It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Skinny Bob Colorized and New Details

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 06:59 PM
Some people soooooooooooo want to believe that Bob is a hoax.

Some say a South African named Judy Falstogg claimed to be "Ivan0135", the same Ivan who released the original video. Some say this has been debunked.

Skeptics say Judy is a liar. They say she lied about the signals and she lied about working for NASA.

So why do they all of a sudden believe her if she says she is the one responsible for buying the Bob videos?

According to skeptics she takes credit for things she did not do. Did she really buy the Bob videos, or is she just taking credit for it and actually has nothing to do with it?

Or do they think the Antarctica thing is all made up and just a cover lie for her to add credibility to the videos?

Does anyone really think Judy created these videos, do they think she is the master CGI artist?

To quote one of our resident skeptics.

“Pics or it didn’t happen.”

If you do not have pics of Judy with the original visuals, in any form, then it did not happen.

Does anyone even have a filmed interview of her saying she bought the videos in Antarctica?


But what if Judy did buy the Bob videos? Or what if the whole Antarctica thing was made up and Judy got the tapes from someone local? This does not mean the videos themselves are faked or that this is a hoax. It taints our pictures, sure, but does not mean they are phony.

If Judy robbed a bank and went outside and saw a man shoot a woman on the street; it does not mean the man did not shoot the woman.

One wrong does not always make two.

posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 06:59 PM
The Antarctic - Russia - South Africa connection.

We know Ivan is a Russian name. We have heard that supposedly Judy Falstogg lived in South Africa.

South Africa is one if the closest places to Antarctica. No stretch that if “Ivan” worked at Vostok Station he could take his leave in nearby South Africa. He could have met Judy there and told her about the videos, telling her that if she wanted them she would have to come to Antarctica to get them and that she would have to pay him in person, no money through the mail trail. As the story goes, “she was there for weeks” trying to get them. Once she was there Ivan probably showed her a sample of Bob and then raised his selling price. Did this cause a delay in her leaving, or was that the duration of her visit to begin with. If she took a cruise ship to Antarctica, the time would have already been set. Unless Judy had government or corporate connections (NASA anyone?), then she had to pay a hefty price just to get to Antarctica.

As I posted before, this price would be worth it in the long run if it helped out her bad NASA reputation. And it could lead to a windfall of money by reselling the videos.

The films start with a KGB badge/logo. This does not appear to be the same exact logo scene as the one seen in the Roger Moore video. But it could be, if they added white scratch lines and a ghost image of the logo to the right of the real one. So it could be a copy of that video.

If real, then this could be a KGB film, filmed by Russians, or it could be film that was bought or stolen from the Americans. It has been said by one of the re-posters that the original frames, where Bob is sitting working on some test, actually is a crop, and that the original frame shows military men sitting and standing around him. You can see the arm of one of these men on Bob’s left, in the top left corner of the frame as it is now.

Too bad we cannot see what kind of uniform he is wearing.

Ivan0135 is the YouTube name of the original video poster, most likely the owners’ media connection. It is doubtful that the owner of the tapes published the videos, because they would want to keep some distance between themselves and the authorities. So the tape owner - the one who in the above scenario lives and works in Antarctica – probably would not be named Ivan, because then his media connection could be exposing him. Something the videos themselves state did not happen. Using the name Ivan probably just relates to the idea that these were films in the possession of the KGB. But it could also be that the owner was a Russian in Antarctica.

Or Judy could have lied about the whole Antarctic thing. Either way, it’s ice cold food for thought.

posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 07:00 PM

“In response to post about the documents:

The material is an edited compilation of the documents that we have.

Your opinion and the conclusion you draw from this material do not depend on us.

Maybe you are looking in the wrong direction.

You are the ones who reject this material.

Sources will not be revealed.

Information that may involve any agency or people will not be disclosed.

There is not any reference which may link the material to any organization that is working today in the material exposed.

However, you are speculating and making conjectures about its origins.

The material does not belong to any film, video game, television series or other commercial products that have been revealed to date or which are currently in production.

No one who is out of this may prove to be the owner of this material.

No one who is out of this can prove he has in his possession the original material.

The revelation of further material will depend on the events and people.

You are the ones who create your own misinformation.”


Note that he stated “we”, meaning Ivan is not alone.

“No one who is out of this” – maybe that is Russian speak for *anyone not involved*

posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 11:23 PM
a reply to: bally001


posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 01:05 AM
a reply to: kobalt7

originally posted by: kobalt7
lol I just posted on the old thread of this a days ago because someone else brought up ivans video

ivan0135 lifted it from 351NOVA who lifted it from a UFO documentary that I have somewhere from the mid 2000s(I've yet to look for it), which 351NOVA stated on this thread.

