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: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 02:39 PM
a reply to: Blue Shift
well the original tone somewhat matches film taken prior to the 50s. The effect of tone changes with each transfer between mediums so I overlooked that.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 02:40 PM
In 2011 I watched all the videos and found them fun, thinking maybe Bob was real. I did not investigate them until the “Color” thread began. I am still looking into this Nova thing to see what else I can find because I find the whole thing rather fascinating.

As for the projector, the sound was explained 8 years ago at the end of one of the videos re-posted by Disclosure3. Yet the projector sound was in the original Ivan0135 video, Judy even refers to this in the Green interview. So why is Disclosure3 saying he put it into the video? Is D3 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?

It makes sense to me that the timestamp was added during the editing when the text and the black bars were added. If you are editing 21 hours of film then it really helps having a timestamp on it to tell where you are and what part you are editing. The timestamp usually displays DATETIME values in 'YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss'.

The blacked out part would be the date.

So the timestamp is not an issue of fakery, but the black bar and how old the timestamp looks is a problem. Why would they make the timestamp look old and not make the explanation text old too?

Again, the main problem is, the CGI “experts” waited too long to prove Bob was a fake. They are too late to do anything about it because technology is now 8 years ahead of where it was when Bob first came out. So if someone recreates Bob with CGI now they are not using 2011 technology, and there new improved Bob will not be valid.

So unless someone can come up with film of Bob being created, Bob still lives.

It is very possible that if Bob is real, that he has nothing to do with Roswell. If I recall, there were a few people still alive in 2011 who claimed to have seen the Roswell bodies and as far as I know, none of them has stated that Bob looked enough like them to have been the lone survivor.

And as far as I know, no one who said they worked with J-rod has come forward and said Bob was him.

If anything, Bob looks like the 3 in the Vacation video, which visually matches what supposedly went on at Holloman in 1964.

I am sure that EBE’s are here on this planet and that people have seen them in person, because somebody has to be flying those craft that I saw. The aliens that most people say they saw are the Greys. And we all know what the Greys are supposed to look like. If we sat one down and we filmed him today, how much different would he look than Bob? My guess is not much different at all, just maybe a bit meaner looking.

Like in 2011, I think Bob may be real, but the main reason I doubt it is that great looking Vacation video. I mean look at them, they are so cute! They look like females to me. Not sure if it is the slimness or the hips or that one might have breast, but they look like humans in costumes. They are too cute, who could be afraid of them?

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 02:41 PM
a reply to: spiritualarchitect
Not alot of artists would put that much work into debunking something obvious for free but I understand where your coming from.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 02:50 PM
a reply to: kobalt7

Some people seem to think it was not a lot of work:

Dave Hughes (BSc Digital Film and 3D Animation: Staffordshire University)

“To replicate this footage would take me somewhere between a week and ten days, perhaps even shorter. It seems simple, the animation isn’t extreme, and there is no colour value. There is also no anatomical definition in the feet or in the rest of the body as he is wearing a jumpsuit.”

“So to model him [build the basic outline and characteristics] should take two days, I reckon. Costing wise, for architectural stuff I would charge around £400 [$600] per day.”

“Depending on what software you use and your level of skill, I’d say you could get a good model by the end of day two.”


Well Dave, it is too bad you did not make your own CGI Bob when you had the chance. You could have been an internet star. Now you are 8 years too late and you still have not proved it is fake.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 02:53 PM
Apparently the Skeptic magazines do not have enough money to fund something that would put an end to Bob.

Let’s look at a few of the problems found in some of the other critics remarks.

“The shots of the aliens are dark and blurry, but even the ‘live’ one isn’t moving.”

Wrong. He is standing still to be measured for height but his right shoulder is still moving slightly toward the camera while his left shoulder is moving back. His fingers and arms are swaying and his eyes and head are clearly moving.


“there are three paragraphs of information on the screen, each character has a blurred drop-shadow behind it which makes me think that it was put together in something like Final Cut Pro,”

Yes, the text was not on the original film, it was added by the person preparing to release these preview videos onto the internet. So there is no problem with the text at all. There is also no problem with the blacked out lines because, as Ivan told us in video #4, no identities of any kind would be released on these videos.


