Skinny Bob Colorized and New Details

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

I am sure. Bob's animation, lighting, and textures were all more believable. Still images arent nearly as involved as videos, there are many more ways to interpret footage. If all I had was a still image of bob, i wouldnt be able to tell you its real but it would be interesting to look at nonetheless.

Skinny Bob video is a trip.
I cannot believe I have never heard of it before.

Thanks

a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity
I imagine if we put Paul in the same setting it would be as good if not better. By limiting the length and movement, high contrast and resolution as well as darkening the eyes and limiting the visible skin to just the hands and head they were able to hide imperfections and sticking points you see in CGI. Many of these tactics are pretty standard to the CG industry and have been around since the 90s and are still used today.

Back then the motion was rigid because mocap wasn't as reliable so they kept clips short and movement limited, high contrast helped hide the fact that rendering skin textures and clothing was unrealistic because sub surface scattering had yet to be a thing so everything looked like clay, Clothing helped hide the fact that muscle dynamics underneath skin was extremely limited and didn't really become common until the 2000s.

a reply to: kobalt7
Once again I disagree.
They are sticking points you see in CGI, but it's not severe enough to hide the imperfections like many other videos.

There's a reason this video is so believed, it's one of a kind.

a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity
After watching the video some more, I noticed the timestamp is definitely being affected by the bright white light. Shown here i.ibb.co...

a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity
The timecode was probably one of the few obvious signs I could point out to people who don't know the CGI aspects that are more subtle. Some people will still ignore it despite it being in every video.

a reply to: kobalt7
Why wouldnt it be in the others if it was in the first?
And it wasnt in the last video family vacation.

a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity

The vacation vid came out last. By then they had already read all the YouTube complaints/questions from the first two videos. If they faked it, they just turned the camcorder timestamp off when they made it.

If real, it could easily be that they did not need the timestamp because they knew right where this piece of film/tape was. It is the only color film we see, so it could have been right at the end of the film, or somewhere else just as easy to find.

originally posted by: kobalt7
If it was a paid venture it would be spending at the very least 8,000+ to make a 10 second video. Where is the return for the investment. A few thousand spread out over years in views on youtube? Add it to a UFO doc with a budget of 30,000? It makes no sense unless there is some viable production value.

So you have just explained why it is real. Thank you.

a reply to: spiritualarchitect
You sir are a troll, I've already said its fake because they added and aged timecode to match film footage, it can't be much clearer for you but you still resist because you want it to be real, at this point all your doing is waste peoples time.

a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity
Your right, I apologize it isn't in the family vacation vid.
Perhaps he realized the error no doubt someone else would have pointed that out pretty quick or it could be he had the idea of timecode backwards thinking color video didn't have that sort of thing who knows.

originally posted by: kobalt7
You sir are a troll

Did you just call me a Scandinavian Sasquatch!

originally posted by: kobalt7
I've already said its fake because they added and aged timecode to match film footage

And I have already posted that if it is fake, the timestamp is the best clue that it is.

originally posted by: kobalt7
at this point all your doing is waste peoples time.

I think YOU are wasting peoples time by talking and not doing.

As for my last post, YOU just stated that it would cost too much money to create and get nothing back monetarily for it. Which is a great reason why it could be real, because no one got any money out of it by making it because no one spent any money on making it in the first place.

If real, all they did was steal secret government film and release it to the public.

The only way they probably paid for it was with their lives, because they were thrown in prison or murdered over it.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

As for my last post, YOU just stated that it would cost too much money to create and get nothing back monetarily for it. Which is a great reason why it could be real...

If a hoax, the only reason it could have been made (aside from a bored, eccentric and wealthy UFO nut) was as a viral marketing campaign. I have no idea why JJ Abrams/Spielberg's 'Super-8' was popularly touted as a likely suspect despite featuring no 'Greys' when, as I stated earlier, 'Paul' (2011) seems like an incredibly OBVIOUS source, timed perfectly, and featuring a 'Grey' who may as well BE our friend Bob. A 40m budget with a few grand used for 30 seconds of indirect viral teasing/marketing seems a perfect plan (to date, they've already received two-and-a-half times their money back).

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost could be wetting themselves with laughter on the sidelines; it suits their style and sense of humour. Maybe they'll finally own up to 'Bob' once sales of 'Paul' diminish substantially. Or maybe not.

To be honest, though, I prefer the source being a mystery; eight-years-plus is a pretty impressive vow of silence...

a reply to: spiritualarchitect
I just refuse to let ignorance be the final say on this matter, refusal to accept something is fake because you believe a part of it is real despite it showing clear manipulation to appear authentic is ignorance.

