Alien Shot Dead By Colombian Farmer (Video)

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
no, not perfect... the leaves even change colors... look closer. in a few frames the leaves are completely frozen into place because they are so afraid of inconsistency in matching up frames that they use same frames a few times repeatedly to keep them still trying to give the impression of consistency. it is VERY obvious.

i'm not even a CGI enthusiast... only having done a few photoshop pieces myself and hardly ever paying close attention to scrutinize others work, this just completely sticks out.

Now, i'm not saying they didn't use a puppet... because the lighting on the creature itself is not bad and looks like an actual object rather than artwork and matches good enough for it to possibly actually be in those bushes at SOME point in time, just not while those dogs are there, but that is not hard to accomplish in editing either... but if they did use a puppet, they still edited the video back together because that is not what was originally there in those bushes with those dogs.... the editing is VERY obvious.

As they're so obvious would you mind taking screenshots of said frames and throwing them into Photoshop to create a frame-by-frame gif animation?

Only reason I ask is that I don’t see what you are on about in the slightest and being a junior video editor for a digital media agency - this worries me.

From what I can make out using the YT playback controls, the reason the leaves would change colour is because the only source of light in this clip is natural and combined with the smoke from the supposable gun fire, that passes through the tree's, adds a blue tint to them at most. I don’t see any obvious static leaves that would give the impression of dropped frames.

Editing software has indeed been used to top & tail the footage but there is no obvious tell tale sign of CGI being used in this clip. I'm still putting my money on a puppet and a spring board until I see these 'ghost' frames.

Some of you are saying it's hands-down CGI, some of you are saying it's hands-down a puppet. These are mutually exclusive which therefore means you have no idea what it is. Stick to discussing evidence of forgery here, then we'll actually get somewhere with it.

That video is HILARIOUS!!

When was this taken, 1974?

The quality is awful... and It's so ridiculous and so fake.



Why is this thread not in Hoax section?

reply to post by blupblup

Indeed! I did have a good old chuckle at this, especially when people believed it to be made using CGI. Clearly people need to either do their research or educate themselves in videography.

Gremlins 4?

Originally posted by indigo21
Some of you are saying it's hands-down CGI, some of you are saying it's hands-down a puppet. These are mutually exclusive which therefore means you have no idea what it is. Stick to discussing evidence of forgery here, then we'll actually get somewhere with it.

OK, then how about this- what ET is smart enough to cross the galaxy to get to our planet, but stupid enough that it would walk right into a clearing where there are 3 large barking dogs and a person holding a gun? Even animals are smarter than that. And secondly, what hunter shoots right into the midst of his own dogs?? Never happens. You don't need to prove this is a puppet or CGI to know this is fake, all it takes is applying some common sense.

Originally posted by TrickE

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
no, not perfect... the leaves even change colors... look closer. in a few frames the leaves are completely frozen into place because they are so afraid of inconsistency in matching up frames that they use same frames a few times repeatedly to keep them still trying to give the impression of consistency. it is VERY obvious.

i'm not even a CGI enthusiast... only having done a few photoshop pieces myself and hardly ever paying close attention to scrutinize others work, this just completely sticks out.

Now, i'm not saying they didn't use a puppet... because the lighting on the creature itself is not bad and looks like an actual object rather than artwork and matches good enough for it to possibly actually be in those bushes at SOME point in time, just not while those dogs are there, but that is not hard to accomplish in editing either... but if they did use a puppet, they still edited the video back together because that is not what was originally there in those bushes with those dogs.... the editing is VERY obvious.

As they're so obvious would you mind taking screenshots of said frames and throwing them into Photoshop to create a frame-by-frame gif animation?

Only reason I ask is that I don’t see what you are on about in the slightest and being a junior video editor for a digital media agency - this worries me.

From what I can make out using the YT playback controls, the reason the leaves would change colour is because the only source of light in this clip is natural and combined with the smoke from the supposable gun fire, that passes through the tree's, adds a blue tint to them at most. I don’t see any obvious static leaves that would give the impression of dropped frames.

Editing software has indeed been used to top & tail the footage but there is no obvious tell tale sign of CGI being used in this clip. I'm still putting my money on a puppet and a spring board until I see these 'ghost' frames.

no need to because you DO see it, but even being smoke related it only last a few frames and then is gone... quick... doesn't dissipate normally. Proof of editing. Point made.

look closer and you will see frozen frames. i do not have time to pick apart an obvious fake for you personally. Obvious by many other means than this.

LOL, LOL.... HOAX. Poor poor HOAX. This is obviously very poor CGI. Not to mention the guy doesn't video the corpse? Riiiiighht....

The perpetrator should be ashamed.

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
no need to because you DO see it, but even being smoke related it only last a few frames and then is gone... quick... doesn't dissipate normally. Proof of editing. Point made.

No, that is not proof of editing. That can easily be a natural occurrence, point not made.

Video editing & CGI are two very different things. You stated that there is a selection of frames showing leaves in a static state despite interaction with the object, to quote "VERY obvious". This was your proof of CGI being used. Where is it? Clearly you have gone out of your comfort zone on this subject and made one too many assumptions in the hope of coming out looking like you know what you're talking about.

