It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 11
45
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

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.



Over-emphasised movement is still a flaw for CGI in general, and continues today in movies under the mistaken impression that excessive 'twitching' (or 'blinking' in this case) underlines realism... when in reality it achieves the exact opposite.


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




posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Honestly the effort made to make this appear old should be the most basic giveaway aside from the things I pointed out with the 3D, the excessive scratching overlay coupled with smooth framerate and motion, the stock projector sound and the timecode addition. All these things were noticed immediately by non professionals precisely because they don't fit.

I think those that refuse to believe it choose to do so out of the need to validate the stories we have all read over the years. Hoaxes like this need to be scrutinized otherwise our community loses its way and it leads to people only willing to believe what suits them. It's hard to deny ignorance if nobody can accept they might be ignorant. It's pure arrogance to assume you know better then someone who's spent their life in a field of study.

I'm not discrediting this video because I'm a skeptic or some mysterious agent but every post that propagates this type of hoax contributes to less and less people taking ufology seriously. In the wake of professionals of the past dying off, we need to work that much harder. That means we need to question things more in this day and age because far more people will spend the time to take advantage of us as a community.

Some of the stories I see being pushed in here in the last 15 yrs would have never flown 20-30 years ago because we had people who were witnesses to the actual history or held degrees in the very sciences involved. I see players resurfacing now that were delegated to the sidelines 15 years ago precisely because they were suspect, We as a community are slipping back into the UFO cult days of the 50s and with it goes any semblance of credibility.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: kobalt7


every post that propagates this type of hoax contributes to less and less people taking ufology seriously

That fear causes people to stop looking at things objectively and instead focus on how the public would react.
Since this sounds ridiculous, people assume it must be fake.

There's no reason to believe the film grain is fake and 16fps isn't very smooth.



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Actually there are several reasons to believe the film grain is fake. Here are a few, I actually loaded it into after effects and went thru it frame by frame this time.

The grain and scratch pattern sits on a layers both above and below the timecode and extends beyond the expected aspect ratio. The film perforations are cropped out but the grain is not. Scratches repeat in same locations rather than drift like with actual film scratching. Recording of a camcorder capturing a projector like this would have specific blurring, banding and distortion that is not correct in this video.

I suspect most of the people who are still convinced this is legit have limited experience with film formats like VHS or older film reel cameras as well as 3D and video FX. This reminds me of the people on youtube who would see the blocking and artifacts in early internet video compression and were convinced people were reptilian shape-shifters. I suppose if you don't know what your seeing or what to look for its easy to confuse it with something else entirely.



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The movement of the eyelids looks exactly like they're attached to a servo motor and occasionally the operator stops midway rather than going fully open to fully closed to try to make them look more natural.



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: kobalt7


The grain and scratch pattern sits on a layers both above and below the timecode and extends beyond the expected aspect ratio.


Show us.



Scratches repeat in same locations rather than drift like with actual film scratching.

It looks like other film scratches. I think if they put in all this effort, they could bother to get a cheap authentic film scratch filter that lasts less than 2 minutes. It's easier to find real ones than fake which is why you look for loops which I see none.



I suppose if you don't know what your seeing or what to look for its easy to confuse it with something else entirely.


Show us what you're seeing, that should clear all this up.



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Imagewerx
That's because he is stretching the eye down and the farther you pull the polygons down the more the texture stretches on top of it and above it, going the complete distance would increase the texture distortion beyond the area just above and around the eyes.

The area around the eyes is super dark is to try to hide this texture stretching as possible. You'll notice a slight dip in the area where the pull on the polygons is focused, this caught my eye immediately because it looks to me like it involved using a thing called soft selection, which I had struggled with animating years ago in 3DSMAX.

The reason it seems like a servo is driving the eyelids is because keyframing polygon point animation at that time could not apply easing without applying a fair bit of programming, this makes it so going from point A to point B followed a linear path with no easing, giving a mechanical feel to the motion. If this were a puppet animation you would still have that mechanical motion but the texture stretching wouldn't be an issue. This texture stretching helped rule out this video being a puppet.



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity
Let me break it down for you, it would require cutting the video into individual compositions for each point you want me to make, pausing on specific frames to circle, identify and explain each point and essentially spend a couple days of my free time and work for free to convince you that a film of an alien is fake.

I have debated doing this but this benefits me in no way and I feel like I've already spent a lot of time just making my points as detailed as possible. This attitude that I should make a video debunking this after a few have already been made debunking other parts and been ignored seems like wasted effort, in the end people are going to believe what they want facts be damned.



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: kobalt7
Imagine that I make entry level paycheck at 60 an hr, and this took 1 day at 8 hrs. Your asking me to do $480 dollars of work for free.

