Skinny Bob Colorized and New Details

a reply to: spiritualarchitect
People throw that word around so much these days that it can't be taken seriously anymore.

Some people thought skinny bob was 100% "debunked" when they found the 3d.sk site page. Some people are too eager to believe it's fake that they immediately believe the worst evidence as long as it falls in line with their opinion.

a reply to: IMSAM

Thanks for that. I posted some of Billy's comments earlier. He said whomever made Bob spent a lot more money, time and effort than he did. Which apparently is why no one wants to try and remake Bob. At least that is their excuse.

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.

That reminds me…

In 1979 or 1980, Bigfoot researchers interviewed some of the best costume makers in the world and the ones with the biggest budget. These were the people who were working on the second Star Wars movie, The Empire Strikes Back.

These people were among the best in their field and they said that the Bigfoot in the Patterson Film was probably a real animal. They said this because even they could not make an ape suit as good as what was seen in that 1967 film, because the film, when studied closely, showed muscle movement. Obviously Chewbacca was the best they could do, and Chew was nowhere near as authentic as Patty. Because Chew was filmed to not show any patches and flaws in his costume.

They said that only one person they knew could replicate a suit that might look like the Patty creature – and that guy was John Chambers - the guy who in 1968 made the Planet Of The Apes apes. And Chambers said he did not make a Bigfoot suit and probably could not even make a suit as good as what was seen in the film. In fact he too thought it was not a suit, but that it could very well be a real creature.

So if the people who make the suits say it is not a suit then it is not a suit.

This is what we need with Bob. Someone should go interview a bunch of costume makers and special effects people and get their opinion – on film – about if Bob could be the real deal or not. And if they would be willing to redo Bob on their own.

The Star Wars guys could not do Patty, can the CGI guys do Bob?

a reply to: kobalt7

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.

Bob looks better.
www.youtube.com...



there is also this one from the same year and month: www.youtube.com...

i re-created Skinny Bobs Flying Saucer. it's a screen shot / frame from an video
background is my neighborhood. the whole video will be not revealed^^

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^^

I thought I should check and see what you were talking about. I think I found it in the Mick West video set dealing with the tic tacs. That statement of yours brings up a whole lot of questions, so I think I will create a new thread just to cover all the questions and what the people on ATS think.

As for your above saucer, it does not look like the two in the Bob vids to me. In fact the top reminds me of those that were supposedly seen over California a few years ago, which I think are total fakes.

Not saying you did those, but are we to take it that YOU are Evillan and you are posting hoax UFO videos on YouTube?

a reply to: FrvstMaSke

The top of your saucer looks like a Caret Drone.

See link:

www.google.com... mg.12...116848.125245..126652...0.0..0.86.989.15......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i7i30j0i7i5i30j0i8i7i30j0i67j0.H2isZ9Y8AYE&ved=0ahUKEwiBkfLA88blAhWIG TQIHT5fD74Q4dUDCAc

originally posted by: IRussao
there is also this one from the same year and month: www.youtube.com...

I have always thought that video looks so real - except for the aliens. Because the way the film looks, the way it is shot and how everyone is in a rush all makes it look so real. But the alien is barely seen and what we do see does not look very real to me. Not that I have ever seen a real alien to compare it to. There is just not enough of the alien itself shown to make any determination that it could be real.

But there are a lot of actors running around in it - so if it is not real, what movie is this film clip from?

a reply to: spiritualarchitect
It appeared on Ant & Dec's Alien Autopsy in 2006.
www.youtube.com...
It resurfaced in the 2010's and many news sites don't know the origin.
One did though. www.irishmirror.ie...

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

no i do not fake any videos on youtube. i'm not this evil guy. FrustMaske is Frust Maske lol

regarding this Caret Drone thingies...the only thing that interests me for now, is....who gave them this name? Caret Drone ...never heard!
obviously CGI

a reply to: FrvstMaSke

Theyre fake but you can't tell from just pictures. One of them looks plastic but it could just be plastic.

The way you can tell is that there's 20 different pictures but 0 videos. That just sounds impossible.

Theyre called CARET Drones from the documents released online by a guy named Isaac (not ivan ). Suppsedly stands for Commercial Applications Research for Extraterrestrial Technology. I haven't looked into it and probably never will. Lets not get too off topic.

a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity

maybe there exist some plastic "Caret Drone" models today, but when those drones surfaced the internet the first time on youtube back in 2005, they were 100% CGi. i know that, because i had known the video maker and already talked to him. he's from brittain and those Drones where made with a the 3D app Cinema 4D. i'm a little surprised that there are people that still think the drones are real. but the name "Caret Drones" i read the first time

by the way...the funny UFO above, at least the spikes on the dome, indeed base on a Caret Drone and was also created with Cinema 4D. i used the Standart Renderer, that's why it looks not as good^^

a reply to: FrvstMaSke
It does look CGI in a lot of them but either way, you know the video maker and talked to him? That's some heavily important information. Hope you got some evidence for such a substantial claim. I definitely think fake but I don't have the proof like you do.

Edit: Someone commented this on a post, so true.
"Then comes the CGI experts proclaiming its real. This resulted in other proclaimed experts disagreeing, both sides flaunting their expertise in a 'mine is bigger than yours' frenzy that lasted a thousand posts"

a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity

imagine 2005/2006, that was about the time when youtube was launched. yes that's true, i talked to the video maker and later he didn't kept it secret that it was CGI. i also talked to manbird12000 who created the more or less famous "Los Roques UFOs" Series. he did used Cinema 4d too. look when the Videos where upload. over 12 years ago

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: FrvstMaSke

That video is terrible. Back then it may have passed though. Its actually really good but I mean terrible as in not close to believable. He would have fooled more people with a picture but it wouldn't have been as entertaining to review. Either way, skinny bob is getting realer and realer the more we look at other CGI.

a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity

the video quality wasn't as good back then. i think it was max. 480p that time

a reply to: FrvstMaSke

It has nothing to do with the resolution. Its the lighting mainly.

Bobs dad is not happy

cdna.artstation.com...

Compare the girth of Bob’s neck to mine:

i.pinimg.com...