How would I know? Well, I was a runner up in the RedBull Canimation competition & my entry was in the CGI category. So please, prove me wrong.

(This is all said with a light hearted tone, please don’t take offence to it I’m just generally intrigued.)

reply to post by yourignoranceisbliss


Did you have anything constructive to add to this thread or is slamming people your only purpose for being here?


Hypocrisy at best.....

Originally posted by micpsi
I find all these comments screaming "fake" pretty pathetic. Not an ounce of well-thought out arguments or analysis to justify your scepticisms. Just the usual knee-jerks from people who would never accept video evidence of the paranormal, aliens, etc however convincing it was. Instead, you either shout "CGI" with absolutely NO evidence that it was or contort yourselves mentally with ludicrously implausible scenarios and explanations in order not to have to admit that it is something you cannot readily explain in conventional terms. Get real!

The truth of the matter here is that the portion of the film that supposedly reveals the alien briefly before it is shot at is simply not long enough and clear enough to establish whether it is an animal known to zoology or something truly out of this world. Instead of admitting this and maintaining a position of careful neutrality, you all rush over one another mindlessly to be the first in the queue to expose this as yet another hoax, resorting to silly, easily refutable reasons to justify your scepticism with no sound arguments to back it up.

Know this: exhibiting an irrational, debunking attitude is just as bad as being uncritical and credulous towards reports of the paranormal.

And some of you who confuse irrational debunking with sound scepticism think this is the proper scientific attitude?

^^ This.

Closed minded, extreme skepticism is on the same level as uncritical belief acceptance. There has to be more evidence before a substantial conclusion can be reached.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
I dunno.

It looks cgi to me, but it's clear that the dogs are fixed on this "thing".

I suppose it could have been a boar being shot or something, but that thing does not look real at all.

Thanks for the video!

ETA: With the video being so close to the actual shot, you should have been able to see some blood spray or something.

edit on 4-3-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-3-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

you may not see any blood due to 3 factors. the range the farmer was, the caliber of round used, and we do not know what kind of biological make up this thing may have, IF this video is even real. I'll stay on the fence about this one until more about it surfaces...... but I highly doubt it unfortunately....

Originally posted by TrickE

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
no need to because you DO see it, but even being smoke related it only last a few frames and then is gone... quick... doesn't dissipate normally. Proof of editing. Point made.

No, that is not proof of editing. That can easily be a natural occurrence, point not made.

Video editing & CGI are two very different things. You stated that there is a selection of frames showing leaves in a static state despite interaction with the object, to quote "VERY obvious". This was your proof of CGI being used. Where is it? Clearly you have gone out of your comfort zone on this subject and made one too many assumptions in the hope of coming out looking like you know what you're talking about.

How would I know? Well, I was a runner up in the RedBull Canimation competition & my entry was in the CGI category. So please, prove me wrong.

(This is all said with a light hearted tone, please don’t take offence to it I’m just generally intrigued.)

if it only last a couple of frames than NO, it is NOT natural. i can't believe i am having to explain this again. it stops way too abruptly and is more like a lightning flash of blue rather than a quick puff of smoke.

video editing and CGI are two different things.... NOOOOOOO, You're Freaking kidding me!

i'm pretty sure i said prrof of editing but if i used CGI, it was a typo. i will go back and look as though this is important at all (which it isn't) i was referring to the idea that the creature could be CGI which it does not appear to me to be either.

i care not for your credentials and find it very odd that you are so worried about this. the damn video is an obvious fake. why does this offend you so bad... is it yours?

if you think i am making a lot of assumptions, then why the hell are you intrigued? because this is just what egos tell some people to do when they are intrigued i guess. try to shoot it down. Makes ya feel safer i reckon.

whatever the hell helps you sleep at night guy.

it's afake and the breaks in the video i pointed out and many other people see them as well. they almost cannot NOT be there... as we all know it's a fake and there was a video edit... had to be.

i'm SO SORRY that it offends you that i saw this and this threatens your ego... but I'm afraid you are just going to have to deal with it because what you say reflects way more about you than it does my ability to see what many other people are seeing as well.

if i were you i'd take some anti-misogynist workshops and get the hell over it because it's clear that it isn't my "ASSUMPTIONS" you are speculating on... SEEING AS HOW THEY ARE NOT ASSUMPTIONS, lol.

that is the exact spot of the edit therefore meaning that there is no way the natural dissipation could have NOT been interrupted... NO ASSUMPTIONS there DUDE!

it's impossible for it to NOT be interrupted at the moment the vid was cut... expert or not, your common sense is escaping you.

Originally posted by spacemanjupiter
LOL, LOL.... HOAX. Poor poor HOAX. This is obviously very poor CGI. Not to mention the guy doesn't video the corpse? Riiiiighht....

The perpetrator should be ashamed.

