what do you have on this youtube video from years ago, where an alien is being interrogated in a dark official looking type studio and there's a DNI watermark in the bottom corner

Based on your description, you're likely thinking of the video titled "Area 51: The Alien Interview," which is part of a 1997 documentary. This documentary is widely available on YouTube.

The video features footage of an alleged alien interrogation in a dark studio setting, with a "DNI" (Department of Naval Intelligence) watermark that some have claimed to see. The alien is a "Gray" type being and it appears to be speaking telepathically to an interviewer. The documentary also includes interviews with various people, including ufologists, a rocket scientist, and a physicist, who give their opinions on the footage's authenticity.

The video is a well-known piece of content within the UFO community, but its authenticity is highly debated. A more recent analysis on another YouTube channel noted the poor quality of the footage and suggested the alien might be a puppet due to its lack of mouth movement. The video's copyright is also claimed by a company called SuperBam, Inc., not the U.S. government, which further casts doubt on it being genuine.

so this is part of the alien interview video

Yes, based on the details you provided, the video you are referring to is "Area 51: The Alien Interview," which is part of a 1997 documentary.

The footage is highly debated and widely considered to be a hoax, but it is a well-known piece of content within the UFO community. One of the videos I found, which analyzes the footage, even mentions that its copyright is held by a private company, not a government agency, which further suggests it is not authentic.

who put that documentary together

The documentary "Area 51: The Alien Interview" (1997) was directed by Jeff Broadstreet. Robert Benson is credited as the writer, and Jeff Broadstreet also served as a producer alongside Larry Finch.

where did they get their footage from?

According to the documentary's narrative, the footage was obtained from an anonymous source known only as "Victor." He claimed to have smuggled the videotape out of a secret government facility near Area 51 called "S4."

Victor allegedly delivered the tape to a small film and television production company called Rocket Pictures, which then produced the documentary. The documentary presents Victor as a whistleblower trying to reveal the truth about aliens, and his face and voice are disguised

there wasn't that autopsy footage in that documentary?

Based on my research, the "Alien Autopsy" footage was a separate event and was not included in the "Area 51: The Alien Interview" documentary. The documentary, released in 1997, references the 1995 "Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction" special as a separate, preceding event that heightened public interest in UFOs. The two documentaries feature different purported pieces of evidence: the 1995 film focused on a claimed alien autopsy, while the 1997 film centered on the alien "interview" footage.

The "Alien Autopsy" footage was later revealed to be a hoax, with its creator admitting in 2006 that it was a recreation of footage he claimed to have seen.

but you haven't had any evidence this interview one is bogus?

While the "Area 51: The Alien Interview" footage has never been officially declared a hoax by its creators, there is significant evidence and widespread opinion that it is a work of fiction. Unlike the "Alien Autopsy" footage which was explicitly revealed as a hoax, the evidence for the interview video is based on various circumstantial clues and expert opinions presented within the documentary itself.

Here's a summary of the evidence that points to the footage being a fabrication:

The Copyright: A key piece of evidence is that the footage is not owned by any government or military entity. Instead, it is copyrighted by a private company, "SuperBam, Inc." This directly contradicts the claim that it is a leaked government document and suggests it's a commercially-produced film.

The "Alien" Itself: Within the documentary, Hollywood special effects artists were consulted, and one of them, Rick Baker, stated that he believed the alien was a hoax and that he could have built a more convincing one himself. Observers have also noted that the alien puppet's mouth does not appear to move when it is "speaking."

Lack of Corroboration: The entire premise of the video relies on the testimony of a single, anonymous whistleblower named "Victor." There is no other verifiable source or evidence to support his claims.

Context of Production: The documentary was produced by Jeff Broadstreet, a known director of B-movies and horror films. While this doesn't definitively prove the footage is fake, it does place it in a context of entertainment rather than investigative journalism.

what was interesting about that was how it had this DNI.. that's naval intelligence.. would they be the ones who would look into this type of thing. The Navy.. wouldn't it be some army or something because it didn't happen or crash on the water

That's a very insightful point about the DNI watermark. While the "Alien Interview" footage is widely considered to be fictional, your question gets to the heart of how different branches of the military and intelligence communities would realistically handle such an event.

Who Investigates UFOs? For decades, the U.S. Air Force was the lead military branch for investigating Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), a program known as Project Blue Book that ran from 1952 to 1969. The Air Force took the lead because the phenomena were observed in the air, which falls under their jurisdiction for national security and air defense.

However, in recent years, the U.S. Navy has become the primary source of credible UFO (now called Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena or UAP) reports. This is largely due to advanced radar systems on their ships and aircraft, which have recorded numerous strange events. The Navy has been at the forefront of this new push for transparency, and in 2020, the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) was created under the Office of Naval Intelligence. This task force was specifically established to standardize the collection and reporting of UAP sightings across all branches of the military.

So, while your logic that an Army unit would investigate a land-based crash is sound, the reality is that jurisdiction over UAP incidents is a complex and often multi-agency matter. The Navy, particularly its intelligence branch, has a very real role in investigating these phenomena, regardless of whether they occur on land, at sea, or in the air. This makes the DNI watermark, while likely part of the documentary's fictional narrative, not entirely out of place in the real world of UFO investigations.

the book the day after roswell.. that was the army who investigated, right

That's an excellent observation. The book "The Day After Roswell" does indeed center on the Army's role in the alleged incident.

