Love the addition of reported events and the model ships, but HELLO!!!!!! Why is David wearing a vest in the added scene when he is not in surrounding ones? Continuity!!!! :p
It's a great scene. The specificity of the Lubbock Lights and the Mantell case is just extraordinary.
I can see why some people believe that it is an early attempt at acclimation for public disclosure ("I'm not laughing, David."). But it could easily be that the filmmakers or the studio felt they needed something explanatory like this to get everybody to accept the film's premise. On the other hand, it does seem to be ticking off the main questions about UFOs as they were bandied about then.
@hymiehymie Actually, Jimmy Hunt is clearly older here (I have read over a year older) as this scene was shot sometime later. Perhaps the U.K. audiences required a bit more substantiating science than was needed for the U.S. market, that or the Martians demanded it.
When I saw this movie back in 1953, I was about 9 or 10....I was scared for days after seeing it. Today kids see much worse than this on TV all the time !
Wolf359 is only "...a few billions of miles from us..." Since when! LOL...Wolf359 is around 7.8 Light Years from us...rounded off a Light Year is ~6,000,000,000,000 miles and X that by 7.8 LYS= the total distance (~) in mileage...Capt Mantel was flying a P-51 and did not have oxygen aboard. Of course that is what the "flying saucer"" looked like" the kid said, as that was the prop for the movie!
@rangeclerk Yes it was a P51D and at the reported 40,000 feet of altitude he'd have been unconscious for sometime. Mustangs do not climb without the stick being manually pulled back. (The P51F was good to well over 46,000 feet according to test pilot Bob Chilton.) So HOW did Mantel get to that height without oxygen, and as neither you nor I spoke to his crew chief, how do we know he did not have oxygen on board.
@paullubliner The P51D's were being 'ferried' across the US & if a person spent a bit of time with the information avaliable to the public, would have read there were no ox tanks onboard. What confused Mantel were 2 objects; the daytime view of Venus (have seen it, naked eye-daytime) & classified, at the time, Navy high alit balloons monitering Russian activity. In science one has to DISPROVE ALL rational before attempting the illrational as an a suggested possibility...+lack of Ox
@rangeclerk Iformation: OR was it "dis-information" that was and is available to the public and please tell me how would anyone 60 years on be able to discern the difference, or is gullible a non-defined term for you?
@paullubliner u may be the gullible one. Back in the late 50s early 60s a very well regarded Astronomer, Dr. Menzel who was also a Naval Officer conducted, on his own time, researched the records of the time, & pub. a book dealing with the the 'ufo stories' of the late 40s & onward, into the early 60s. Not only did he mention the FACT of no Ox containers those like Frank Edwards, who also cited the data of no Ox tanks; he as one of the 'pro-ufo' writers of the 60s. PROVE it is 'disinformation'
In test screenings,the UK audiences didn't accept the ambiguous "it's all a dream - or is it?" original version,and this scene,intended to explain and rationalize everything in a "realistic" way,was shot months later and inserted into the UK release.That's why David is taller and heavier than he is in the rest of the movie.The ending was also changed to show David,Dr Kelston and Dr Blake taking cover behind an army vehicle as the saucer explodes and then united in a conclusively happy ending.
If they faked the moon missions, it's possible that they faked the Mars missions too. Do a YouTube search on "MarsFaker".
Google "The Naked Scientists". Go to the "New Theories" section of the forum. There's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". On page 15 there's a summary of moon hoax evidence. It's the seventh post from the top.