The second screen of captions builds on the ‘secrecy and paranoia’ associated with so-called alien sightings throughout history, but this goes against the first screen of captions which calls for ‘dissemination through the Internet and media.’

No it does not go against it. The “secrecy” here is not about the films themselves; they want the films to get out to the public. The “secrecy” here has to do with the sources not being revealed. “Due to the importance of these documents, maintain the anonymity of the sources”.


“This isn’t any form of military-speak, its film-maker hype.”

Of course not, the military would not let this film out. The text is not from the original film, it is explanatory text from the editor who is releasing it into the world to “Filtrate for declassification and dissemination through the Internet and media.”.


“The third screen of captions is designed to add to the authenticity of the piece, but again all it does is fall into the hype trap. By inferring that what we’re seeing are fragments of longer recordings, we’re enticed to look further and anticipate more.”

Well DUH! If they are edited segments of longer films then there is a chance they would release more. This Ivan135 may just be the media connection and not the owner of the tapes. So Ivan is just releasing what he has and hoping for more.


“the notion of ‘tape duration 180min’ makes reference to video tape, which wasn’t around at the time.”

Once again, DUH. The original was on film. In the 1980’s the military transferred their films onto VHS tapes. If the visuals are real, then this was most likely the time when the 21 hours’ worth of copies were made. And pocketed, by the person making the transfers. This person would be the tapes original owner, having stolen them from the military/government. At some point they could have been sold to someone else. Either way, whoever owned them in 2011 decided to release them to the world and we got to see the edited trailer previews the Ivan released.


“the shot tilting up from its knees to its head where it is being measured for height. This is a somewhat cinematic shot, using a tilt. Personally speaking I don’t think that a camera operator with the responsibility of documenting events for the government and the military would indulge in such a camera move, even if it is only a basic move, and if they did then they would start at the head and tilt down, not start at the knees and tilt up. The building of suspense is what that shot is all about, not documenting a procedure.”

As we can all see, it is documenting a procedure. What our critic forgot is that this has all been edited and that there is a lot more film we are not seeing. So the original could show a whole lot more of this scene. But the editor has only given us a small portion, so he gave us “The building of suspense” portion. Nothing wrong with that.


“Also again, there’s a little too much detail in the clothing, with the folds and creases being visible when a camera of that era wouldn’t pick out that much detail.”

Interesting that the lines running down the front of Bobs’ outfit are not mentioned, as they could hide a zipper underneath.


“If it’s supposed to be a UFO filmed from another aircraft, then it looks nice and vague enough. But in terms of chronology, doesn’t it seem odd that we have footage of the UFO in flight that is filmed after the footage of the crashed alien? Wouldn’t the clips (and tape numbers) be the other way around?”

Yes, going by the timestamp, the editor has shown us things out of order. This is odd, but what is even odder to me is, if you have created this Great CGI of Bob and his buddies, WHY add shoddy looking footage of saucers and dead aliens?


“The bleached-out skin and heavily shadowed eyes are a clear sign of digital trickery”

The problem with this comment is that according to the eyewitnesses, their skin does have that look and they are wearing sun glasses. The dark eyes are actually dark lenses that are fit to their eye sockets to help them deal with the Earths light. Not just sunlight and moon light but electric light too.


“if the footage genuinely dated from the 1940s, we might expect to see ‘jumps’ and ‘jerks’ in any on-camera movement owing to natural degradation of the celluloid over time and to other damage the film may have incurred over six decades. Yet the “alien’s” movements are remarkably fluid. While we see jumps and jerks in the second video (the one of the crashed saucer), these too can be created digitally.”

They say there should be jumps and jerks and there are not. Then when there are jumps and jerks they say it can be faked. The critics want their cake and they want to eat it to. Also, there is nothing that says that the “alien” is from the 1940’s. Bob and his buddies could have been filmed in the 1960’s. The only difference is that Bob is in black and white.

And remember this; there is nothing in Ivan’s original May 2, 2011 video that says anything about Roswell.

