Skinny Bob Colorized and New Details

a reply to: Blue Shift

I saw that exact theory, ive looked to reproduce it but couldnt. Are there any exampled you could find?

It doesnt really shift and change shape and the camera is moving constantly. There's no consistancy to it. I doubt its the camera attachment getting in the way of itself.

originally posted by: BelowBottomPublicity
a reply to: mirageman

Obviously this isn't a cruise ship. i.ibb.co...
Not saying it's aliens but thats more likely than cruise ship.

No obviously not. So what is your point?

Ive said countless time that there is no definitive proof.

But if I was forced to choose I'd say skinny bob.

Yes. There is no proof of aliens visiting Earth. But obviously that video is. If only the rest of world and minds immeasurably superior to ours could recognise this evidence as proof.

You act like Ufology has nothing to do with aliens, what world do you live in? Ufology has been linked to aliens since it's inception.

But ufology is the study of unidentified flying objects. It cannot exclude UFOs that are not alien. Because we can't prove any are in the first place. Are you are still not able to elevate yourself to the basic levels of basic comprehension here?

Do you enjoy disbelieving that much? Whats interesting about it if its all 100% fake in your eyes. You couldnt even give me one you find the most credible, instead you trolled.

Do you enjoy disbelieving all the evidence to the contrary?

I didn't say it was 100% fake I said (in regards to any UFO being extraterrestrial) that "we lack the data to prove it scientifically. "

Your question about why would you think I could find one that was the most credible is pointless. That should be up to you to offer. Not me.

Do you not understand that you are the troll here? You are proposing unfounded beliefs. I am pointing out the inadequacies of your own ability to cite evidence to prove your case on here. You seem oblivious to it and somewhat lacking in clarity of thought.

I noted you cited these cases in an earlier post;

Jerusalem - was a hoax.

Turkey - a cruise ship and various other unconvincing evidence.

Hudson valley - I've posted a thread about it Hudson Valley, Indian Point, Boomerang UFOs & the Stormville Flyers

Washington DC - I am assuming you mean 1952? I've also posted a thread about that Revisiting the 1952 Washington DC UFO Flap

Like I said I've actually done some donkey work and researched these cases. I am not saying aliens aren't out there. All I am saying is that, as yet, there is no evidence for it.

But if trolling is disagreeing with someone else's point of view without citing sources of proof. Then you are the troll. Because you can't prove that a single UFO case is alien in origin.

a reply to: mirageman

Your link to the jerusalem "hoax" is weak and even wrong on the most basic level.
Says the light doesn't reflect off the dome saying it's "super suspicious" & must be digitally added.
Right above it is a clear video showing the reflection off the dome.
You'll believe just about anything won't you

"strangely small size of the aircraft"
bigger than my car i.ibb.co...

The only one of these i've done extensive analysis on is Jerusalem because it had the most to work with. So I'll have to look into the other ones more before I can see if everything you have checks out.

It's all evidence. Evidence can turn out to be fake but it's still evidence.
The strength of the evidence is in it's validity.

Your question about why would you think I could find one that was the most credible is pointless. That should be up to you to offer. Not me.

I was just asking a question, not interrogating you...
It's a simple question "what is the strongest ufo/alien case in your opinion"

Do you enjoy disbelieving all the evidence to the contrary?

I have my doubts but I never said it was impossible. I can't prove the boat theory wrong at the moment so naturally i'll keep it in consideration until that changes. I doubt the child in a costume theory for skinny bob but I'm not going to ignore evidence until that theory becomes a near impossibility.

Back on Jerusalem, your link makes a lot of claims with no evidence and calls it "proof".
Instead of citing a bunch of links, why don't you present some evidence here in a concise manner and we can go over it that way. Focusing on Jerusalem, what do you have to say it's fake? The evidence I came across was "one israeli was a film student" which to some people = proof it's fake. The only thing it tells us is why he had a camera on him in the first place. Smart phones were taking off in America but not everyone in Israel had one and this was late at night, 2am iirc.

If you believe that link proves Jerusalem to be a hoax then you believe too easily.