I did not know dogs could rip apart a cgi alien

go back to your drawing board, and start your debunking all over again please.....

reply to post by TrickE

Personally, I do not see the connection to CGI at all. People saying this; please provide some proof to your claims as I'd like to know how the hell a non-professional CGI enthusiast would produce such perfect interactions with the leaves on those trees. A more logical conclusion would be a doll/puppet on a wire or spring board with a French banger attached for the gun shot.

i think you are waisting your time we are here surrounded by expert... all ILM staff spend there time on ATS so they know what they are talking about...they work on cgi everyday...i think it's a real alien but it dosen't matter now he is dead !

Originally posted by nineix
Third Phase Moon = Fake.

Third Phase moon = Notorious Hoaxers.

Just say'n.

I agree. I was watching videos from Third Phase Moon the other day and came to the same conclusion. The aliens tend to all quite similar with the same color and look, aliens are in focus (that really doesn't just happen) and the peoples reactions don't always seem natural.

reply to post by BlackSatinDancer

Firstly, don’t get so defensive. As I stated above in small print, take my comments with a light hearted tone. They were in no way meant to come across as bashful. I guess it’s how the reader portrays the comment at the end of the day. Judging by your response I hit a nerve and a large one at that as your reply is outright rude.

The reason I’m worried is because it’s my job. I work with video, photography & CGI on a daily basis. To not notice CGI being used in something which you claim to be "VERY obvious" is indeed rather worrying as what does it say about me and my career? Not cool. Also, this is not my video nor would I want to claim it to be, as frankly, it’s beyond terrible. The only reason I’m still here is because i want to get my point across that CGI has not been used in this video, just props and basic editing software such as Premier.

Now, where you see this as only lasting a couple of frames can be very deceiving. Different cameras shoot at different speeds, meaning if i shot at 50fps then uploaded my clip to YouTube it will be automatically compressed to a lower frame rate, most likely 25fps or whatever YouTube’s native format is. Thus, you are affectively losing half your frames. This gives the impression that something is moving not as smoothly as it should or jumps across the screen more per frame than at its native rate.

If you’re so convinced CGI is being used why not put your Photoshop skills to good use, take screenshots of said frames and highlight them to me. Then you have your smoking gun and can say "told you so". Until then, that little alien is nothing more than a puppet prop in some bushes.

(Take this with a light hearted tone for god’s sake! I’m not shouting at my screen as a write this or anything, so don’t read it like i am!!)

Originally posted by TrickE
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer

 

Firstly, don’t get so defensive.

As I stated above in small print, take my comments with a light hearted tone. They were in no way meant to come across as bashful. I guess it’s how the reader portrays the comment at the end of the day. Judging by your response I hit a nerve and a large one at that as your reply is outright rude.

The reason I’m worried is because it’s my job. I work with video, photography & CGI on a daily basis. To not notice CGI being used in something which you claim to be "VERY obvious" is indeed rather worrying as what does it say about me and my career? Not cool. Also, this is not my video nor would I want to claim it to be, as frankly, it’s beyond terrible. The only reason I’m still here is because i want to get my point across that CGI has not been used in this video, just props and basic editing software such as Premier.

Now, where you see this as only lasting a couple of frames can be very deceiving. Different cameras shoot at different speeds, meaning if i shot at 50fps then uploaded my clip to YouTube it will be automatically compressed to a lower frame rate, most likely 25fps or whatever YouTube’s native format is. Thus, you are affectively losing half your frames. This gives the impression that something is moving not as smoothly as it should or jumps across the screen more per frame than at its native rate.

If you’re so convinced CGI is being used why not put your Photoshop skills to good use, take screenshots of said frames and highlight them to me. Then you have your smoking gun and can say "told you so". Until then, that little alien is nothing more than a puppet prop in some bushes.

(Take this with a light hearted tone for god’s sake! I’m not shouting at my screen as a write this or anything, so don’t read it like i am!!)

yep... glad the rudeness part didn't escape you at least, cause it really gets old to receive an ego attack veiled by fake politeness.

pretty tired of that shtick.

speaking of that which is completely escaping you again is the fact that I never suggested any CGI was used. I mentioned i was not a CGI enthusiast so no need to try to impress me by blabbing on about yer job... or hobby... or fantasy or whatever. the simple fact is that this is what my eyes saw and it happens to be in the same spot as the video cut, not only did I see the colors change and then go back way too abruptly but since it was CUT there... there is no way the effect of the smoke could have played out normally, because when the video picks back there is no way it would still be there. Are you getting this? you say it is assumption but if that video is cut at that point, then how can this possibly be an assumption?

It's very clear to me that you are simply not paying attention to what is on the screen in front of your face if you couldn't see it and since you keep insisting that i have been referring to this as CGI... because that is completely false. i said that i thought it was edited and i'm getting pretty tired of repeating myself over this lame ass crap.

there... I solved your job problem. pay more attention to whats on your screen if you are that worried about your profession or whatever. You're welcome.

I can see the reverberation through the body from a bullet striking it so whatever it is, it is a real object. But as for what it appears to be, who knows? Not saying real, nor saying fake.

Fake or not, that thing was adorable! It would make a great character in a movie. Oh wait...Gremlins was already made, oh well.