Don't you just love the fact that David is wearing a vest in these scenes, yet in the rest of the observatory scenes of the USA version he is not? Not THAT'S continuity control :P
Does anyone remember the NAME of the '50s B&W sci-fi film with an alien blob in a refinery oil tank? They b.s'ed it was a new synthetic food experiment. Food was being processed in the huge refinery oil tank. An investigating individual breached security and then slipped into the tank, a pulsating "blob" got all over him. I remember the guy walking down the outer circular tank stairs with his clothes smoking and his skin burning, and he was yelling, "It burns, the food burns"
Was this a deleted scene from the original movie? I don't remember such a lengthy scene involving explanations of UFOs. This is great, thanks for posting, but where did it come from? I was a huge fan of this film from childhood but as I recall, I don't remember this scene. Anyway the film was great, that spooky music over the soundtrack as holes opened up in the sand, pulling neighbors down into it. I remember being afraid of shadows on the floor because of it. I was about 6 when I saw it.
This was sooo nearly a classic. The stock footage is tedious and the cheesiness in the final 3rd sinks it. Such a great setup wasted. Still a fun watch now and then when I'm not sleepy and can stay awake during the weak portions.
I grew up in the late 1950s and the flying saucer sightings were reported often in the press. I never knew if it was for real or if most US citizens were a little edgy from a post-Cold War effect. Learning to "duck and cover" in case of an atomic bomb blast in elementary school was common place so the thought of scanning the skies for attacking forces was not to laughed at. Great clip... Thanks for the posting!!!
Love the addition of reported events and the model ships, but HELLO!!!!!! Why is David wearing a vest in the added scene when he is not in surrounding ones? Continuity!!!! :p
LiquidGardener 1 month ago
Apart from UFO's, there hasn't been any explanation about the underground bases on earth, under lakes... and on the moon...
Aelkamal 4 months ago
It's a great scene. The specificity of the Lubbock Lights and the Mantell case is just extraordinary.
I can see why some people believe that it is an early attempt at acclimation for public disclosure ("I'm not laughing, David."). But it could easily be that the filmmakers or the studio felt they needed something explanatory like this to get everybody to accept the film's premise. On the other hand, it does seem to be ticking off the main questions about UFOs as they were bandied about then.
Majic1947 4 months ago
7:15 Ha! It's flatbottomed, unlike how it was shown at the front of the movie.
terrythecensor 7 months ago
Probably just too long and technical ("boring") for US attention span.
hymiehymie 8 months ago
@hymiehymie Actually, Jimmy Hunt is clearly older here (I have read over a year older) as this scene was shot sometime later. Perhaps the U.K. audiences required a bit more substantiating science than was needed for the U.S. market, that or the Martians demanded it.
paullubliner 8 months ago
When I saw this movie back in 1953, I was about 9 or 10....I was scared for days after seeing it. Today kids see much worse than this on TV all the time !
ftjax 9 months ago
this scene where he shows the ufo models was deleted from the video/dvd...nice to see it again... thanks
100roberthenry 1 year ago
Wolf359 is only "...a few billions of miles from us..." Since when! LOL...Wolf359 is around 7.8 Light Years from us...rounded off a Light Year is ~6,000,000,000,000 miles and X that by 7.8 LYS= the total distance (~) in mileage...Capt Mantel was flying a P-51 and did not have oxygen aboard. Of course that is what the "flying saucer"" looked like" the kid said, as that was the prop for the movie!
rangeclerk 1 year ago
@rangeclerk Yes it was a P51D and at the reported 40,000 feet of altitude he'd have been unconscious for sometime. Mustangs do not climb without the stick being manually pulled back. (The P51F was good to well over 46,000 feet according to test pilot Bob Chilton.) So HOW did Mantel get to that height without oxygen, and as neither you nor I spoke to his crew chief, how do we know he did not have oxygen on board.
paullubliner 8 months ago
@paullubliner The P51D's were being 'ferried' across the US & if a person spent a bit of time with the information avaliable to the public, would have read there were no ox tanks onboard. What confused Mantel were 2 objects; the daytime view of Venus (have seen it, naked eye-daytime) & classified, at the time, Navy high alit balloons monitering Russian activity. In science one has to DISPROVE ALL rational before attempting the illrational as an a suggested possibility...+lack of Ox
rangeclerk 8 months ago
@rangeclerk Iformation: OR was it "dis-information" that was and is available to the public and please tell me how would anyone 60 years on be able to discern the difference, or is gullible a non-defined term for you?
