted the object to his right.

(Screengrab from 4m:25s)

He reports that the object was traveling about 30km/h, opened and close vents while spinning around.
Then it accelerated to about 50km/h and then shot up to the clouds. Later he confirms the estimate of the TV broadcast gave of about 20000km/h (10m28s)
There was no noise that could have been heared from out of his moving car with opened windows (14m16s)
Here is sketch he made from the sighting (8m:20s):

 

[JMartJr]

Later he confirms the estimate of the TV broadcast gave of about 20000km/h

I am doubtful that any of us would be able to estimate the speed of something going 20,000 km/h.... that is well outside of anything we'd be used to seeing. That is basically Low Earth Orbit speed, is it not? Can you imagine the effects of something moving that fast down here in the thick part of the atmosphere? I'd expect a lot more witnesses to the fiery trail, sonic booms and possible path of dextruction...

 

[qsek]

I am doubtful that any of us would be able to estimate the speed of something going 20,000 km/h.... that is well outside of anything we'd be used to seeing. That is basically Low Earth Orbit speed, is it not? Can you imagine the effects of something moving that fast down here in the thick part of the atmosphere? I'd expect a lot more witnesses to the fiery trail, sonic booms and possible path of dextruction...

I could imagine that they did a simple calculation based on what we see in the video.
If you assume an average cloud height of 3 km and an angle of the objects path into the clouds of 30° you get a distance of 6 km
Then if you measure the time of the start of the acceleration to when the object is not visible anymore to approximately 1 second,
you would arrive at 21600 km/h
This would be an average of course, since it started out slow and constantly accelerated.
If you take that into account, you would arrive at even greater speed towards the end of the way.
And you are completely right that this would break the laws of physics.

 

[JMartJr]

And you are completely right that this would break the laws of physics.

And this is not possible. Even if the "UFO" had some super advanced Version 9,000,000,000.1 technology that could somehow defy physics, it is flying through good old Air 1.0. Moving anything through air at those speeds is going to cause massively noticeable heating, because of how air reacts to being compressed, shoved around, etc. See: reentering spacecraft, except those are moving through much thinner air.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Stefan from Austria went on the UFO related swiss channel Hangar18B in 2019 and reported what is shown in the video.

He confirms that this event was happening in 2003 in mid to end August (1m:41s)
He was on a road trip in his car with his family, driving along SR251 from Maniago down south towars the bridge when he spotted the object to his right.

So, he filmed this 2003 and sent it to a news channel anonymously:

The video was apparently filmed even longer ago than 18 years: it dates from 2003 according to this Italian news clip:


Source: https://youtu.be/FzmVQq7ots0

Then it was considered a fake by an Italian UFOlogist the following year:

Questa volta a crederci poco, anzi, a non crederci affatto, è lo stesso Chiumiento, «per almeno un paio di
buone ragioni» - spiega. E poi elenca: «Primo, il disco volante si stacca dallo sfondo con una chiarezza che appare costruita ad arte. Secondo, non c'è traccia di ombra provocata dall'ufo, qualsiasi sia l'orario delle riprese. Terzo, la
segnalazione è anomala, perché non ha un volto, un nome». «Tutte queste ragioni - prosegue Chiumiento - mi portano a ritenere che siamo di fronte a un clamorosissimo falso, un facile tranello per mettere in dubbio le mie capacità investigative, dopo oltre 1400 inchieste condotte a termine in trent'anni di
attività nel settore.

https://www.freeforumzone.com/mobile/d/4290963/Chiumiento-smaschera-il-falso-ufo/discussione.aspx

This time, Chiumiento himself does not believe it, "for at least a couple of good reasons", he says [then he lists three...]. "First, the flying saucer contrasts with the background with a clearness which looks faked. Second, there's no hint of the UFO casting a shadow, whichever the time was when the scene was filmed. Third, the report is anomalous, because it does not have a face nor a name attached. All these reasons - Chiumiento goes on - make me think this is a blatant fake, an easy trap to cast doubts on my investigative skills, after more than 1400 investigations I made during thirty years of operating in this sector".

