Skinny Bob Colorized and New Details

a reply to: kobalt7
Looks like I was able to find a timecode changing with the environment easier than anticipated.
i.ibb.co...
That shows it changing shade due to the brightness.
This is why you don't present your opinion as fact.

I was also able to find a bunch of glitches
i.ibb.co...
and blurriness surrounding the timecode.

All shots taken from this video here www.youtube.com...
"This is a pretty solid indication that you don't know much about timecodes."

What past established fact are believers drawing from to give a strong and realistic argument that this is an alien being? It should be easy to link that evidence and end the conversation. Show us that this is a valid and serious suggestion. The film in itself isn't that evidence. It's not tangible proof with a physical being that can be tested and studied. It's only visual information. We need something tangible to prove the existence of alien life visiting Earth first. Why can't diehard believers understand this? All the stories in the world gathered together are useless when the claims are of physical one-on-one interactions and there's zero evidence of this.

If no one has that evidence, you can't make a serious argument for this being a film of alien life. You have no factual foundation or basis to even build a case for it to be alien. You can say it's possible, but can't even do that with any certainty.

Below is the free online software version of Zbrush called Sculptris. It's like the full version, but with a limited sculpting toolset. I downloaded and took a couple of hours and created this rough model with exaggerated features with no textures, only default materials (reason for green hue), and no way to adjust lighting positions to limit my abilities. I no longer have the full version of Zbrush (2004 earlier version) installed on my computer, but could up the quality of the model if I had more time or an incentive to do so. Point being, while I have years of experience using the program, I'm in no way an expert at creating models. Anyone with a bit of talent can do much better using the software available in the early 2000s. When I saw this "alien" my mind went immediately to Zbrush as far as modeling.


While I'm not going to claim expertise in animation, Zbrush models can be exported to other programs to be animated - 3DSMax, Maya, even free software such as Blender. 

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.

I'm saying that none of the lighting should effect something that's added on top of the video, what you posted was a picture of the timecode lost in the white of the background, this is why real timecode has black outlines.

Obviously this one does.
You can't speak for every time code across all countries and all of history.
You like to present your opinions as facts and never back them up with any evidence.

Actually I can because it's a short history, the base commercial technology for digital recording was developed in the 90s, I took TV/Film production courses from 1994-96 and the school had one of the first digital linear editing stations packaged with newtek Lightwave, it was the first college courses I took. Digital cameras didn't become affordable or common until the 2000s.

Technology is standardized meaning the differences between nations are limited because everyone uses similar circuit board technology. Companies build for sale in a worldwide marketplace and use the same base chipsets because even fewer companies mass produce the chipsets on the cheap. Not only that Russia programs its camera components in java, assembly or C+ the same programming languages every country uses. The math is universal so the process would be the same or similar on any camera.

Video timecode is layer added by code that renders on top of the video inside the camera while saving the RAW data, The lighting in the room with the camera wouldn't matter because its added independently after the camera has captured that image data.
You can google all of this information.

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.

The reason those arrows are blurred is because they are drawn with a brush with soft feathered edges. If I had used a hard edge brush there would be no blur, if i had used a selection it would be a hard edge.

If the box blur isn't because of the camera focus then it was added by after effects on top of the video and if the video is capturing film why does it match the noise on the video, why blur it at all? Why does it match the black marks at the top of the film in tone, noise, and feathering? That's because the original intent of the artist was to make it look like part of the FILM. That black bar sits on top of the timecode so we can assume the artist intended to make the timecode look like part of the film as well. But like you the artist didn't know much about timecode.

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

Actually you debunked nothing because you have no idea what your talking about. What you showed actually proves my point because real timecode would not be affected by the video its on top of and would include a border around the white text, it's designed that way for this very reason. Nor would it fade out leaving a black drop shadow. Timecode wouldn't have shadows or alpha gradients, especially not in video cameras prior to 2011.



At the end of this you can continue to believe what you want but don't pretend like you know enough about video to debate someone who spent the time to learn. Feel free to believe that I'm a shill or a fake, I hope I'm a damn convincing one considering the years I spent actually learning it and relearning it every time something new comes out.

a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity
That white is the same in both images, notice the black border around the text, that's real timecode can you see the difference?

That glitching isn't the same its caused by compression and its called blocking, when 2 colors are close together compression will create one block. The line glitch is not compression because again that's not how compression works.

The fact that you cant see the difference between the 2 timecodes is troubling.

@Ectoplasm8

looks almost exactly like skinny bob. even more realistic imo

a reply to: kobalt7

That white is the same in both images

You can't be serious...
i.ibb.co...
Hard to admit you're wrong after working so hard to defend your position.
But facts are facts. Timecode proven to be affected by the environment.

a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity
Its still the same white but there is a SLIGHT bleed in color not tone but your right I'll give you that, Its not hard to admit I was inaccurate in saying its not affected because there is color bleed. The issues I've pointed out still stand, feel free to continue trying to discredit my points.

You defended your position with no knowledge on the subject until you found a point you could finally win, but hopefully learned more about how timecode from that era looks and works?
Having now seen real timecode, do you still think that's real?

a reply to: kobalt7
You're ridiculous. Okay, you win.
Nothing will change your mind.