I want a real Alien Pic/video more than anyone here but I also won't be fooled. There have been countless fakes in the past each with their own issues, as technology gets better we need to remain vigilant in spotting the fakes. This one was exceptional, as our argument proves, but in the end it shows clear evidence of manipulation, anyone with some knowledge of video and film can agree.

Feel free to believe otherwise but if you don't have some knowledge of video and film then please keep your opinions out of it, at this point we should move on and investigate other aspects of the videos then collect all the data into a final segment detailing all the information we have and let the thread die.

This is ATS and we do need to remain objective but also deny ignorance when its clear cut no matter how convincing.
We need to be better than the comments section on youtube or reddit, better than some random skeptic/UFO site.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit
Considering the proximity of the release date, It does sound likely but without any positive link between the 2 it can only be a circumstantial.

I discount it because of ivans avoidance regarding the render of the eyes. Darkening to hide the half blink and texture stretching etc, if they had a fully flushed out model ready for that level of animation there would have been no need for any of that.

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Family vacation doesn't look like it was taken with a camcorder like the others.

It looks to have been digitally converted, I think someone else mentioned that early on in this thread.

edit: yeah, quote by OP
"As for the sound on the projector, its not a digital copy like Family Vacation, its a projector being taped with a digital camera, sound and all. That is why it is in a 16:9 aspect ratio whereas the family vacation footage is in the rightful 4:3."
So it definitely seems to be a digital conversion unlike the others.

a reply to: kobalt7
I can't believe you still think the timestamp is intended to be perceived as part of the original film, after i showed you clear as day that it's being affected by the bright white light. I have a camcorder somewhere, i'll see if I can get it to react the same. It's way older than his and not from Russia but I'll see what I can do.
If you were as knowledgeable as you say you are about film then we wouldn't even be having this conversation because you'd already know it's from the digital camera. It's a weak argument, find something more convincing.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit
They mentioned Super 8 back then before it was released, that theory was proven wrong when the movie came out.

I would say Paul is an extremely unlikely candidate, seeing as the movie was released before skinny bob on March 18, 2011.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
If a hoax, the only reason it could have been made (aside from a bored, eccentric and wealthy UFO nut) was as a viral marketing campaign.

Maybe it was created as a sample by a digital effects house hoping to land a job on a big movie, but not related to any specific movie. And because of the way that industry is, that effects house went out of business or changed names or whatever. I could see it as a sample, although, it's a pretty messy. Maybe that's why they didn't get hired.

If you want to prove Fake, maybe you should be looking at the penis angle.

Seriously, no one that I can recall has ever said that the Greys' have reproductive anatomy.

If you can prove that is a penis then would it not prove that the first video is a fake?

a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity

You haven't shown anything, you just said that it was affected by the bright light. I'm saying that shouldn't happen because that's not how timecodes work.
Yes please show me an instance where the timecode on digital camera is heavily affected by the lighting in a scene, because timecode added directly by a camera on top of video and has a hard black stroke around the text as well to delineate between light and dark scenes. It doesn't just auto adjust based on the lighting of a scene. This is a pretty solid indication that like you, Ivan didn't know much about timecode.

Explain why the timecode under the black bar is far less blurred than the box its under when the box should be crisper since its sitting on top of the text? They present an issue where camera focus does not match.

Explain why you have black shadows under the timecode while its fading in and out at several points?

The fact is all these issues are anything but weak because they point to clear digital manipulation by ivan to present us with a aged look to the film AND video.
When in reality digital cameras that are less than 20 years old would not have aged or been affected by a video layer it's on top of, especially when you take into account VHS timecode that's 30 years older doesn't have any of these issues.

a reply to: kobalt7
I did show. This i.ibb.co...
Shows the time stamp is not affected when its dark, only by the bright flashing white light.
If the effect was made to the whole timestamp then it wouldn't be changed by this, but it is.

that's not how timecodes work

Obviously this one does.
You can't speak for every time code across all countries and all of history.

the box should be crisper since its sitting on top of the text
Explain why you have black shadows under the timecode while its fading in and out at several points?

Logical assessment, but as a pro you should know the answer to this one. The solid black remains the same but the program(like photoshop) fades the edges making them slightly transparent. This effect can be seen in your picture, where the arrows are affected by the picture underneath because they are slightly transparent. Shown here i.ibb.co...
The black bar is unaffected by the camera's focus.

all these issues are anything but weak

All? You've only been talking about the timestamp and I debunked it with this
i.ibb.co...
How do you explain that?

EDIT: i.ibb.co...