Vienna, Austria-23rd July 2012

Location of Sighting: Vienna, Austria
Date of Sighting: 23rd July 2012
Time: 09.02 AM
Witness Name: Alan Aqrawi

Witness Statement:

Best watched in full screen:

Monday morning, in bright daylight, 9.00 am, 23 July 2012, this object was filmed above the City Center of Vienna. The quality of my mobile phone (Samsung Galaxy SIII) was not appropriate enough to zoom further in, but with the eye it could be seen as a rotating and at some points very very bright object (i guess due to strong reflection of sunlight). I had the impression it was chrome like metallic, but this could be too much judgement here. It was not emitting light, it seemed to be reflecting it. It seemed to have a high altitude. Rotating across several axis. Nothing below a a couple of hundred meters. More in the region of low flying passenger planes.
The object moved relatively slowly (south-east), at the start of the observation, then at 01.01 minutes (of the video) it shifts its direction rapidly (!!!!!) and then continued flying at this point in a rather more constant speed in a straight line south. You can nicely see it compared to the balcony of the building in the video. The more i watch that move to the side on video, the more it freaks me out. I could see it with my eye, the move was very sudden and swift, and rather not common to what i would expect from an object I know.
I continued to watch it with my eye walking down the street in southern direction. I could follow it for at least 5 more minutes.
I could not hear any sound. It was very surely no plane. No helicopter noise. It was not a balloon or kite. It was rotating, around several axis. If it was a satellite crashing, it would not have made a turn at 1.01 minutes of the video and gone south-west… satellites crash rather with speeds in the range of several thousand km.
Whatever it was…i am not sure…but it had me at “owkayyy”. What was striking me the most, it was very very bright at points, so it must have a strong reflecting side and the rest must be also reflecting but not as strong, as it was always was visible but at some points very very much. I could see people on the street looking at it too and seeing it… You can actually see right at the start of the video, that when the camera is not in focus, that the object was pretty bright, when i started filming. It was really a bright blue sky with a lot of sun, and the object was extremely bright at some points.
Maybe this footage can be used to be analyzed some more.


Comment : If you can provide further information on this or other possible UFO sightings in this area then please leave a comment or send details through our “submit sighting” form

Updated: July 31, 2012 — 9:58 pm


Add a Comment
  1. Looks like a pulsating orb to me

  2. I see no swift change of direction, all I see is what looks like a helium balloon or two being blown along at high level, reflecting the sun as they turn.Nothing more.

  3. Wasn’t there a similar video in London last year which proved to be a hoax or some especial effects company?

  4. Gary,

    I’m a little puzzled.

    How do you reach the conclusion that there’s “nothing more” from your statement: “all I see is what looks like a helium balloon”

    Hardly definitive is it?

  5. The object in the video does not reflect light.

    It pulsates, or blinks on and off -momentarily. Helium balloons do not behave in this way.

    It appears to be an object made of light (see images)

    It is definitely not an artifact from the camera
    sensor as the object is seen fully focused as it moves in the video

    Link to images –

  6. Firstly, thank you for taking the time and effort to justify why this video is not a helium balloon ( or bunch of ). Very commendable.

    Having examined your evidence, I am forced to conclude nothing. Your picture of a helium balloon is far more lucid than the fuzzy image from the video still, and to me it proves nothing.

    Yes, I’m naturally sceptical but I get the impression you have already made up your mind it is something other-worldly or unexplainable in terms of terrestrial science.

    Wouldn’t the Austrian Air Force be interested in something invading their airspace?

    I remain unconvinced by indistinct footage and blurry blow-ups. Sorry.

  7. I agree with you Gary and Alec I think your right

  8. It’s absolutely impossible from the video to determine anything about the characteristics of the ‘object’. Its height and speed can’t be determined either. Blowing up the images is pointless – they are bound to appear as a fuzzy blob regardless of whether they show a bird, a plane, a balloon or something more exotic. Like so much footage I’m afraid, this is superficially intriguing but isn’t capable of providing evidence of anything at all.