I am an expert who has worked with CGI and video FX since 1995, professionally since 1999. Even without knowing the source I could tell you despite it being well done by a professional, there are multiple clues that identify it as a 3D render that was brought into after effects for processing based on the date of production. Other software can do it now but based on when i saw it the industry standards at the time were Autodesk 3DSMAX or Softimage and Adobe After Effects. These days it could be done way way better but this was peak for early 2000s.

1. Timecode (cited by other people already)
2. 50s style grain pattern loops (35 millimeter camera plugins and stock overlays available in after effects)
3. short clips(3D renders can take hours per frame more cost effective, longer clips would have shown more telltale signs thus easier to debunk)
4. stretching above eyes while blinking characteristic of 3d low polygonal modeling (less polygons means textures stretch farther when the polygons are moved)
5. mechanical head motion between start and stop points shows typical easing characteristic of basic tweening using only a few keyframes.
6. Framerate, grain, sound, contrast and film degradation do not match any one camera rather multiple.

And this is just after watching it a couple times. I'm sure I could cite far more but your free to continue to believe what you want at the end of the day.

As for Cost this could be easily reproduced by a average pro studio for FAR less then you'd think even back then. I can break it down.

The short clips and low res make it so renders could be high quality and rendertimes low even lower now utilizing a renderfarm.
the film grain, sound and color overlays would take a few hrs at most in post production. I could crank this part out in a few hours.
The 3d render cut corners because of the high contrast, short clips and low resolution. The focus was solely on the face and hand modelling and texturing, prolly about 2 days time for someone who specializes in character modeling in zbrush, I'd have to ask my old coworker how long it would take him but for me it would take 4 or 5 days to create, 2 day sculpt in zbrush 3 day low poly model for rigging and texturing. The character animator could do this in literally 2 hrs since there's so little motion beyond a basic head movement and a few subtle moves.

This a basic breakdown I give to project managers on the daily.

All in all I imagine it could be done by a decent team for around 10,000 for a small studio and up to 35,000 for a high end studio. with the results being of equal or greater quality.

That story looks like BS.

That link goes to nowhere, every site that mention the same link and forum has the same link from davidicke forum that goes to nowhere, all the others links that has "..." (3 dots to shorten it) works, the only one that does not work is the one that is linked to "" and every site that mention that story has the same link with 3 dots "viewvi...rea_51_part_1" and never a real link, I tried maybe combination to find anything similar on and I couldn't find anything.

Looks like some1 just made it up, where is the doc? why he doesn't upload it? so looks like some bs to discredit the video, I'm not saying I believe it, I would say fake, but I don't think it's was done by some random troll, otherwise we would have a bunch of similar videos.
edit on 8-10-2019 by IRussao because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-10-2019 by IRussao because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 02:12 AM
I did go thru a few drives today but the farthest they went back was 2009. The rest of my drives are in boxes in my garage. I'm not invested enough to dig that deep, I only attempted to help expose a video meant to trick people, I saw a place on this website that I felt I could contribute my professional opinion because I felt confident in my knowledge of both the software and skills needed. Call it BS to discredit the video or call it trying to help pull the wool out of peoples eyes. What you do with that information is on you.

People will always look for things that will support their own ideology and discredit things that do not. I'm not here to fix what's wrong with people. As I've said at the end of the day your free to believe what you want.

If what I've said makes you uncomfortable that's fine but if you can't see through something this easy then expect to dance to someone else's tune in the future. This was done with yesterdays technology and future fakes will be much much harder to discredit.

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 02:31 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 03:23 AM
Those 'skinny Bob's would have very short life spans due to their over sized heads?

Merrick's death was ruled accidental and the certified cause of death was asphyxia, caused by the weight of his head as he lay down. Treves, who performed an autopsy on the body, said that Merrick had died of a dislocated neck

John Merrick 1862 - 1890 had the same problem as 'skinny Bob.

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 10:37 AM
My last post vanished while I was welcoming new member OhPee and the ban

hammer went down on them

I was welcoming them as the 4th new member from page six of this thread who

seemingly joined ATS specifically to post on this thread who's OP joined...... did

twenty random quick posts so that they could start this thread which has been their

sole interest since?!!!

This is a conspiracy site? OK I smell a conspiracy.

Many long standing members have come on to this thread and have posted links

to hoaxes and pointed out that most of the points were covered 8/9 years ago and

ended up on this and other sites as hoaxes, only to be ignored and by passed.