Then, 13 years later, he shows up on a Swiss TV show(?) called Hanger 18* to tell the story. Sounds a bit odd.

*I do find it amusing that a Swiss TV show is called Hanger 18, a clear reference to the conspiracy theory that a hanger 18 at Wright-Patterson AF base in Ohio is where aliens and UFOs were taken for study, prior to any knowledge of Area 51. And apparently there never was a "hanger 18" just a building 18.

 

[Fin]

As the object appears and heads towards us it seems like its being artificially enlarged in size, rather than actually increasing in size naturally due to distance. It seems to me like it stops getting bigger long before it actually reaches its closest point to us. I'm suggesting that the change in its size is actually not wholly consistent with its change in distance. This would make sense if its a CG model being added to an existing real video; You'd place the video as a backdrop/plate and simply animate the UFO in front of it, so the quick and lazy way to make it appear far away is just to scale it down, then scale it up as it flies along the river bank & gets closer to us.
It also doesn't appear to be reflecting the surrounding environment in a convincing manner, which is partly what makes it feel so obviously CGI.

 

[qsek]

So, he filmed this 2003 and sent it to a news channel anonymously:

I think you got mislead, it was not Stefan who filmed the video. He is completely unrelated to the creation of it.
He wasnt even aware that it was filmed since the location of the camera is not easily viewable from the road he was driving on.
At 9m20s he said he discovered the video in 2006 or 2009 by googeling

Then, 13 years later, he shows up on a Swiss TV show(?) called Hanger 18* to tell the story. Sounds a bit odd.

That is the interesting part. He was not the one who filmed it and sent it to Chiumiento.
I doubt he had a video camera with him and decided to stop on his trip and film a camera pan with the intention to later CGI a UFO into it (which, in this quality, would be quite costly in 2003) . That all while his wife and son waited in the car? Unlikely.
He also doesn't strike me as an attention grabbing or otherwise fame motivated person.

 

[JMartJr]

I doubt he had a video camera with him and decided to stop on his trip and film a camera pan

This first part seems normal behavior...

with the intention to later CGI a UFO into it (which, in this quality, would be quite costly in 2003) .

That need not have been his or anybody's intention when it was filmed... the UFO could have been added a decade later if I understand the timeline. Somebody with access to the video gets a VFX package, thinks "That would be a good bit of vid to add a UFO to..." and here we are.

That all while his wife and son waited in the car? Unlikely.

I don't see how their presence makes it less likely he'd shoot a bit of video of the scenery, whether his motives included faking a UFO later or not.

He also doesn't strike me as an attention grabbing or otherwise fame motivated person.

But he or somebody else created and passed around the faked-up video. It's a thing people do, not all of them are obvious attention hounds.

 

[John J.]

Later he confirms the estimate of the TV broadcast gave of about 20000km/h (10m28s)

I am doubtful that any of us would be able to estimate the speed of something going 20,000 km/h.... that is well outside of anything we'd be used to seeing. That is basically Low Earth Orbit speed, is it not?

The eye can't track something rapidly accelerating from a low speed to multiple 1000s of miles/ km per hour unless the object is reasonably distant but still highly visible (e.g. bright and/ or very large).

Like in other claims of incredible acceleration by UFOs, with suitably sciencey-sounding estimates of speed, I think of the shells of the larger naval guns of the 20th century, e.g. the Iowa class battleships' Mark 7 guns.
On firing, a shell weighing 1900 lb (862 kg) is accelerated to 2690 ft/secs (890 M/s)- that is, 1834 mph, 2952 kph within a distance of 66' 8", 20.3 metres (Wikipedia, "16-inch/50-caliber Mark 7 gun", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16-inch/50-caliber_Mark_7_gun.)
But shipboard observers couldn't see those shells as they left the guns and travelled toward the target, our visual system doesn't track nearby objects moving at such high speeds.

At the distances apparently involved in the Pordenone UFO sighting, I'd guess it would have effectively disappeared, like a flea can when it jumps.

 

[John J.]