Ivan’s exact text says:
“alien grey extraterrestrial zeta reticuli ufo leaked footage”


“The jumpsuit disguises most of the alien’s difficult-to-render skin (which would require very subtle and difficult texturing).”

Well we all want our aliens naked, don’t we. But according to the eyewitnesses, the Greys wear tight fitting outfits. Yet after the crash scene we actually get several Greys who appear to be naked from the chest up. Only one is moving while the others are lying there and not moving. One of these appears to be covered by a solid color military blanket below the waist. If Bob is from the Holloman landing, like the vacationers could be, then he would not be naked when he entered the military facility. If Bob had been filmed naked the critics would have complained that he had no clothes on.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 03:02 PM
It's not unreasonable to admit that the amount of footage we have is so paltry and of such poor quality that it begs the question: "Where's the rest of the footage?" and "Where is any corroborating documentation?" I assume that if somebody had aliens tucked away somewhere, they would be filming them constantly for years. So where is the better footage? Where is the mountain of paperwork? Nobody in all this time has ever spilled the beans with better, follow-up footage? Smells fishy.

Again, it plays like a movie trailer. Just show flashes of the good parts to suggest a story but not give away the ending. Let the viewer fill in the gaps with their own imaginations.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 03:10 PM
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

I didn't do anything in 2011 because to me it was obvious and In 2011 design agencies were getting hit with the effects of the 2008 bailout, I watched 5 agencies close there doors that year alone. They still haven't recovered and I spent between 2010 and 2015 struggling.

Also the timecode is an issue because there are several things about it that indicate it as being a digital addition with scratch layers above and below it and inconstant fade and blinking that does not match the surrounding video. Couple that with the dozens of other issues about this video It should be pretty clear.

I understand some of you may "Feel" this video is real but you are not an "expert". I don't assume I know better than a mechanic when my car starts acting up, telling him that I think he's wrong because I "feel" like its something else. Questioning his skill because I changed the oil a few times.

Think of how ridiculous that sounds, that's kinda how I feel right now. I get people questioning the very skill I nurtured as my life's work, trusting their own feelings because they can't see what I spent years training my eyes to see. Its a bit insulting to be honest, your lucky I came in and spent my time and my expertise to explain why you shouldn't believe everything you see on youtube. Is the goal here to prove me wrong, that the video must be real or just run off any real experts you have left on this site so only like minded people will contribute ideas that support your views rather than challenge them.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 03:28 PM

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
If we sat one down and we filmed him today, how much different would he look than Bob? My guess is not much different at all, just maybe a bit meaner looking.

... Not sure if it is the slimness or the hips or that one might have breast, but they look like humans in costumes. They are too cute, who could be afraid of them?

Why would he be "meaner looking" today, and why should anyone be "afraid of them"? Just wondering because it's an interesting human belief that visiting aliens should indeed have an aura of 'threat' about them (look at TTSA's constant intimations of 'threat'). Perhaps Hollywood is to blame.

One of Bob's most charming traits is his cuteness; in fact, it endears people to this story whether they believe in the footage or not. It cannot be definitively proven to be a fake, and it cannot be definitively proven to be genuine, ably assisted by nobody coming forward to claim responsibility for either choice - a masterstroke! (Perhaps they did indeed learn from the Santilli debacle.)

Instinctively, the whole thing screams "Fake!" - the 'obviousness' of the cliched images; the clothing; their very human struts; the awfully rendered blinking, etc... but no, it cannot be proven to be a fake beyond a reasonable doubt. THAT is its genius.

Whatever the case, the world would be poorer without the adorable Skinny Bob in it.

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

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 03:36 PM

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
One of Bob's most charming traits is his cuteness; in fact, it endears people to this story whether they believe in the footage or not.

It's a combination of big-eyed cuteness, like a Disney character, and the way he looks downtrodden. Cute animal in distress of some kind certainly makes people sympathetic.

So, yeah, fake or not, or whether the creators of the footage intended it, they managed to invoke an emotional response from the viewer much better than previous attempts. If I was going to put a date on when it might have been created, I would say sometime after the original Alien Autopsy, which would put it the late 90s, early 2000s.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 03:44 PM

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Nobody in all this time has ever spilled the beans with better, follow-up footage? Smells fishy.