Seems there is a certain rapport between a few members egging each other on

agreeing with them and spinning the thread to suit each situation... indeed there

is a familiarity in the composition of the posts of these members

Food for thought

edit on 8-10-2019 by eletheia because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 10:42 AM
Another way to think about this is trying to sort out how much money this Judy character made off the endeavor.

Someone quoted around 250k to produce a fake video of this quality at the time it surfaced.

Lets assume that between the cost of the video, travel costs, misc. expenses and opportunity cost of not making money while crafting this hoax it the cost was minimum 250k - perhaps more.

So she would have needed to make let’s say 300k plus off this before it becomes a worthwhile financial exercise. That’s a lot of money off of a short/hoax video. I don’t think most “UFO speakers” are getting 50k in Appearance money, for instance, so to me the hoax would have to be perpetrated by a professional who did this for lols (side project thus materially reducing costs), someone with a quarter mil to blow and gets their rocks off to #’in with the UFO community and funded it, or someone put up the capital hoping it would be a good investment and it probably wasn’t.

Not saying the above makes this genuine but when I walk through the money aspect of this it Makes this being the genuine article somewhat more plausible.

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 06:31 PM

originally posted by: IRussao
That story looks like BS.

I read as much as I could about Bob over the weekend and a couple of places mentioned that Nova has been debunked. That Nova is a fake.

I have not read the actual Nova story yet, so I look forward to that. Nor have I had a chance to read page 10 here or anything past your post.

With that in mind I am going to post next what I have already taken the time to write.

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 06:40 PM

originally posted by: eletheia
Those 'skinny Bob's would have very short life spans due to their over sized heads?

Merrick's death was ruled accidental and the certified cause of death was asphyxia, caused by the weight of his head as he lay down. Treves, who performed an autopsy on the body, said that Merrick had died of a dislocated neck

John Merrick 1862 - 1890 had the same problem as 'skinny Bob.

If you believe the mythology, the typical Grey Alien doesn't really have a digestive system, either. They're like organic robots that are meant to do a limited job, and then they die (or whatever). But if we're going to speculate, maybe their necks are not like ours, but rather like a sinewy composite tube that is flexible but nearly impossible to kink or break.

Other speculation? The clothing is grown on them like an organism or an external layer of skin. Just looks like cloth.

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 06:43 PM
The tape trail scenario?

In the 1980’s the military transferred old film records to VHS tape. It has been said that “the digital overlay is typical of film to video transfer of old military films being preserved.” Supposedly this leak occurred when someone involved in the transfer copied 12 hours of it which they kept for themselves. This then would be the Original Owner of the tapes.

At some point in time someone edited the videos into a small preview trailers, like they do for Hollywood movies. They wanted to show small glimpses of the overall whole.

So someone edited the videos and added a time stamp, probably so they could keep track of all their edits that were coming out of 12 hours of video. But like the film, the time stamp also looks old, which points toward a possible fake.

The videos were also edited by adding text like:

“The video contains a sample edited fragments of video tape 05.
Tape duration: 180 min.”

The videos were also edited by blacking out words. These words that were blanked out were hinted at by a later Ivan video when he stated:

“Information that may involve any agency or people will not be disclosed.”

So if real, what we may have is this scenario:

Original film was taken over several decades by the military and owned by the government and its agencies.

The original films were transferred to VHS tape at which point someone stole 12 hours’ worth of copies and hiding them away, became the owner of the tapes we are talking about.

Whoever owned the tapes in April, 2011, released a small portion to the world over the internet. So, as the story goes, they gave them to their media connection. Before released, these tapes were edited into small segments, which according to the time stamps; do not follow a chronological timeline. They seem to be mixed up.

The first saucer is filmed from a road bound vehicle, while the second saucer is filmed from the air. So these easily could be 2 different craft, and according to the time stamp, they are from different times in the original video. Time wise, they do not follow one after another.

The second saucer being filmed from a nearby flying craft. We see it flying over the countryside for 10 seconds. Then we see a quick glimpse of a standing Grey alien like Bob, but with a much looser turtleneck. To me, this loose turtle neck adds somewhat to the fake side of things.

Next scene we are back to the same saucer laying on the ground up against a rocky ridge or a tree, I cannot tell which. In my memory, this saucer does not seem to match the eyewitness accounts of the second crashed disc at Roswell. So if real, I say this downed disc is from another crash.

There is a Greys body lying near it in what looks to be the desert. Then we see several seconds of a group of Greys lying down, with at least one moving.

