It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 25
45
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: FrvstMaSke
Been working/new webhost setup, no extra time




posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect
Lol I didn't fail my job is already done, I spent extra time afterwards trying to help. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Anyone left convinced this is legit is deluding themselves.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: kobalt7
We're deluded if we believe skinny bob?
Insult all you want, you couldn't prove a thing.

EDIT: BEST BOB'S EYE! i.ibb.co...
Very interesting... Big: i.ibb.co...
edit on 5-11-2019 by BelowBottomPublicity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: kobalt7
Are you saying that Bob and his friends are totally CGI and nothing else?



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity

I proved It many times over you just cant accept it.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect
Yes Bob is CGI.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: kobalt7

The fact that you used the word "prove" when you have barely shown any evidence to support your arguments shows that you don't know what proof means. Just another person who decided it was fake and will stretch to infinity to convince himself. I've seen much better attempts at debunking this footage than yours.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity

Would you prefer I called them professional clues? I think I gave like 6 of them 10 pages ago. I even explained every point and gave you photos showing why I think it's fake, it took no stretching to identify these points I made you just choose to believe otherwise.

If the professionals in your own conspiracy community are saying its CGI and you argue that they are wrong despite everything they've done to explain it then you are beyond convincing. Just another individual that wants to believe, I saw dozens of you with the alien autopsy as well. You can "stretch" your counter-arguments as far as you want but your not going to convince someone who actually works with CGI that somehow they are wrong.

I believe aliens are out there just like you, I wouldn't hang out here if I didn't. Seeing as I work with video everyday I see this as a clear cut case with dozens of clues based on decades of experience but feel free to believe what you want.


edit on 6-11-2019 by kobalt7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: kobalt7

We've been over this, many "professionals" in the alien community have said its real. Many have said its fake too. That gets us nowhere yet you keep repeating it, only seeing your own side. I dont "want to believe" lol, I actually loathe that notion. I joined the alien community because of bob and im only still here because of bob. The rest doesnt much interest me. The alien autopsy is good but i would never say I believe a lifeless alien on a table is definitely real and cant be faked. Nor the barely moving head of an alien behind glass. None of that is half as convincing as skinny bob and comparing them is apples to oranges.

I dont need to counter your points because youve so poorly supported your initial argument. But i did anyway and supported my timestamp theory with actual evidence.

You see what you want to see. Plenty of people just like you who "work with video everyday" say its real. So youre just another person who thinks its fake, your credentials make little difference when theres just as many "professionals" claiming it to be real as there are claiming its fake.

Especially when you use only words and 0 evidence to back up your hypotheses. Get real evidence, show us the problem frames. Show us where you see a flaw, telling people isn't going to change their mind, you have to show. Believe he's fake with no evidence to show if you want, but keep the insults to a minimum.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: kobalt7
Yes Bob is CGI.


I am thinking Bob might be human, with a little trickery thrown into the visual mix.

I just have to find that one picture to show everyone what I mean.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity

This picture on the top left, is that you taking the kids out for Halloween?

www.pinterest.com...



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Thoughts on this pic of Bob's eyes?
i.ibb.co...
Looks very natural. Gives him some personality.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: kobalt7
a reply to: BelowBottomPublicity

Would you prefer I called them professional clues? I think I gave like 6 of them 10 pages ago. I even explained every point and gave you photos showing why I think it's fake, it took no stretching to identify these points I made you just choose to believe otherwise.

If the professionals in your own conspiracy community are saying its CGI and you argue that they are wrong despite everything they've done to explain it then you are beyond convincing. Just another individual that wants to believe, I saw dozens of you with the alien autopsy as well. You can "stretch" your counter-arguments as far as you want but your not going to convince someone who actually works with CGI that somehow they are wrong.

I believe aliens are out there just like you, I wouldn't hang out here if I didn't. Seeing as I work with video everyday I see this as a clear cut case with dozens of clues based on decades of experience but feel free to believe what you want.


Kobalt I applaud your efforts and agree with your findings fully. However, there is no kind of evidence that you could provide to convince those that don't value evidence.
Personally, I'd love for the "skinny Bob" art project to be genuine footage of an (cute!) extraterrestrial, but logic has to reign supreme at the end of the day. In this field so inundated with nonsense and woo it is likely more productive to weed out and disprove than to attempt to prove anything as being real.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Somniferum

He didn't show any evidence. He wasted his efforts focusing on the timestamp from the digital camera.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: BelowBottomPublicity
a reply to: Somniferum

He didn't show any evidence. He wasted his efforts focusing on the timestamp from the digital camera.


At this stage in our sophisticated state of digital capability video such as this is basically an extraordinary claim, and as such requires extraordinary evidence to back it up. As always the burden of proof falls upon anyone claiming this video is genuine. It needs to be proven to be real, not proven to be fake.

