It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: KlippeLars
the romantic in me wants this to be real, just like I want the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot footage to be real, but we'll probably never know until the people who made it come forward and tell us how and why it was made, with proof to back it up.
originally posted by: kobalt7
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.
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^^
originally posted by: IRussao
there is also this one from the same year and month: www.youtube.com...