@BelowBottomPublicity you troll. come back on the ground of hard facts. Skinny Bob's days are counted. everyone here knows that it is a hoax lol. i'm pretty sure you know it too, but you just pretend it's the opposite.

a reply to: FrvstMaSke
It looks real to thousands of people despite having their own community try so desperately to prove to them it's fake.
I see people believing the worst evidence so easily and it shows how biased the majority of people are.
For both advocates and skeptics, the majority of them believe too easily in favor of their initial impressions.

Even on this thread you have people citing the 3d.sk "ivan0135", barely putting in an ounce of effort before believing wholeheartedly that it's 100% proven wrong. It really puts things into perspective and shows that you can't trust the majority of people to be objective. We'd all like to believe we're being objective, but too few actually are. I've said it before, under the right circumstances people will believe real life is CGI, and believe they can tell it's CGI.Going as far as to say "this is obviously CGI", I can easily prove that. Aliens are the perfect specimen for this kind of behavior.

originally posted by: Elyei
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Do we have physical evidence that Pluto exists?? Or just some obviously CGI photos and composites?

Ridiculous comparison. A planet that's an unreachable 3.5+ billion miles away, to a claimed alien species that physically visits Earth thousands of times. Imagine we visited Pluto thousands of times without a shred of evidence to prove this. You'd find nothing suspicious in that? There's a valid comparison if you want to use a planet.

Sometimes... you have to have faith in the evidence presented because you trust the source.

At least you acknowledge it's based in faith of evidence rather than the fact of evidence. Other people share stories and claims and you have faith they're being truthful.

originally posted by: BelowBottomPublicity
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

There is evidence...UFO's, witnesses, videos, pictures, government documents. 
There's 2 possibilities, hyper-advanced technology unbeknownst to the world, or aliens. 
Can you think of a 3rd possibility? If you've studied UFO's for even a week 
you'd know that there no other good explanations for the phenomena.

The thread is about aliens, not UFOs. You're just another that takes the huge leap of faith and makes a connection in your mind.

And finally we get this perfect footage, clear and unshaken, of a real live alien and idiots disregard it as impossible and too good to be true.

A "real live alien"? That's a statement of conviction and fact. Yet you still only can provide "evidence" through stories.
Calling those that don't believe as you childish names makes it seem we're having a discussion with a 12 year old. Might want to change that.

How much time have you spent looking into UFOs? You've seen all the best ones and still think they are ALL FAKE

I have a feeling I've studied the subject longer than you've been alive. Definitely done more in-depth research. I don't follow along with the masses, I need to research and study a subject for myself to find both sides of a story. Not relying on the words of others. That's part of the problem with many on this forum.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8
Way to say a whole bunch of nothing.

Personally, I liked the comment in the original video post of "Ivan's" where someone asserts it is a hoax, made by draping a person in animal parts arranged to look like an alien and then allowing a demon to animate them, done by the CIA to fool the Soviets .. .talk about a convoluted explanation!

Personally, I go back and forth on these. They could be real ... and that's the first video I've thought that of, for what it's worth. If a hoax, then it's a really, really good one that cinema hasn't topped.

Some weird mind games/ juju going on with this subject... I'll be forever suspicious, almost especially if something gets released "officially."

The only thing I'm partially sure of is some unexplained phenomena occurs, sometimes ... and the government spooks use it to their advantage ... sometimes. Hall of mirrors leading to a mobius stairwell.

a reply to: Baddogma

The problem most people have is fear of rejection. The more substantial the evidence, the more heavily ridiculed you'll be for believing something so crazy. And when the people are against you, it can be hard to stick to your guns.

This is why conspiracy theorists nowadays are so selective in what they believe because if they believe 1 thing wrong, theyve lost all credibility. So its just safer to believe what everyone else believes. Group think. Social media has made it hard to stay anonymous.

You could have all the evidence in the world for 9/11 but if youre an anti-vaxxer then people arent going to take you seriously and will probably bully you mercilessly. Im not an anti vaxxer or a flat earther but i dont ridicule them either because I know what it's like to believe something others think is crazy. Yes, I believe 9/11 was controlled demolition. There's nothing I'm more sure of than that.