But there are reasons to think this saucer might be fake. It is flying over non-desert country side yet seems to have crashed in the desert. So did the plane filming it shoot it down? Or was it in trouble already and that was how the plane was able to get next to it and film it? It is a stretch for me to think that the same saucer filmed flying at close range one day, would later be filmed crashed in a different place at a different time. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

If someone faked these great looking Bob videos, why bother making and adding all these other shadowy scenes? Maybe because they worked on those first and felt that since they had put forth so much time and effort they might as well release them?

Sometime after the edits were done, the media connection (Ivan0135) started to release these videos to YouTube. Ivan probably also made at least 6 sock accounts, thereby giving the video more chance to get out to the public in case the original account was closed down and censored by the government.


Make so many that the government cannot censor them all in time. And why censor them… because they are real of course.

So instead of one person getting all the glory, the glory gets spread around to make sure the truth gets out.

As stated in the videos themselves, the idea was to get the videos out into the mainstream as soon as possible, before they could be censored by those wanting the films to stay hidden.

And sure enough, re-posted versions rapidly multiplied. One begot six which brought forth dozens.

Once the first video was out it started spreading because other YouTube users reposted it, with several adding music and one adding a projector sound. No one complained about the music but boy did they complain about the projector. Yet this user told us 8 YEARS AGO in the end of the video that he ADDED THE PROJECTOR sound.

Deniers and the shills paid to keep the cover-up in place quickly jumped on the projector excuse without looking at the visual text evidence describing the projector. Ivan0135 released 4 videos in total; none of them had a projector sound. It was “Disclosure3” who had the sound added.

Ivan’s last video was the one with text explaining:

“Sources will not be revealed.

Information that may involve any agency or people will not be disclosed.

There is not any reference which may link the material to any organization that is working today in the material exposed.”

So we have:
Original owner
2011 Owner
Media connection

So how does lying Judy fit into this?
Does anyone really think she created Bob?
Could she be the 2011 owner, having bought the tapes like she said and then made them public?
Could she have simply taken the video and re-posted it under her name, as has been done with this video several times over?
Was she Ivan, was she a sock or was she just a re-poster?
Where did she get the big bucks to do all this?
Was she involved at all, or like her NASA accusers say, was she taking credit for something she did not do?

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:56 PM
I made a mistake. Not sure if anyone noticed this or not, as I have not been able to finish reading all the post here.

I posted that the original Ivan0135 video DID NOT have the projector sound in it. But I just happened to watch it again. It starts without sound but sound does show up when Bob shows up. And that is the projector sound. So Ivan DID have the projector sound.

"The copy with the projector sound is the real copy," wrote Judy. "The original is in a safe place, we have made several copies of it for safety sake should the original be confiscated by the military. If there are two versions then someone has already copied and redistributed it.

The sound was explained 8 years ago at the end of one of the videos re-posted by Disclosure3 where he said he added the projector sound. Yet sure enough, the projector sound was in the original Ivan0135 video, Judy even refers to this in the Grant interview above. So why is Disclosure3 saying he put it into the video?

Could D3 be the video editor?

In 2011 I figured the sound was there because we were looking at an old film being shown and it was being filmed by a newer camera which picked up the sound of the projector while it was recording it. If so, why would it need to be added?

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 05:14 PM
I believe the controversy surrounding the projector was not the fact that it could be heard, rather it sounded 'wrong'.

The most original aspect of dear 'ole Skinny Bob is that nobody came forward to claim responsibility for shooting the footage, or, for example, claiming they'd met the cameraman at a secret location to make monetary transactions etc in the usual fashion. In other words, they didn't do a 'Santilli' - so I applaud that aspect.

Unless we take "Judy"'s word for it... which may be as reliable as a propane ashtray after the embarrassing 2010 'alien signal' debacle.

In the meantime, I want a cuddly Skinny Bob toy!

posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 11:20 AM

I believe the controversy surrounding the projector was not the fact that it could be heard, rather it sounded 'wrong'.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
So has anyone done a deep dive analysis on the audio?

It seems like the projector issue would be easy to test. Just run an old reel of film projected on a screen or wall. As you are watching the film you can hear the projector. While this is happening, take video of it with a camcorder which would record the sound of the projector.

Then you could hear the sound of the projector while the same type of film (8mm/16mm/etc.) is running.

How hard can it be? Or is there something else I am missing here?

posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 11:23 AM

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Unless we take "Judy"'s word for it.

What are our options?

1 Judy is telling the truth, she spent money on the already created videos (at least one 180 minute VHS or Camcorder tape). Regardless of if she knew they were fake or knew they were real, or where she bought them, this is a legitimate possibility. This means they could be real or they could be fake.

