Sparkling 'angelic' UFO filmed over Italy

[Skywizard]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/images/news_large/news-italy-ufo.jpg
The objects looked like twinkling stars. Image Credit: YouTube / Antonio Urzi Simona Sibilla


A strange cluster of bright objects flying in formation has been caught on video over Milan.

The Italian skies were the scene of an unusual spectacle earlier this month when a resident recorded a peculiar series of twinkling lights hovering high above the houses.

The footage lasts around nine minutes and shows the lights slowly moving and switching positions while glowing angelically in the air. The formation appears to change frequently throughout the sighting and nobody present at the time seemed to have any idea what it was that they had just witnessed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V49L8cLxq0A



peace...

[Chip]

They look like a bunch of silver Mylar helium balloons to me.

[yelik]

My sister and I saw something very similar when I was 13 years old. About 200m behind my house. The ones I saw were star shaped flickering multiple colours shooting around for an hour or more. I got bored watching them. Strangely enough I did not talk about them until 35 years later when a round bright white orb floated around the same place but much close, 100m.

At the same location, a police officer friend then witnessed a large cigar craft at low level which scared him to death and changed him.

[Billy]

I am Intrigued, No balloons look like this or Chinese Lanterns.

While morphing something solid appears
26371

notice the spiral.
26372 26373

[Isserley]

There are definitely secret deep state spacecraft, but nobody sees them because they have the technology to make them invisible, so I'm thinking it's a satellite or balloons or something. We're well past the possibility of proving the UFO phenomenon with videos and photos. The elite needs to be taken out before full disclosure can happen, and that requires us to wake up, work around, and reject the authority of the power structures of the world.

[pathaka]

I study photos for a UFO group. Also videos. Not an expert, but hey, I've done CGI since the 80s so I know at least a bit.

To me, those look like stringed together silvery mylar balloons, perhaps of various shapes. Most of the geometry of the silvery things is actually internal lens reflection/refraction artifacts. Why do the shapes look the same? Because of the aperture blades and the lens geometry. That's the artifact.

For comparison, see this video, blur the video and imagine having shot it on a bright clear sky, from ideal reflection angle to the sun, from very far away (as Urzi did). The results would be very very similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0mky0W2Jis&hd=1

And one thing I can say for sure. Cropping, zooming and digitally enhancing video stills from a youtube upload full of compression artefacts is more likely to lead you on a wild-goose chase than make you discover anything real. Trust me, been there, done that.

For proper analysis, you need the original, non-re-compressed video file along with forensic digital tools (good deconvolution pixel-based filters, MatLab + a bunch of algos). Then, you might get a little bit more out of the footage, but otherwise, don't bother. Youtube really is godsend for all publicity seekers, fakers and blind believers. I've yet to decide in which camp I've placed Urzi myself, but to me, so far, his videos are not convincing of what he claims them to be (or others claim them to be).

YMMV, of course.

And before anybody insinuates I'm a debunker, I have to reply staunchly no. I believe fully in the phenomena discussed, have studied it myself but remain undecided about the actual origin, purpose and meaning of these phenomena. Yet I don't believe all cases can be explained away (Bluebook style) and that people actually witness these. But that doesn't mean I have to uncritically believe every single video uploaded to youtube, esp. when based on my sampling, about 90% is easily explained away as conventional. To me, this belongs to that camp. Yes, it's always probability, I can't be 100% sure.