Either way, point is people are too scared to believe anything too substantial so they just follow what's popular to avoid rejection from the community.

originally posted by: BelowBottomPublicity
a reply to: Blue Shift

I saw that exact theory, ive looked to reproduce it but couldnt. Are there any exampled you could find?

It doesnt really shift and change shape and the camera is moving constantly. There's no consistancy to it. I doubt its the camera attachment getting in the way of itself.

You have to look at all the footage the guy shot. It changes shape like crazy in some of them, and you can see how it goes from being a small light to being a kind of bright curve when he holds up the telescope. Once you know what it is, it's obvious.

Don't look at the stabilized stuff, either, because the key is seeing how the thing moves and radically, instantly changes shape when he moves or refocuses the camera. Probably because the light is reflecting slightly different. Check it out. Sorry, no aliens in a convertible flying saucer in this one.

a reply to: Blue Shift
I dont understand what youre saying. That we're looking at a fixed camera attachment? It just doesn't look like that to me. Not only that, the expert analysis concluded that the light source was coming from somewhere else, not from the filmer.

Edit: while i dont think its a ship or camera attachment, i dont know that its an alien either. I havent done enough investigating into that one.

I finally figured out how to add pictures.

Here is one. Its very well done and touted to be a hoax but who knows. Made by a very talented CGI artist. Much clearer and better than the Skinny Bob video.

"BLUE BOOK" - ALIEN INTERVIEW AT THE AREA 51

a reply to: eManym
What do you mean who knows? You just said it was made by a talented CGI artist. Although thats a bit off, it was made by a talented CGI studio. It was for the TV Mini Series Project Blue Book.

It barely moves and when the light hits it, it looks so terrible. To think this looks better than bob must be joke or a sign.



At 0:15
Bob is more illuminated and has a dynamic range of movement. This is a great job but not even close.

I am demonstrating that CGI space alien videos are out there. I added 'who knows' to keep the conversation going. Wouldn't it be evident that the Skinny Bob videos are more of the same, created at an earlier time?

The Skinny Bob videos have been softened or blurred considerably. Undoubtedly to hide any flaws in the CGI creation process. Skinny Bob is portrayed as a harmless little space alien wearing a stylish turtleneck sweater or suit.

Space aliens in abduction cases have been portrayed as quite heinious. If they are capable of dimension shifting as has been proposed, why would they bother to walk around with and be examined by government officials?

Looks real to me.

a reply to: eManym

The alien you showed barely moved, was lit much less, and when lit looks much worse than skinny bob even at lower resolutions. The thing everyone points to for bob, the eyes, was not even attempted to be made organic and it was made by a small studio for television.

Since it looks much less convincing it's reasonable to assume the studio who made bob put in a lot more work for no tv show or movie tie-in. I will say though, it's the next best CG grey alien out there. They do good work and this is their department, they make a lot of hoax-like videos.

Looks like Bob actually has more detail after all.

No one is going to change their mind.
I'm tired of this thread.

Bob is real, thats the bottom line.

originally posted by: BelowBottomPublicity
a reply to: Blue Shift
I dont understand what youre saying. That we're looking at a fixed camera attachment? It just doesn't look like that to me. Not only that, the expert analysis concluded that the light source was coming from somewhere else, not from the filmer.

Edit: while i dont think its a ship or camera attachment, i dont know that its an alien either. I havent done enough investigating into that one.

It's not a camera attachment. It's the cameraman physically holding a telescope up to the lens of the video camera. So it's misaligned. What you're seeing is a reflection/refraction of the light (either on the water or up on that short peninsula to the south) off the inside of the telescope, and in particular the ring on the end of it -- or some other internal component.


That's why the shape of the thing morphs when he moves it, and changes in shape dramatically when he tries to refocus. You can see that he's way out of focus because the Moon is just a blob. He's focused in close, on the inside of the telescope. When he got better equipment he stopped seeing the "UFO."