“An employee of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency was arrested on federal charges that he leaked classified information, including details of a foreign country’s weapons systems, to two reporters in 2018 and this year.”

The above statement still happens. Maybe it happened in 2011?

Ivan0135 has only 4 videos, all released 8 years ago. Yet Ivan has over 4,000 subscribers, all waiting for him to release another video of Bob. As a YouTuber that should mean money in Bob's pocket.

So either there are no more videos – meaning the videos and/or the back story was fake.

Or the owner does not want to release the videos – because he wants to stay alive.

Or the owner of the videos is dead – drunk driving?

Or the owner of the videos is dead – because he was silenced by the agencies that want to keep Bob and his kind a secret – meaning the videos were authentic.

Or someone is in jail.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 03:55 PM

originally posted by: Blue Shift
If I was going to put a date on when it might have been created, I would say sometime after the original Alien Autopsy, which would put it the late 90s, early 2000s.

If I was a betting man, I'd say 2006 onwards. Santilli's hoax lasted eleven years (1995-2006) and I can imagine someone learning from the clumsy mistakes made in that case before they released Bob in 2011. (On a trivial note, Dr Kit Green was still being promised Special Access to supposedly genuine alien autopsy documentation until 2011... which never came to pass, of course.)

I can even imagine Bob Bigelow throwing money into the Skinny Bob project on the sly. Mere pocket-money for him and his obsessions, and something that would amuse him for decades.

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

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 04:09 PM

originally posted by: kobalt7
Is the goal here to prove me wrong

All those post I just made were written around page 9, so they are not directed at you personally. All you say may be true, but it is too late to prove it, CGI wise. It needed to be proved in 2011.

As I said, I think the timestamp is the real issue here. They could have filmed an old reel movie projected on to a screen, using a camcorder. I have one at home and though I do not have a projector to test it, if I stand over or near a portable fan while filming, the fan can be loud when played back. So they could have filmed over or next to an old projector and the sound of it would be loud. I have no issue with the projector, only the timestamp.

I do not know if it is fake, but I am not ruling out that it could be real.

Another poster, sean, has stated that the second saucer seen in the first video is identical to one he saw in 1987.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 04:14 PM

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Why would he be "meaner looking" today, and why should anyone be "afraid of them"?

Meaner, because Bob and his gang are too cute. Afraid, because abductees have mentioned fear when first seeing them.

You brought up a good point last week. How come no one has made Skinny Bob dolls?

I would think that would be a big money maker and who would sue the maker for image copyright infringement, Ivan?

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 04:35 PM

originally posted by: Blue Shift
"Where's the rest of the footage?"

"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. Well that’s good, that way it won’t be stopped. There is a lot more footage of this film to be released, + 180 minutes of it as well as other more interesting footage. Disclosure is happening..."

“A couple hours later I checked back and Judy had replied. She provided the confirmation that she was the soure of the video, "I am not associated with any group at all and I never have been with any group Grant. I am doing this by myself. I welcome the Alien Disclosure group to associate themselves with this video cause it takes tremendous pressure off me. I am just glad it's out. I am not into getting a prize or a pat on the back for it...

I paid a lot of money for it and spent 2 weeks in Antarctica to arrange the sale of this video to me. I am not "Forcing" disclosure, I am merely giving it a nudge along."

“Many questions remain unanswered and the investigation continues. Is the video real and Judy/James is just a pawn in getting it out? There is a higher quality copy on the internet, so the question of who has the original is still up in the air.”

- Grant Cameron 2011


“the sale of this video”

If there is any truth to this, I wonder if Judy (or someone else) only bought 1 tape. Only 180 minutes worth of video and not the whole 21 hours?

For all I know, the Cameron email exchange could be fake and Judy could have nothing to do with this.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 05:17 PM
a reply to: spiritualarchitect
well the 3d software from 2011 still exists, I still use 3dsMAX 2013 which isn't that far off at all so it's not too late, everything I've pointed out pretty much does just that, prove it to be a hoax. At this point I don't think its a matter of proof, I think the people still arguing its legitimacy are ignorant by choice or have a vested interest in keeping it relevant. At some point I may get annoyed enough to create a video debunking each point but right now I'm just disappointed.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 05:30 PM
a reply to: kobalt7

What is your definition of proof?
You can tell us it's fake all day but until you show us, you haven't proven anything.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 05:41 PM
Yes, the CGI operator has to make his own Bob that looks just like Ivan's Bob.