I think you got mislead, it was not Stefan who filmed the video. He is completely unrelated to the creation of it.
He wasnt even aware that it was filmed since the location of the camera is not easily viewable from the road he was driving on.
At 9m20s he said he discovered the video in 2006 or 2009 by googeling

Hi @qsek!

Are you saying that Stefan claims to have been a separate witness to the same event (the 2003 Pordenone UFO) but was not connected to- or aware of- the filmed clip?

He also doesn't strike me as an attention grabbing or otherwise fame motivated person

Subjective impressions can be very important, but can also be incorrect. Successful confidence tricksters, exploitative "gurus" etc. are never perceived as such by those they deceive.

The 1934 "surgeon's photo" of the Loch Ness Monster, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness_Monster now known to have been hoaxed...

...probably got a lot more traction than it deserved because of the respectable profession of its source, Robert Kenneth Wilson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kenneth_Wilson.

And the famously intelligent and successful author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was readier to believe in faeries than that two young girls from nice families might be lying...

...though I guess he might not have had the benefit of having female classmates at his schools, and so could have had a rather idealized view of girls (and, less charitably, a marked underestimation of their intelligence).

 

[Ann K]

...though I guess he might not have had the benefit of having female classmates at his schools, and so could have had a rather idealized view of girls (and, less charitably, a marked underestimation

Nor, it would seem, was he well acquainted with the appearance of "fairies" using the illustrative techniques of the art form popular at the time.

 

[qsek]

Are you saying that Stefan claims to have been a separate witness to the same event (the 2003 Pordenone UFO) but was not connected to- or aware of- the filmed clip?

That is what he is saying in the interview, yes.

"And around 2006 or 2009 the video suddenly appeared.
I kept googling UFO video hoping someone filmed it or wrote something about it.
I watched the video after I found it" (9m11s)

" ... today when I look at the video, that this group of Italian students recorded,
and they must have been just behind me on the hill, as we will see later on Google Maps ..." (7m26s)

"But you didn't notice the group?
No. Of course I was in the car and there wasn't too much traffic.
And probably drove slower, can't remember exactly
because I observed it, of course." (13m36s)

The eye can't track something rapidly accelerating from a low speed to multiple 1000s of miles/ km per hour unless the object is reasonably distant but still highly visible (e.g. bright and/ or very large).

Like in other claims of incredible acceleration by UFOs, with suitably sciencey-sounding estimates of speed, I think of the shells of the larger naval guns of the 20th century, e.g. the Iowa class battleships' Mark 7 guns.
On firing, a shell weighing 1900 lb (862 kg) is accelerated to 2690 ft/secs (890 M/s)- that is, 1834 mph, 2952 kph within a distance of 66' 8", 20.3 metres (Wikipedia, "16-inch/50-caliber Mark 7 gun", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16-inch/50-caliber_Mark_7_gun.)
But shipboard observers couldn't see those shells as they left the guns and travelled toward the target, our visual system doesn't track nearby objects moving at such high speeds.

At the distances apparently involved in the Pordenone UFO sighting, I'd guess it would have effectively disappeared, like a flea can when it jumps.

Good point, but its worth noting that projectiles fired from a gun are flying at max speed when they exit the barrel, and decelerate the longer they fly through the air. If you study the part of the video where the acceleration begins (33s), it starts quite slow then speeds up in a exponential fashion.

The human eye can track objects at far greater speeds when they gradually accelerate first. The initial following of the motion of the object does kick in what is called: Smooth Persuit Mode. In this mode it is reported that movements up to 100°/s can be tracked (though for the average human it is more around 60°/s, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0042698985901609 ).
"Predictable target acceleration does also have an influence on anticipatory smooth pursuit, suggesting that the internal model of motion that drives anticipation contains some representation of acceleration.", https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2802417

Additionally for the eye it does not matter how fast the object is traveling in km/h . All that matters is degree/s and size of the object compared to the visual field. You can track a bee at half a meter flying by at 1 km/h as well as a jet at 1km at 1000 km/h as well as the moon if it would travel at light speed (not taking into account relativistc effects). All of those objects are between 0.5 and 0.8 degrees wide in the visual field and would move at 50°/s

Also In this mode there are circuits in the brain that can predict the acceleleration curve
"this study shows that humans can learn to perform zero-latency tracking of targets that move with continuous velocity and amplitude-limited acceleration", https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6666059/

If an object the size of a small jet roughly 500m away escapes this prediction, then for a non scientific person an estimate of 20000 km/h would sound reasonable for its max speed even if the visual part of the motion is much slower in reality.

