Mathilda’s Weird World Weblog

October 24, 2008

The UFO at the twin towers…

Filed under: Aliens, UFO's — Tags: , , — mathilda37 @ 1:51 pm

Was a hoax. Well, technically it’s an advert called ‘the blimp’ for the Sci fi channel. The ‘tourist is an actress (Barbara Sicuranza) and the UFO is a computer inserted effect.

See link. Some people will believe anything.

5 Comments »

  1. Just because she’s an actress doesn’t mean she can’t witness an abnormal event. The Sci Fi Channel treated it seriously:

    http://tinyurl.com/sicuranzaletter

    and they have never issued a retraction.

    Sicuranza says on her resume and in response to questions, that it was not real. But she gives no details. And she only started saying so in 2002. That’s the earliest her resume page existed:

    http://tinyurl.com/sicuranzaresume

    The oft-cited Rense correspondence didn’t happen until even later, in 2003:

    http://rense.com/general41/scihoax.htm

    These statements were a CHANGE in her story. In 2001, HER OWN WEBSITE called it “HISTORICAL DOCUMENT UFO,” and referred to her participation as “tourist” — NOT ACTRESS:

    http://tinyurl.com/sicuranzahistoricaldocument

    More pre-2002 writings, on the SciFi Channel discussion forum, purport to be from her, and also say it was real, and they provide significant detail:

    http://tinyurl.com/sicuranza

    Finally, the object is SIMILAR TO DOZENS OF THINGS FILMED AT WTC ON 9/11. A few examples:

    http://tinyurl.com/canaleorbpair

    http://tinyurl.com/truckwhatzit

    http://tinyurl.com/watermarkwhatzit

    http://tinyurl.com/blackbirdblackops

    http://webfairy.org/newwhatzits

    http://webfairy.org/bird

    http://webfairy.org/thing

    http://webfairy.org/wtf

    I think these are WHY she changed her story. Someone got to her and told her to stop saying it was real, because it provides corroborating evidence that the attack was planned with exotic technology.

    I think it was terrestrial. I think it was secret military objects used in an inside job. That’s a simpler explanation than ET.

    Comment by s v — November 3, 2012 @ 12:19 am

    • Seriously dude, it was an advert, Did you not notice the pro lighting and makeup in the shots? And I know CGI when I see it. I guess you don’t

      I’m impressed with the ‘she’s lying when she says it was an advert’ tactic. Great way to avoid that the ACTRESS involved in your ‘UFO’ footage said it was paid work.

      What’s worrying is that you think all this stuff is real, even though the people involved say it wasn’t.

      Had a look through your links for courtesy’s sake… Helicopter… nothing… wouldn’t run… falling debris/paper?.. helicopter and debris again… got bored and didn’t look at the last few.

      FYI, a 404 on your syfy channel link.

      Yours is a standard post from a ‘believer’. You see what you want, and ignore/claim deception on what you don’t want. SO the Rense correspondence happened after it was filmed… well of course it did. It could hardly of happened before. And I’ve found acting work she did prior to 2000. The wonders of Google.

      Many here. http://mysteriousmysteries.com/wormhole/index.php?show=resume

      Margarita Happy Hour http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/margarita_happy_hour/

      SO if you are claiming she suddenly started ‘acting’ after the sighting when she has a well documented career on stage and in films prior to the footage? Unbelievable.

      Comment by mathilda37 — January 31, 2013 @ 1:58 pm

  2. Some loose ends. (and since I don’t know if your comments have a length limit, but so far not, they are generous, thank you, and the forum is generously open for a civil (though highly opinionated) debate like this, without registration or excessive moderation, thank you VERY MUCH for that!)

    1.
    You say there was professional lighting, but you don’t explain or demonstrate that. It’s a sunny day, and they’re up high in the wide open air. What better natural lighting could there be?

    2.
    You say she was wearing makeup. So what? That just makes her like many many other women whenever they go out in public, right?

    3.
    If you really see “nothing” here
    http://tinyurl.com/truckwhatzit
    then it’s probably my fault for not making sure you knew

    a.
    CLICK TO PLAY the first panel, a slow but full motion rendering of the crucial detail of the full screenshots in the second panel

    b.
    In the second panel, first say Go to frame: 1, and then and click Go. Then, use the Prev and Next buttons.
    (And then, follow along with the frame notes of the youtube poster.)

    Comment by s v — February 11, 2013 @ 9:44 pm

  3. Finally (for now)

    “seriously, it was an advert”

    and

    “I know CGI when I see it; I guess you don’t”

    are just condescending ASSERTIONS — not arguments. Truth is not found by trusting Mathilda, NOR by trusting ME, to JUST KNOW. No one is such an authority that they have a right to browbeat askers of good honest questions into SHUTTING THE HECK UP.

    Instead, truth comes from recognizing FACTS together, and then REASONING together FROM them. Let’s keep having a go at it, shall we?

    This video is so intriguing that it still keeps getting discovered and reposted to youtube by some new user every month or so, a dozen years later now. There is WAY more to discern about it, and its possible relation to 9/11, than Barbara Sicuranza’s highly superficial denial totalling all of FOUR WORDS. (“it’s cgi not ufo”)

    Comment by s v — February 11, 2013 @ 9:53 pm

  4. “I know CGI when I see it.”

    And yet the majority of people who agree with you that it is pasted in, compliment it on very effective realism.

    Do tell, is THIS what CGI looks like, all subtly variegated with minuscule random blobby gradations of darkness?

    http://tinyurl.com/scifichannelufogreen

    I ask because it is in fact a (colorized) internal detail of the orb, from ONE fleeting frame, when it is charging the helicopter blindingly fast.

    Do tell, what would be the point of a hoaxer ADDING ALL THAT DETAIL for people to NEVER EVEN SEE until a DOZEN YEARS LATER? I mean this is the first time you’ve seen it, right?

    Comment by s v — February 12, 2013 @ 7:25 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: