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.

 

Obama is not standing in front of a green screen during his Bagram speech...

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
It is rather funny how they kept the part where he walks past the vehicles. As if somehow to prove that it's not a green screen.

It's not like 'Obama Walking' is a much talked about event.

Only unless it was intended.

And then this thread came along...
You gave yourself away with the title btw.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Japanman
O.k... Your a government troll sent here to make us look like nut jobs
You do that on your own.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Click on my link from page 3 and see for yourself...his leg is see through...

chroma key FAIL!



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Monkeygod333
You gave yourself away with the title btw.
What do you mean?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Click on my link from page 3 and see for yourself...his leg is see through...

chroma key FAIL!

I was just looking at that. So that can't be a pixelation artifact as the blackness of his leg blends with the blackness of the background?

I think one reason why the video looks weird is because of the camouflage netting in the background.
edit on 3-5-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
So that can't be a pixelation artifact as the blackness of his leg blends with the blackness of the background?

Sure the "blackness" of his leg can indeed "blend" with the background if it was real. However that would not allow you to see through his leg and clearly see the background.

Just think about it for a moment...if it was just his leg you would see a SOLID black object.

However, we can clearly see the background THROUGH his leg. This is a rendering mistake that occurs when the colors are too close to each other and the computer thought Obama's leg was the same as the background and therefore it did not render as a solid object.

I provided the video link I took that screen capture from so you can replicate it yourself.

Do the youtube manual slow motion trick by hitting your space bar quickly to scroll frame by frame and you will see it too. Then watch as he fully emerges from the truck and his right arm (on our left) phases in and and out as it tries to "find" the proper chroma setting.

Then together we will "Deny Ignorance"!

PS - I have successfully posted this image on other websites but for some reason the embedding isn't working for me. If someone else knows what they are doing please feel free to post it or make your own screencapture.
edit on 3-5-2012 by Game_Over because: spelling



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
Sure the "blackness" of his leg can indeed "blend" with the background if it was real. However that would not allow you to see through his leg and clearly see the background.
What I'm saying is that portion of his leg is pixelated due to poor lighting. It makes it look like you can see through his leg as both his leg and the background are similar colors.


Originally posted by Game_Over
Just think about it for a moment...if it was just his leg you would see a SOLID black object.
Not if it was pixelated due to poor lighting.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Did you seriously just say the following:

What I'm saying is that portion of his leg is pixelated due to poor lighting. It makes it look like you can see through his leg as both his leg and the background are similar colors.

It doesn't "make it look like you can see through his leg"...

YOU CAN SEE THROUGH HIS LEG!

There is no level of poor lighting that makes things that are real see through!

Go ahead and do your best to spin this one however your mind needs it to be so you can sleep at night.

The simple fact of the matter is you can see through his leg.

I have proved the use of chroma key. WITHOUT A DOUBT.

You can replicate my findings for yourself.

Poor lighting does not make things see through.

You are wrong.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
Did you seriously just say the following:

It doesn't "make it look like you can see through his leg"...

YOU CAN SEE THROUGH HIS LEG!
Yes, I said that. Have you ever filmed anything in a poorly lit location? If so, you will see that the darker colors pixelate. That's what I'm referring to. The pant legs are pixelating making it look like it's part of the dark background. That's my opinion anyway...


Originally posted by Game_Over
There is no level of poor lighting that makes things that are real see through!
It's pixelation. If the background where a lighter color, it wouldn't look like it were see through.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Your entire pixelation theory falls apart because we can see the background continue through his leg.

Right through it! We see the background for crying out loud. what more do you need!

Poorly lit?

On what planet!

That stage is well lit from all angles -- look at the multiple shadows to prove it.

edit on 3-5-2012 by Game_Over because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
Your entire pixelation theory falls apart because we can see the background continue through his leg.

Right through it! We see the background for crying out loud. what more do you need!

Poorly lit?

On what planet!

That stage is well lit from all angles -- look at the multiple shadows to prove it.

edit on 3-5-2012 by Game_Over because: (no reason given)

It doesn't look well lit to me, not like it would be in a studio. The pixelation occurs behind the vehicle where it is a darker area.

Who knows? Maybe he is a cgi character walking out from a digitized background. What would be the purpose of that again? Why wouldn't they film him at the real place, really walking out from behind a real vehicle? He was really there, after all, as shown in the pictures. Occam's razor?
edit on 3-5-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Now you're back peddeling and flip flopping. Maybe you're really... The President!



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by abe froman
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Now you're back peddeling and flip flopping. Maybe you're really... The President!
It's time for change. Also, I was being sarcastic in my previous post...



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Not my job to figure out the "why".

I merely needed to show you they did it.

Read the title of this thread.

Then follow my links on page 3 of this thread.

Understand Original Poster of thread had been proven wrong.

Watch him and the others who denied us, wiggle and worm out of it...or ignore it.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Monkeygod333
It is rather funny how they kept the part where he walks past the vehicles. As if somehow to prove that it's not a green screen.

...

 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Pretty much this. Why have him walk out? What is the motive? It's obvious that they want the audience to believe he is really there giving that speech without a green screen. The thing that bothers me is how in-focus the background is even when the foreground is several feet away. It just looks suspicious.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
Not my job to figure out the "why".

I merely needed to show you they did it.

Read the title of this thread.

Then follow my links on page 3 of this thread.

Understand Original Poster of thread had been proven wrong.

Watch him and the others who denied us, wiggle and worm out of it...or ignore it.

I was the OP...and yes I told you that I looked at your links. I'm still not totally sold on your theory. Sorry.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join