Arguments against its validity aren't even necessary, as without further evidence for the existence of the beings it claims to portray it can and should be summarily dismissed.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Somniferum

The extraordinary claim is that aliens have visited. The extraordinary evidence to back it up is this video. The burden of proof is for the person making the claim. The claim is "I have video of an alien", the proof is the video.

You claim its fake, now the burden falls on you.

If I claim skinny bob is real, then the burden falls on me.

We both would like to make these claims but there is no proof for either of us so the only claim proven so far is "I have a video of an alien".

Yes, true, but is it real? That's a whole nother claim.

Pushing the burden onto others gets us nowhere. We all have claims to make about the video and theres some okay evidence for both sides and experts supporting both sides, but
absolutely 100% no proof.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BelowBottomPublicity
a reply to: Somniferum

The extraordinary claim is that aliens have visited. The extraordinary evidence to back it up is this video. The burden of proof is for the person making the claim. The claim is "I have video of an alien", the proof is the video.

You claim its fake, now the burden falls on you.

If I claim skinny bob is real, then the burden falls on me.

We both would like to make these claims but there is no proof for either of us so the only claim proven so far is "I have a video of an alien".

Yes, true, but is it real? That's a whole nother claim.

Pushing the burden onto others gets us nowhere. We all have claims to make about the video and theres some okay evidence for both sides and experts supporting both sides, but
absolutely 100% no proof.


The video shows an entity that is identical many depictions of extraterrestrials, that is obvious.
The truth in this matter is only one of two things, either it depicts a real being or it doesn't.

The methods of science provide us with the tools to easily figure this one out.
Starting with a conclusion (aliens exist) and working backwards to confirm (this video is evidence) is the way of pseudoscience and does no service to this field of inquiry.

At the end of the day video doesn't mean much in the way of proof as we all are aware how easily content is created, edited and manipulated.
If this video had supporting evidence, such as provenance taking it back to a time before digital manipulation was possible, it would be worth further study.

Don't get me wrong, I personally won't consign this to the "debunked" bin as it is fun to speculate and should further evidence appear to validate it I'd be among the first to celebrate.

edit on 7-11-2019 by Somniferum because: None

edit on 7-11-2019 by Somniferum because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Somniferum


Starting with a conclusion (aliens exist) and working backwards to confirm (this video is evidence) is the way of pseudoscience and does no service to this field of inquiry.

Starting with an assumption and working backwards to confirm it is the scientific method.

We have a large history of alien related material and we can make inferences based on this.

hy·poth·e·sis - /hīˈpäTHəsəs/:
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

It's not at all easy to make this which is why no one has done it. Bob wouldn't be easy to create or animate, not to mention the rest of the footage which would be just as much if not more of a task than skinny bob.

We have this piece of evidence and we've investigated it. No clear sign of manipulation.
Without the original, we can't prove it to be real or fake.
Regardless, there are no videos like Ivan's collection. Not even close.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I don't think this was discussed early (to my recollection.)

On one of Ivan's videos, a you-tuber commented this: (to the effect that all of the clips are properly accounted for and timestamped.) It's lengthy, but he did a great job, no?