Then the operator needs to make Bob's vacation family, in color, just like Ivan's.

That is what is needed to prove the original Bob is a fake.

Bob needs to be recreated to prove he is fake.

Talking points won't do it.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 05:56 PM
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

There are dozens of things that could prove this wrong.

Finding the documentary this footage was supposedly pulled from would prove it.
Proving 1 clip wrong would pretty much prove them all wrong.
Finding repeats in the film grain. Finding an exact audio match for the projector.
Finding an exact match for the the film scratch "overlay".

None of that has happened yet.
I'd take a 2019 recreation as strong evidence if it were anywhere near as good.

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 05:56 PM
Over 8 years now and no one has claimed credit for creating the Bob video.

Ben Phillips, a special effects creator (Han Solo) has said that if it was faked, “then it was done by a multidisciplinary team of effects professionals. They spent a lot of time and money building physical models for extremely short clips that weren’t even the main subject matter of the video; Skinny Bob.” In 2011 Ben sent several personal messages to Ivan0135, offering him a job in the film industry, but Ivan never responded back. Maybe because Ivan was not the creator.

If, as we are told, faking this kind of footage would have cost a lot of money, how come there is No internet marketing, no profit, and no fame to be had from it after 8 years?

If it is a CGI creation how come the original creator never came out and took credit for it? Could it be that either he is dead or he had a high paying job in the first place and he did not need a new job and the notoriety that would come with being Bob’s creator. Monetarily comfy, maybe he wants Bob to live on as a great unknown?

After 8 years, no one has put out their own Skinny Bob videos. If it is just CGI then Why are there no copycat videos? Why is YouTube not filled with a dozens of Bob’s relatives on screen? Where are all the debunking videos showing how it was done?

Some joker somewhere posted they could make Bob in CGI in 2 weeks. Then someone go do it. Be a hero!


You now have an 8 year technical head start over the original creator. If it is that easy then it should have been done by now. Don’t give us that crap about CGI people being too busy. They had time to sit around watching The Big Bang Theory, so they had time to create their own Bob.

Surely the skeptics’ magazines have enough money to pay someone to prove it is a fake by making their own Bob.

The only way this will be proved to be a hoax is if someone finds the original footage and can prove it is fake, or until someone creates an identical Bob.

Skinny Bob will not go away until someone remakes him in CGI.

Repeat, Skinny Bob will not die until someone recreates him!


posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 06:54 PM

originally posted by: BelowBottomPublicity
Finding the documentary this footage was supposedly pulled from would prove it.

Yes, as there are several segments of historical timeline being filmed here.

There are up to 4 different places in the first video.

1 House beside road (filmed at 7 hours 5 (?) minutes).
2 Aerial view of country side (filmed at 15 hours 27 minutes).
3 Crash site (filmed at 23 hours 48 minutes).
4 Alien group (filmed at 24 hours 47 minutes).

And 1 more in the next vid.
Interior Bob (filmed at 25 hours 8 minutes sitting) + (filmed at 25 hours 27 minutes standing).
This does not look like a pristine clean laboratory because there is a large stain or crack on the wall in the bottom right.

And 1 more in the last vid.
Exterior vacation Bobbies (in color with no time stamp).

Our first “Bob” actually shows up in the first video at 23 hours 42minutes. So the first Grey is alive and walking at the crash site 6 minutes before we see the crash itself in the next clip (note the tree in the background appears to be the same in both scenes).

I think the alien group, filmed nearly an hour later, is at a different site, possibly inside a military hanger. Because these Greys’ appear to be naked. One has a solid cover towel over his lower waist but the very last Grey in the very last second of the first video appears to be naked.

Yes, that moving thing on screen at 45 seconds might be an alien penis.

Complete video edited together:

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in