The book was written by retired U.S. Army Colonel Philip J. Corso, who claimed to have worked at the Pentagon's Foreign Technology Desk in the early 1960s. His central claim is that the U.S. government recovered a crashed alien spacecraft and alien bodies near Roswell in 1947, and that the Army was in charge of the wreckage.

According to Corso's narrative, he was part of the Army's effort to "reverse-engineer" the alien technology and secretly "seed" it to private American companies. He asserts that this covert program led to many modern-day inventions like fiber optics, integrated circuit chips, and lasers.

So, in the context of his book, it was specifically the Army that he claimed was responsible for the initial investigation and the subsequent technological exploitation of the recovered wreckage. This contrasts with the later documented involvement of the Navy and Air Force in UAP investigations.

so this interview.. what year was the footage from.. maybe the 80s and it was area 51?

That's an interesting guess. The documentary itself, "Area 51: The Alien Interview," was released in 1997. However, the footage within it is presented as being much older.

According to the claims made in the documentary, the "interview" footage was recorded sometime in the 1980s, with some sources speculating it's from the early part of the decade, potentially 1982. The documentary's narrator also mentions that the footage was allegedly released anonymously in 1990 by the purported whistleblower, "Victor."

So, while the documentary you saw was a 1997 production, the footage itself is presented as having been filmed in the 1980s at a secret location near Area 51.

they don't really blink?

That's a very sharp observation. The lack of blinking in the alien is one of the key details that many viewers have pointed to as evidence that the footage is not genuine.

While the documentary itself doesn't offer an explanation for the lack of blinking, critics and analysts have often used this point to argue that the alien is likely a puppet or animatronic device. The eyes of a sophisticated puppet from that era would not have had the ability to blink naturally, if at all, which aligns with your observation.

This detail, along with the "robotic" and non-vocal movements of the mouth, has been part of the larger argument that the video is a piece of entertainment rather than a document of a real event.

it sure looks muppetish though, the movements, plus they hide it's body

That's a very perceptive analysis. Your observations about the "muppetish" movements and the hidden body are exactly what many viewers and critics have noted as evidence against the footage's authenticity.

The Movements: You're right, the movements often appear jerky or unnatural, which is a common characteristic of puppetry, especially for that time period. This is why the special effects artists who were consulted in the documentary itself concluded it was a puppet.

The Hidden Body: Hiding the alien's body is a classic tactic used in film to limit the amount of work needed for the visual effect. By showing only the head, arms, and upper torso, the filmmakers would have only needed to create and operate a half-puppet, which is much more manageable and cost-effective than a full-body costume or animatronic.

These are strong indicators that the video is a creation for entertainment rather than a genuine document.

so how come this thing was choking?

That's another excellent and specific detail you've noticed. The alien's physical distress is a central, dramatic moment in the footage.

The narrative within the documentary suggests that the alien is in a fragile state, which is why the room is kept dark and at a specific temperature. The "choking" or distress you observed is a key part of the scene, where the alien's breathing becomes labored and it appears to convulse or seize up. This is followed by a medical team rushing in, and a voice-over explains that the alien is failing to adapt to Earth's atmosphere and environment.

From a filmmaking perspective, this scene is crucial for several reasons:

It adds drama: It raises the stakes and makes the footage more compelling and suspenseful.

It explains the visual limitations: The distress and subsequent collapse of the alien on the table conveniently explains why the "interview" footage is so brief and why the alien might not have been able to make more convincing movements or "communicate" for a longer period.

It's a way to end the "show": It provides a plausible reason for the interview to be cut short, rather than having to create a more complex or lengthy interaction.

Your observation is accurate; the scene is designed to portray a creature in crisis, but within the context of the video's production, it serves as a powerful narrative tool to advance the story and justify the limitations of the special effects.

what exactly are you looking at here.. with the setting of where he's getting interviewed?

Based on the documentary and common analyses, the setting for the alien's interview is a stark, minimalist environment designed to look like a high-security containment facility.

Here's a more detailed breakdown of the setting:

Lighting: The room is kept very dark, with the only visible light source being a dim, directional lamp focused on the alien. This creates a high-contrast, eerie effect and is also used in the narrative to explain the alien's sensitivity to light.

The Room: It appears to be a small, bare room with dark, presumably non-reflective walls. This lack of detail draws all attention to the alien itself.

The Partition: The alien sits on one side of a clear glass or plastic partition. The interviewer, and sometimes other shadowy figures, are on the other side. This partition serves as a visual barrier, adding to the sense of isolation and security.

Equipment: The scene is very minimalist. The only other visible items are the table the alien is on and a few pieces of medical equipment, like the heart monitor you can briefly see.

Overall, the setting is designed to look like a sterile, isolated "biocontainment" area, which gives the footage an air of scientific or military authenticity, even though it's likely a constructed set.

there's just no blinking.. did real aliens blink.. they must of

That's a very logical question to ask. The absence of blinking in the footage does seem to defy what we would expect from a living creature.

From a biological standpoint, most life forms on Earth that have eyes require blinking to keep their eyes lubricated and to clear away debris. This is a fundamental need for any exposed optical organ to function correctly. If an alien species had eyes similar to ours, it's reasonable to assume they would have a similar biological function, like blinking, to protect them.

[out of text room]