Grymme Göta
1 year ago
yoda Hello, I found Ivan's YT channel and saw that he provided more detailed information about the videos along side his copies of the material. I've corrected my interpretation of videos, not much, but enough to see that videos are honestly assembled and documented in proper archival manner of classification. Video from April 13, 2011. is assembled from four parts, first has time signature (assuming format case:hh:mm:ss) 07:00:08:42, second 15:00:27:12, then 23:00:42:50 and 24:00:47:30, noticing time increment. It starts with censored cyrillic script, under and above the badge (sword and shield with a star, with hammer and sickle within), saying "arhiv KGB" (KGB Archive) below, and "Sover�eno sekretno" (Top Secret), bearing in mind that Ukraine declassified its part of the archive in January 2009, and Russia did the same in July same year. Ivan published it in 2011. so according to declassification agreements documents are likely to be legal, whether they originate from Ukraine central or Moscow. Ivan added information that uploaded "video contains a sample edited fragments of tapes 01, 03 and 04", where the tapes are probably three hour tape reels for a projector, all seven 1260 min. First 8 min out of three hour tape recorded from the ground, second three hour tape not included, first 27 min of third three hour tape suggests about three or four hour space from the first events. Third tape is recorded from a fighter plane. After two or three missing hours on which could be recorded the cause of the saucer crash we see fragments from another three hour tape, that shows a being standing in front of a crashed disc (noticing explosion like burn marks on the rear), and another injured one laying beside (video quality suggests another cameraman on the place of crash). On the same three hour tape, tape 04, occurs a transition that I have not see in other videos. Namely, case 23 ends with 00:48:16, and then case 24 starts with 00:47:31, decremented time, but incremental event development, which could possibly mean that either some change occurred within the camera recording system itself, since I don't see any significant change in quality of a recording between cases 23 and 24, so I assume it is the same camera and cameraman, either this is a fragment from another camera, later blended into one three hour tape reel with other fragments. It still seems that case designations follow the event development incrementally in order. I will assume that the counter was reseted and case 24 shows events at least 50 min after the case 23 record. Still, it suggests increase of activities in short time period, since we are now shifted +1 case without omission. Sound indicates that video is recorded from a possible 8mm projector onto a modern camera (suggests process of digitalization of archived material), then edited (sound pauses between successive scenes), if not added later. Identified four parts or cases have accompanied information: (c07) saucer is named "Tin bird", (c15) suggested fighter plane "Flying twin" (maybe two-seat fighter, cameraman on the back, twin probably refers to the saucer that was mimicking him, if Mig-9 then event took place after 1946), (c23) beings are termed "Blue boys", (c24) "meeting" suggests probably arrival of medical and other personnel. Next video names these fragments as "incidents" (probably refers to tape 01 and 03) and "recovery" (tape 04), which means that uploaded videos from April 13 and May 1 are showing one event and should be considered as one video. Video from May 1, 2011. starts with message about legal notice about the video content, consistent with before mentioned acts of declassification of KGB archive. Video is assembled from three parts: 25:00:08:43, 25:00:27:38, and 26:00:55:09. I would like to notice that Ivan gave information about 7 video tapes from the period of 1942 to 1969., although he published seven fragments from four video tapes altogether (excluding one from 1961), so I assume that this was mentioned just as a collection designation. Content of the video is called a "study of extraterrestrial life forms" (plural, suggests more beings, title probably copied from previously written description), and marked as "tape 05". Part 25:00:08:43 (Case 25) shows the being in free standing position focusing the upper torso. The neck is thin and long and laterally continues to zygomatic arch which is in line with the upper border of orbital bone (human neck tissue ends below orbitals), mandible is small, pointy and seems that ends below the zygomatical maxillary process and is aligned with the cross section of the orbital cavity (human mandible ramus ends next to temporal bone, displaced from the cross section of the orbital cavity), trapezoid muscle that connects clavicules is too narrowed to be human, could suggest that clavicules start lower than visible. Face proportions (front and side) seems to agree with proportions of the neck and torso, although overall cranial cavity is large and disbalanced (large arms may stabilize the posture). Part 25:00:27:38 seems to show the being on a height measuring scale, but no parameters visible, height could be approximated indirectly by proportioning approx. size of a scale border rod to shown body proportions (notice slight changes in head shape). I don't see how could one find a human child that could fit these measures, especially upper torsal area. Part 26:00:55:09 or five seconds Case 26 is termed "How to drive" and seems to show a shadow over a white wire that seems to levitate. May 17, 2011. video is without time signature, but Ivan supplied archived summary of it, naming it tape 06" recorded in 1961. Tape 06 is without the sound of a projector, which indicates that it could be recorded with smaller K-type 16mm camera (previous probably bolex 8mm type). Beings could be only puppets or animations. If puppets, then I see anatomical differences between them (like among us), which would mean that the artist was doing different molds for each of them, at least three, that he could copy through motion picture editing techniques. How a puppet could walk like that and mimic free motions is something I haven't seen even in modern robotic models, and to do something similar in 3d CG studio is a huge job, since the programmer would need to count in the mechanics equations to produce anatomically correct movements and other non sw media, which usually requires a small team. If it comes from a such source then it does not have any kind of benefit from it, since the publisher explicitly stated a clause for free dissemination and usage, as is usually done with the archive material intended to be put for historical research. Because of accompanied archival designations and correct correspondence with the video content I consider that the videos are genuine, and legal (very low probability of forgery). If you have some other observations or information on this, feel free to share.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I personally find a lot of veracity in Ivan's text on his last video. The statements he makes are a bit odd.

He says: "The material is an edited compilation of the documents that we have. Your opinion and the conclusion you draw from this material do not depend on us. Maybe you are looking in the wrong direction. You are the ones who reject this material."

Clue #1: Ivan consistently refers to these clips as "Documents"
Clue #2: Ivan admits that the material is edited. Many take these edits to mean that the videos must be a hoax.
Clue #3: Apart from a couple instances of possible typos... His grammar are slightly off...

The material is an edited compilation of the documents that we have.

Sources will not be revealed. Information that may involve any people or agency will not be disclosed. There is not any reference which may link the material to any organization that is working today in the material exposed. However, you are speculating and making conjectures about its origins.

The material does not belong to any film, video game, television series or other commercial products that have been revealed to date or which are currently in production. No one who is out of this may prove to be the owner of this material. No one who is out of this can prove he has in his possession the original material.

You are the ones who create your own misinformation.
edit on 7-11-2019 by Elyei because: to finish Ivan's text




top topics



 
45
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join