paullubliner 8 months ago
@paullubliner u may be the gullible one. Back in the late 50s early 60s a very well regarded Astronomer, Dr. Menzel who was also a Naval Officer conducted, on his own time, researched the records of the time, & pub. a book dealing with the the 'ufo stories' of the late 40s & onward, into the early 60s. Not only did he mention the FACT of no Ox containers those like Frank Edwards, who also cited the data of no Ox tanks; he as one of the 'pro-ufo' writers of the 60s. PROVE it is 'disinformation'
rangeclerk 8 months ago
Comment removed
paullubliner 8 months ago
In test screenings,the UK audiences didn't accept the ambiguous "it's all a dream - or is it?" original version,and this scene,intended to explain and rationalize everything in a "realistic" way,was shot months later and inserted into the UK release.That's why David is taller and heavier than he is in the rest of the movie.The ending was also changed to show David,Dr Kelston and Dr Blake taking cover behind an army vehicle as the saucer explodes and then united in a conclusively happy ending.
waterbeauty85 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
If they faked the moon missions, it's possible that they faked the Mars missions too. Do a YouTube search on "MarsFaker".
Google "The Naked Scientists". Go to the "New Theories" section of the forum. There's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". On page 15 there's a summary of moon hoax evidence. It's the seventh post from the top.
Cosmored 2 years ago
Don't you just love the fact that David is wearing a vest in these scenes, yet in the rest of the observatory scenes of the USA version he is not? Not THAT'S continuity control :P
LiquidGardener 2 years ago
The scene, or scenes, with the sand moving and that scary music scared the crap out of me when I was a kid! That was back in the 80's!
maxi937 3 years ago 5
The last time I saw this on British TV, this scene had been deleted, prior to that it wasn't - innocent explanation or maybe not
Jagdtoq 3 years ago 4
AMAZING!! A fascinating footnote to an
already-classic movie.
Sometimes the UK is more "hip" than the U.S.
and,fifty years later,UFO's are STILL being
seen by experts!
RonaldVaughan 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Does anyone remember the NAME of the '50s B&W sci-fi film with an alien blob in a refinery oil tank? They b.s'ed it was a new synthetic food experiment. Food was being processed in the huge refinery oil tank. An investigating individual breached security and then slipped into the tank, a pulsating "blob" got all over him. I remember the guy walking down the outer circular tank stairs with his clothes smoking and his skin burning, and he was yelling, "It burns, the food burns"
stevenjockman 3 years ago
Was this a deleted scene from the original movie? I don't remember such a lengthy scene involving explanations of UFOs. This is great, thanks for posting, but where did it come from? I was a huge fan of this film from childhood but as I recall, I don't remember this scene. Anyway the film was great, that spooky music over the soundtrack as holes opened up in the sand, pulling neighbors down into it. I remember being afraid of shadows on the floor because of it. I was about 6 when I saw it.
clockworktim 3 years ago
one dumb chick!!
ledzeptwo 4 years ago
This was sooo nearly a classic. The stock footage is tedious and the cheesiness in the final 3rd sinks it. Such a great setup wasted. Still a fun watch now and then when I'm not sleepy and can stay awake during the weak portions.
radioman970 4 years ago
Yeah, I find the stock footage length hillarious, minutes and minutes of tanks being loaded, the observatory taking ages to turn.
reloda 4 years ago
Ed Wood probably enjoyed that part when he saw it. Hee hee!
radioman970 4 years ago
I grew up in the late 1950s and the flying saucer sightings were reported often in the press. I never knew if it was for real or if most US citizens were a little edgy from a post-Cold War effect. Learning to "duck and cover" in case of an atomic bomb blast in elementary school was common place so the thought of scanning the skies for attacking forces was not to laughed at. Great clip... Thanks for the posting!!!
zuebee 4 years ago 2
Thanks for sharing.
frankiedi 4 years ago