(after 20 years in the industry and average small agency costs this should be around $90 to $125 an hr, so $720 to $1,000 for a days worth of work)



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: kobalt7

Which are real and which are fake.
vimeo.com...

should take you less than 5 minutes.



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity

They all look like stock film footage

At first glance #1 and #3 look legit, #2 might be legit but the framerate seems edited and #4 is from the red giant suite.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 12:45 AM
link   
To my eye this video looks the the latest work by 'Ivan' or whoever.

Or at least is using the same software -








edit on 14-10-2019 by A51Watcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: A51Watcher

That's a compilation of a few different clips that have been floating around separately, As far I was able to research on the Vril ships I think there is something to the tales but there have been a lot of fake videos and pics that were made for Nazi UFO programs over the last 50 years, its a pretty popular conspiracy.

As for the Nazi bell that was pretty well debunked for me, there are a few threads regarding that story here that you can look up with a wealth of info. The device was part of the Nazi atomic program, because they were cut off from obtaining the right type of uranium because of the war they attempted to create it using a "uranium breeder", the technology wasn't a big mystery at the time and the exchange of information regarding the breeder took place in the 30s during a nuclear symposium.

The thing they were calling the "flytrap" that they had for testing "the Bell" it was actually a base for a water tower, the article I read broke this all down and had pictures from the time period showing another water tower nearby with the same base.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: kobalt7
a reply to: A51Watcher

That's a compilation of a few different clips that have been floating around separately, As far I was able to research on the Vril ships I think there is something to the tales but there have been a lot of fake videos and pics that were made for Nazi UFO programs over the last 50 years, its a pretty popular conspiracy.

As for the Nazi bell.....


Yeah, certain ones of those clips have the same focus (or lack thereof) and texture and aging affects to my eye as the Skinny Bob series from Ivan (or whoever he was). As a producer after a while you start to recognize other producers style and work.

And yes that's a good summary of "the Bell" and "the Flytrap" story.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: kobalt7


#4 is from the red giant suite.

Would that mean it's fake?

What frames of Skinny Bob look "fake" to you?
I really want to see where the "film scratches go beyond the expected aspect ratio".
I went through frame by frame, looks real.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: kobalt7
Honestly the effort made to make this appear old should be the most basic giveaway aside from the things I pointed out with the 3D, the excessive scratching overlay coupled with smooth framerate and motion, the stock projector sound and the timecode addition. All these things were noticed immediately by non professionals precisely because they don't fit.

Yeah, they went a little overboard on the sepia tone, jacked up contrast, scratching and other attempts to make it look "old," that's for sure.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
If it is real then they did not have to do anything to it because it IS OLD.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   
The problem here with it being CGI is that the CGI experts should have immediately put out their versions of Bob that they made with CGI. But not CGI person did so. Not one. This leans toward the footage being real.

And now it is too late for them to do anything about it. It's just he said she said. Because they would do it with 219 technology which is 8 years further along.

So this needs to be a lesson to all the CGI people. If this kind of thing happens again, the CGI people need to put out there own CGI versions to show how easy it could be faked. Not sit on their buns talking about it like they have done since 2011.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   
The very first video was released by Ivan in April, 2011 - 2 weeks before “Bob” first appears.

At 38 seconds into the video, the timestamp says “23 00:48:15” and we are looking at the Grey lying on the ground beside the grounded saucer, possibly dead, or possibly reaching out his hand toward the camera man.

The visual goes dark for a moment and then at 39 seconds we get a different scene, one where there are several Greys lying down that are apparently naked from the chest up. One appears to be covered at the waist by a blanket. This group of Greys could be at an entirely different location and not near the downed saucer at all. For all we know they could be inside a military facility after a crash retrival.

At this point we are 39 seconds into the video and the timestamp says “24 00:47:30”. I am assuming this means 24 hours, 47 minutes 30 seconds.

So it looks like the editor just skipped over 59 minutes and 45 seconds of film and taken us to a whole different time and place?

But if there is only 21 hours of film total, why would it say 24 hours?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity

the clip from red giant VFX suite is digital but it could have been sourced from real footage, there are elements with it that look legit. In a lot of stock footage like this they source what they can from actual footage.

I covered what parts of skinny bob looked fake to me already but the blinking was my first clue as I noticed it immediately. Everything else I noticed after a few viewings.

Bump up the contrast and look at everything beyond the aspect ratio, also notice the heavy banding yet no distortion on the aspect border.

Your free to quiz me to test my competency and if you feel necessary to disregard the effort I've already put forth in trying to put this clip to bed.

My goal is to step up to the plate like those that came before me here and set the record straight and I only do this if I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is fake. As I said before believe what you want and argue your points, I will only do so much to convince you at the end of the day it is inevitably your choice.




top topics



 
45
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join