2 Judy is lying, she spent money to have fake videos created. This means they are fake.

3 Judy is lying, she spent no money and merely jumped on the bandwagon by re-posting an already created video. Then she took credit for it. This means she does not know if they are real or if they are fake.

And where is this Judy video of Bob? There are plenty of Bob videos but I have not found one with her name attached to it. Did she delete it or change her YouTube name?

posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:19 PM

originally posted by: kobalt7
ivan0135 lifted it from 351NOVA who lifted it from a UFO documentary.

So you are saying Ivan stole it from Nova?

The standard rumor was that Ivan and Nova were the same person. But there are places on the net that say that the Nova connection was debunked in 2011 and that the Nova/Ivan story is fake.

Apparently what was seen on TV was supposed to have been copied by Nova and turned into his pre-Bob version. Yet no one seems to have found the original shows clips. All the links to videos that prove Ivan is Nova go nowhere. After 8 years these should be set in stone. The rumor that claims these videos have been confirmed as a hoax created by a 3D artist called Ivana Gemizicka who used to call himself Mr351Nova on YouTube seems to be a false rumor with no proof behind it.

From the website you linked there is an Email Mr351Nova sent to a senior member at

“Yeah that's all correct , i had an old acct under 351NOVA , my real name is Billy Cruse , i am 42 and i was the owner of (closed now** . It's was a gaming site nothing more , no ufo alien stuff just online gaming.

I have always owned up to making the old alien videos with movie maker , it was a joke and i still can't beleave there still around , i have always posted in the comments when i see them that there fake and i made them .

Feel free to re post this anywhere you like ,

I am NOT ivan0135 , i did not make his videos i now run windows 7 with movie maker live witch is not what made ivan's videos , he used something that cost a lot of money to make them .

That man who is trying to link me to ivan0135 is NUT's .

Bill Cruse AKA Mr351Nova AKA 351NOVA.”

SO IN CONCLUSION Bill is saying he is Nova but not Ivan. And that Skinny Bob is not Nova’s alien.

Either way, I think the following may be Bill/Nova’s video, and may have to do with what you are talking about.

Referenced here:

posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 05:15 PM
a reply to: ByteChanger

Yes, if this is real, I think what we are looking at is an old film being projected on a screen or wall and it is being filmed with a camcorder. So we hear the projector, we have a timestamp and it is on tape.

Most camcorders have timestamps, correct?

So if you take say a Sony Handycam and record an 8mm film that is being shown/projected onto the wall in your room, when you play the camcorder tape back you will hear the projector and see the timestamp, correct?

So it could be that this IS the original film being filmed by a camcorder onto camcorder tape.

NOT movie film transferred to VHS tape.

They then edited the date with a black bar.

Why edit the date. Why hide the fact that you re filmed the original film?

My guess is that they thought the date would automatically make people think fake. So they blacked out the date and faded the stamp to match the film.

I think this actually works against them, making it appear fake. They should have just left it there as is and explained that it was a film made of the original film.

edit on 10-10-2019 by spiritualarchitect because: timestamp

posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 02:29 AM
Does this really sound like a projector running in the background while this is being filmed with a camcorder? It seems the mic for the camcorder would need to be right next to the projector and facing it to produce that level of sound. I don't hear the slight distance that comes from someone sitting in a room while filming this, that's missing. It sounds like a direct copied version of a projector purposely placed in the video to make it seem old.

I think the "alien" itself is well done and looks organic. But semi-easily made using a relatively cheap CGI software like Zbrush, as mentioned. It wouldn't necessarily take a $250,000 budget. Hiring a crew to sculpt, mold, cast, paint, mechanize, and perform the puppetry would take a large amount. But I think the blinking is too fluid of a movement to be a mechanized movement. I worked with Zbrush for years and when I stopped, they were updating from 250k poly count to 1 million in 2004 I believe. They also had premade heads, bodies etc. where you could begin a Zbrush sculpture with a professional looking sculpture and work from there. It's a fairly easy program to work with, modeling a form on screen like clay.  So an "utter genius" isn't necessary.
The movement of the skin on the eyebrows relative to the lids blinking at the same time seems overly emphasized. Not a natural movement on humans of course.

I'm not familiar with and don't know how customizable the vertical scratch marks on the aging of the film can be edited. I see dark vertical lines near his face at the beginning, the focal point of the film. When the film cuts to move up and show the dark clothing, the lines turn white on the right side against the dark background of the clothing. That again, could be a purposeful addition to subconsciously put in the back of the mind the age of the film. I don't see much, if any, white lines across his shoulder in the first part.

edit on 12-10-2019 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in