  9. Gary

    The examples used in my assessments are completely valid and based on widely accepted fundamental photographic principles.
    Whats more, my examples can be conducted as a simple experiment by anyone even you Gary, and you should expect to get the same results time and time again.

    Any competent image analyst looking at the Vienna video must look for evidence and clues such as sunlight reflections and cast shadows. why? because these very factors are
    present in the Vienna video. These factors display a tangible and measurable effect on other objects in that video, including your balloon.

    I wouldn’t expect an image analyst to factor in the the likelihood of a possible launch of an intercepting jet plane on the lieklyhood the Austrian Air Force may be interested
    in something invading their airspace.We do not see evidence for this in the video so do we automatically default to the noton “the object is a helium balloon”..”nothing more”??
    Gary, I’m sure you’d agree that it would be terrestrially unscientific to do so.

    For all intents and purposes it’s impossible to subject the likelihood of the launch of an airforce jet scenario to a simple scientific test?
    Oh! hang on, I’ll just call the Austrian Air Force, see if they’ll launch or not, or if they would loan us a jet or two before I am able to conclude my assessment.
    I don’t see any logic in that scenario whatsoever.

    And your use of the term “terrestrial science”. What’s that all about? Is it supposed to lend weight to your argument?
    I don’t see how, being that you omitted to use “terrestrial science” to prove anything in your claims. Nice try but i’m not buying it. Platitudes “nothing more”.

    The irony is that you are incapable of or refuse to acknowlege terrestrial science when its put in front of your face.

    Your remark “nothing more” implies the “PERSON” making the comment has done their homework and arrived at conclusions based on
    solid objective analysis, and that they are the expert in this field and everyone else is too take their word as gospel.
    Gary, your insightful claim “Having examined your evidence, I am forced to conclude nothing. makes it abundantly clear that you are not that “PERSON”, not by a longshot.

    What’s more Gary, I feel your remarks insult the inteliigence of the person reporting the sighting and we the viewers of that report.

    Gary I’m sorry but trust me on this, “It’s in everyone’s best interest that you leave image analysis and interpretation to people who know what their talking about”.

  10. Stephen, you’re missing the point.

    The reason the object looks the way it is is because it is not a physical object.

    What we are looking at is an object that consist of or is made of light itself.

    That is the reason the object does not cast a shadow. This fact is abundantly clear in the images. Sorry but the fuzzy image excuse just doesn’t wash.

  11. Alec, wouldn’t it have been better you produced evidence to back up your claims?

    Insinuating this report is a hoax without evidence is not clever and unfair to the poster of the report as it serves to cast doubt in some peoples minds of its validity.

  12. Gary/Stephen,

    I removed two images that were indeed fuzzy.

    However the image of the enlarged object with arrow and text description against a blue background remains and is indeed what I refer to in my earlier example and should not be confused with the others now removed.
    This image was obtained from a reasonably sharp and in-focus source image (provided, see set)

    This image is magnified X8 times.

    The apparent fuzziness brought about by the action of magnification is actually described in photographic terms as pixelation.

    As we know pixels in an image hold data/information that makes up that image. This information doesn’t suddenly change or disappear due to the action of magnification.

    So what I am saying here is not to let the term “fuzzy image”detract from actual facts.

    All we need concern ourselves with at this “deep pixel level” is identifying evidence of a shadow in the form of dark pixels expected in a specific location in the image.

    The fact we do not see evidence of dark pixelation areas around the magnified so-called balloon where they are expected can only lead to one logical conclusion.

    Our known physical laws dictate that a solid object placed in sunlight, will always cast a shadow somewhere on its body, albeit, if it is not completely covered in anti reflective material.
    Gary, do you think your balloon could have been made of this material?

    Now does this prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the object we are looking at is indeed not a balloon but something else very likely of an intangible nature?

    No it does not!

    But it certainly pushes it into the realm of being highly probable; a great deal more so than say the scientifically untestable Austrian air-force notion.


  13. Hi Albert, interesting. You certainly have photographic skills don’t you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.