Speaking of doing CGI for free:

Posted by The Nimitz Encounters, Feb 2019

"Thanks for using the audio excerpts from my film The Nimitz Encounters. My name is Dave Beaty. I spent a greater part of 2018 working on the CGI re-creation. This is not a sponsored film. I received zero compensation from it and offer it to the world. It's an important story with an unknown explanation. I am humbled you decided to use it to illustrate the posting, I just wanted people to know it's not some unnamed entity. One guy, one computer and a mission. Thanks Dave."

www.skeptiko-forum.com...

a reply to: spiritualarchitect


what has this to do with Skinny Bob my friend?

by the way, the so called Nimitz encounter has been debunked too already.
the "objects" were just the exhaust gases from a jet plane^^

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

and After Effects is a really good program to fake stuff, yeah



i've faked this ufo video with after effects and Cinema 4D

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: FrvstMaSke

That was actually pretty good until they went in front of and behind the trees. UFO videos are unfortunately very easy and that's why you see a lot more fake UFOs than aliens. But the best UFO videos would be very difficult to fake.

originally posted by: FrvstMaSke
what has this to do with Skinny Bob my friend?

No one wants to do Skinny Bob for free, yet the guy who did the CGI artwork for the Nimitz film did it for free.
Maybe you can get him to do Bob for free.

Robert Kiviat on Billschannel www.dailymotion.com...
5 Real Aliens Caught on Tape www.dailymotion.com...
SyFy's Fact or Faked vimeo.com...
ParaBreakdown Unlisted Youtube www.dailymotion.com...
Coast to Coast AM LA Marzulli Radio Show www.dailymotion.com...

Im emailing LA Marzulli about Bob William's loop theory. He's gonna see if he can get an answer.

originally posted by: FrvstMaSke
by the way, the so called Nimitz encounter has been debunked too already.
the "objects" were just the exhaust gases from a jet plane^^

And you believe that excuse? Are you sure you have the right video in mind, because that excuse is just too stupid.

So all the pilots, radar operators, all the eyewitnesses are lying?

Please do not waste your time reading my post anymore, and I will not waste my time reading yours.

originally posted by: AlienAnonymous

I spent about 50 hours analyzing, researching, and debunking the myths about skinny bob.

How to waste your time 101.

Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us. But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind.

“A fool will believe anything.”—PROVERBS 14:15, TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION.

Be selective: A completely open mind could be likened to a pipe that lets just anything flow through it—even sewage. No one wants a mind contaminated with poison. Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, warned: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15) So we need to be selective. We need to scrutinize whatever is presented to us, deciding what to accept and what to reject. We also need to decide wisely which subjects to even take an interest in. So that the giant sinkhole of human potential that is called the Aliens & Ufo's subforum, does not reach 2 million comments. Over 1 million is already bad enough and a sufficient demonstration of 2 Timothy 4:3,4:

3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

Lots of attention on ATS for false stories, speculations and imaginations concerning aliens, but little interest for "beneficial teaching".

And some of them think of themselves as 'being awake'. Pff, they wouldn't even wake up if you put headphones with Van Halen at max. volume on them:

originally posted by: BelowBottomPublicity
a reply to: FrvstMaSke

That was actually pretty good until they went in front of and behind the trees. UFO videos are unfortunately very easy and that's why you see a lot more fake UFOs than aliens. But the best UFO videos would be very difficult to fake.

yeah, at the very end, when the two light-balls disappear behind the treetops. it looks, as if they just flew directly into it instead of around. sure, the lights themselves still could be improved a little, including digital zoom, blurryness and all that stuff, but the tracking of the footage was fairly good. a good tracking job without any displacements in the paralax, that was my actual goal at that time. i instantly detect bad UFO fakes if the tracking of the footage has been poorly done. most of them fail already in this practice.
the video is actually from 2015, but i reuploaded it for any reason!

the good old days from 2006, 2007... when the Video platforms where quite new and all the UFO videos appeared more impressive on me, are long gone unfortunately. as the years went by, the UFO hoaxes increased drastically. but since i understand it a little, how to take any footage and turn it into a UFO sighing video, i'm a little more careful.
anyways...those b/tards such as TFOM, ST10 and how they call themselves, i already blocked completely off my field of view, including their complete video content. you can do it with the browser plugin for FF and Chrome called "blocktube"

ok it's a bit off topic, but i want to show you a short video featuring a metallic orb. i just uploaded it.

www.youtube.com...

in this video, everthing is "fake". the background is a 360 HDR image, the Orb is a 3D object of course and on the ground you can see the shadow of the orb, casted on a invisble floor and the camera shaking is pretty much the standart. but i found a technique which makes camera shakes very realistic. just track any footage you want and copy/paste the keyframes to your video/virtual camera. the source video material and the shaking should fit best as possible of course and can be trashed later on. anyways..have fun with it^^

I have a question for everyone here.
How long do you think this video took for the creator to make it?
www.youtube.com...
I want everyone to give their best guess.

originally posted by: BelowBottomPublicity
I have a question for everyone here.
How long do you think this video took for the creator to make it?
www.youtube.com...
I want everyone to give their best guess.

difficult to say. when you ask, how long the rendering process could be last with a proper Computer, i think someone could give you vague answer. it the description of the video is written: "the First half rendered in ~800 hours on a 2008 vintage quad core". that's a damn long time, but not a big surprise then tbh. when it comes to the head itself- it's also possible that he didn't made it itself but used a preset high-poly Head which might be comes along with one of the programs. i don't know any of the 4 listed programs.

anyways....in the comments someone said: "A man has spent years making this short clip, which is incredibly lifelike". dunno where he got the information from^^