 

[Mauro]

" ... today when I look at the video, that this group of Italian students recorded,
and they must have been just behind me on the hill, as we will see later on Google Maps ..."

How does he know it was filmed by a group of Italian students? The video was sent anonimously to Chiumiento.

 

[JMartJr]

If an object the size of a small jet roughly 500m away escapes this prediction, then for a non scientific person an estimate of 20000 km/h would sound reasonable for its max speed even if the visual part of the motion is much slower in reality.

Can you speak to your thoughts on the issues with these speeds, in atmosphere, being impossible without creating massive "side effects" from atmospheric heating/compression/etc?

Given that this cannot have happened, discussing how a witness might have been able to see it happening seems superfluous, but perhaps you have some thoughts I have not considered...

 

[jdog]

I think you got mislead, it was not Stefan who filmed the video. He is completely unrelated to the creation of it.
He wasnt even aware that it was filmed since the location of the camera is not easily viewable from the road he was driving on.
At 9m20s he said he discovered the video in 2006 or 2009 by googeling


That is the interesting part. He was not the one who filmed it and sent it to Chiumiento.
I doubt he had a video camera with him and decided to stop on his trip and film a camera pan with the intention to later CGI a UFO into it (which, in this quality, would be quite costly in 2003) . That all while his wife and son waited in the car? Unlikely.
He also doesn't strike me as an attention grabbing or otherwise fame motivated person.

This isn't really a contemporaneous witness report, unless he wrote it down in 2003 or told people about it then. This is some guy saying in 2019 that a video he saw in ~2006-2009 (that had been released in years earlier) matched his memory of what he'd seen in 2003 -- after years of looking for UFO videos.

Memory is a tricky thing; is there any evidence that sketch that looks so much like the POV of the video predates the video?

 

[Mauro]

Memory is a tricky thing

After seeing the video he conflated it with an actual experience he had and failed to explain to himself, or just confabulated/invented the whole thing (as he confabulated/invented the group of Italian students).

 

[qsek]

How does he know it was filmed by a group of Italian students? The video was sent anonimously to Chiumiento.

It is not clear, if he got this "group of students" from Hangar18b who did their own research i suppose, or he read something on the internet about it. As far i have been digging there are conflating informations in various old forums and sites. But both the tv report and Chiumiento speak about a anonymous source.

Can you speak to your thoughts on the issues with these speeds, in atmosphere, being impossible without creating massive "side effects" from atmospheric heating/compression/etc?

Given that this cannot have happened, discussing how a witness might have been able to see it happening seems superfluous, but perhaps you have some thoughts I have not considered...

I think its not helpful to this discussion when i am going to try to explain impossible physics. Im not a physicist.

And im also no VFX Artist nor i am in the industry. But i am interested in the field and everything digital/mathematical/optical related, which brings me to the reason i came here in the first place.

In my view this witness account does not make the accompanying video any more credible but ... more interesting and worth a second look.
The video itself has a couple of red flags. No source. No sound. It "looks cgi". Extremely lucky to capture the whole sequence and get get a display like that.
But what is has is detail. It has a reasonable resolution. It is a real location. It is at least from 2005 since then Paola Harris got a copy and made it public in the US (link1, link2), if not from 2003 if you believe Chiumiento and the tv report. Its not a fuzzy blob or grainy dot. There are moving parts seemingly with function, pertusions, color changes. A particular motion path.
If its is CGI then it has hollywood like lighting, motion tracking (sometimes with bad background reference, zoom changes, partial out of frame movements etc), a motion blur to match with a weird digital image recombination of a camcorder of that time. I bet no VFX artist would have touched that with a pole.
That is a lot of stuff for a hoax from that time just to try to decredit an Italian Ufologist.

Star Wars: Episode II came out 2002 and if you watch the unedited version it is obvious that it is CGI, and they had money, a controlled environment and a VFX expert team.
There are a lot of ufo videos with this detail but most of them are newer and have been debunked. There is always something that was overlooked since most of them are from amatuers. And they dont have have someone coming out after 16 years and say, that it happened.

So instead of focusing on details that are unknown or search for evidence in a witness report, i was hoping to spark more curiousity and to see someone with some VFX knowledge take a look at the data we currently have and can analyse, meaning the video in the best quality available.

What would be the cost of creating such a video in 2003?
Can something be said about that unusual motion blur that is not only on object but on parts on the background as well?
Apart from "standing out" or "looking like cgi" are there some numbers or is there something in the lighting that can be identified as definitely fake?
Are there some practical tricks to help with tracking or lighting?
That is what im interested in.

 

[John J.]

If its is CGI then it has hollywood like lighting, motion tracking (sometimes with bad background reference, zoom changes, partial out of frame movements etc), a motion blur to match with a weird digital image recombination of a camcorder of that time. I bet no VFX artist would have touched that with a pole.

I don't really agree. It just looks like amateur filming.

VFX is not just CGI.
2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Wars [A New Hope], Alien, Close Encounters of the Third Kind all managed fine without CGI.
(And Star Trek (the original series). And Space: 1999*.)

You seem to be saying- correct me if I'm wrong!- that if the Pordenone UFO footage is not real, it is most likely to be CGI- and then give reasons why it is unlikely to be CGI.
Personally, I think the footage is highly likely to be a deliberate hoax, but (at the moment- I could be persuaded otherwise) think it is unlikely to be CGI.

What would be the cost of creating such a video in 2003?

If you already had a video camera and a fishing rod or similar long pole, practically nothing.

The way the UFO spins around its (approximate) centre, while "orbiting" a nearby point in the air, might suggest a small model suspended on fishing line
... ...
The spin/ circling largely ceases when the... geezer with fishing rod resumes more rapid lateral movement from right to left.

The way the UFO's leading edge (at the left of the "craft" as we view it) bobs down and up again approx. 7-8 seconds into this video might suggest the same thing

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Edited to add: Loved Space: 1999 but in fairness not all its special effects were all that, er, special.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

From this, it is clear that this "stabilized version" is either a deliberate attempt to debunk the video with adding this effect or more likely a drag and drop AI enhancement filter that simply does a bad job and adds artifical jumpyness to the object which you can not see in the original footage.

Doesn't look clear to me. The original video (even your better quality version) does not look perfectly tracked to the naked eye, the stabilized version seems to confirm that.
Can you provide supporting data as to why you are dismissing the stabilized video?

 

[JMartJr]

Personally, I think the footage is highly likely to be a deliberate hoax, but (at the moment- I could be persuaded otherwise) think it is unlikely to be CGI.

Can you expound as to why? Other than CGI, I'm not sure how you get he morphing appearing/disappearing lumps. That would be hard to do with a physical prop. (I suppose you could do it by stop motion or cell animation, but CGI seems easier.

NOTE:

On January 1, 1998, Blender was released publicly online as SGI freeware.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)

LightWave 3D has been available as a standalone application since 1994, and version 9.3 runs on both Mac OS X and Windows platforms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightWave_3D

How widespread the software was, and what it's capabilities were in early releases, is not known to me. But CGI video editing stuff seems to have been available and all shiny and new to consumers in about the right time frame, unless I missed a reference to the video being proved to exist before this...

 

[Mendel]

How widespread the software was, and what it's capabilities were in early releases, is not known to me.

3d graphics cards appeared on the consumer market in 1996. People were using Autocad to make models. And video capture hardware was also ubiquitious. So the tools were definitely there, even if you didn't have access to Silicon Graphics hardware—which the right kinds of students did have.

2003 would not have been an "early release" of Blender, either.