New alien footage. Real or fake? Experts, have yourself a look & discuss

a reply to: Pinke

Gee, I don't know, maybe because it looks like every other amateur video shot in the 1950's?

And it is usually obvious when modern day footage attempts to emulate 1950's footage....they can add in some effects, but the motion is hard to tamper with. The motion in 1950's footage just isn't as accurate as the motion in footage (digital I realize) and that is easy to see. And that is the case in this video, it doesn't have smooth motion.

Also, some people have come up with rather "take my word on it" type of statements, such as "if this video was shot in the 50's it was shot with a camera that didn't exist". Interesting, but without any back-up just speculation and an opinion. If you think that is true lay out a case - if you care to. If you think that is too time consuming and not worth your while I understand.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Pinke

And it is usually obvious when modern day footage attempts to emulate 1950's footage....they can add in some effects,

Which is exactly what this looks like to me. There are software packages available to the average consumer specifically for this purpose. Nothing in this video is beyond reach to the non-professional. And since all we have is a YouTube link, a proper analysis isn't possible.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Pinke

Gee, I don't know, maybe because it looks like every other amateur video shot in the 1950's?

Even if we're sticking to the 'we're only going to deconstruct one of the original posters videos' rule, there are still problems. (I'm not sticking to that rule) Very few 8mm footages have the properties this collection of footage has.

And it is usually obvious when modern day footage attempts to emulate 1950's footage....they can add in some effects, but the motion is hard to tamper with. The motion in 1950's footage just isn't as accurate as the motion in footage (digital I realize) and that is easy to see. And that is the case in this video, it doesn't have smooth motion.

What 'motion' are you referring to? Are you referring to the registration? The frame jitter? The motion blur? (All of which are in those softwares I linked you). You say these things like 'motion is hard to tamper with' but based on our interactions I'm not sure what your basis is.

Also, some people have come up with rather "take my word on it" type of statements, such as "if this video was shot in the 50's it was shot with a camera that didn't exist"

* Why is the timecode impacted by film artifacts if it is filmed off a projector or added later?
* Why is the timecode wrong?
* Why are artifacts off frame?
* What amateur lens were they using that could zoom and focus like that without distortions in the 1950s?
* Why does the defocus look like like an artificial blur operation rather than real lens based DOF?
Lens based DOF example in this clip at 3:35:

* Why do the 'redactions' look 'modern' but are filmed off a film projector?
* Why the edits to the KGB logo? Why is the KGB logo ghosted?

Why do these types of clips always have the odd properties? Sure, we can reconcile some with a projector, by changing decades some bits were filmed ... Maybe the timecode was added later. Thing is you're not asking questions, you're an apologist for this footage. In this thread you've gone everywhere from saying 90s VFX weren't at this level to 'oh we don't know when it was filmed.' That's the very definition of double standard.

There is no evidence this was made in the 90s VFX era that I can see. This is post 2000. The person who posted the videos should have known what decade they're from or not claimed it. And many VFX artists have footages that are never seen that look awesome. Some show reels do contain hoax work.

Anyway, I doubt we will continue this conversation much. I think it's reasonable to consider it might be real, but I believe its unreasonable to say there is no evidence that it is fake. It has problems.

Clarification on a previous post: When I say there are junior show reels that are better than this, that's not attacking the artist that made this work. I think it's mega neat. It's pointing out ignorance about the quality of the visual effects work produced by juniors.

a reply to: Pinke

Thanks Pinke, I do appreciate your time and effort on this endeavor, it does mean much to some people. You have brought up some seemingly great points on which I will have to educate myself on further before applying them to the footage in the OP. I shall return.....

I've never commented on Skinny Bob before.
My opinion is its a well done reenactment.
The movement of the creature is really neat, especially the face.
I like touches like the batting eyes and flinching fingers as well.
Also the dark (however more reports are silver)
skin tight flight suit is well done too.
The expressions are fantastic as well as is the overall stature.

Here's what bugs me:
it's too clear, too human and he has thumbs.
The thumbs are notable because of all the Roswell witness books
I've read, and they are many because I'm old,
they almost all have said 4 fingers no thumb.
So... if I'm a hoaxer and out to portray an alien and specifically
one of the 1947 variety, its a peculiar thing to get wrong.

If by chance in the future a Skinny Bob like film
is found and deemed genuine this is pretty much what I expect it would look like .

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: SecretKnowledge

Really? Other effects added to the video, to possibly confuse the source or origin of the video, cause blood vessels to pulsate in the neck and head?

Sure I agree there seem to be effects added in to the video, but even without those effects the video would still appear to be 1950's era. And those effects have nothing to do with pulsating blood vessels on the being.

i dont understand your logic here.

Why, if this film is indeed the real deal, would they add effects to the footage? I dont buy it as you say "to confuse the source" or "the origin of the video".
The only reason the effects are added because it is fake, a good fake at that.

It is filmed in a 50's style with 50's effects added in. Which means overall it is a fake piece of film.

I still dont see any pulsating on the veins. I see movement in that area, but not pulsation.

I would like to see that area zoomed in and slowed down so we could determine once and for all if there is 'pulsating' veins there or not.

If anyone here could do that it would be great

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
I still dont see any pulsating on the veins. I see movement in that area, but not pulsation.

I would like to see that area zoomed in and slowed down so we could determine once and for all if there is 'pulsating' veins there or not.

If anyone here could do that it would be great

What would that prove? It wasn't a difficult effect in 1965... it shouldn't be difficult in the 21st century.

a reply to: draknoir2
Awesome. I was looking for that clip but then decided it wasn't worth the 10 minutes to find it. I'm not even convinced that there is even the intention of pulsating veins there. Looks like splotches of shadows to me.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2
Awesome. I was looking for that clip but then decided it wasn't worth the 10 minutes to find it. I'm not even convinced that there is even the intention of pulsating veins there. Looks like splotches of shadows to me.

If you want to see some freakishly realistic footage of an "alien" google "Rubber Johnny". It was a bit upsetting when I first saw a clip of it, before I knew what the video was. Clips were bouncing around YouTube for a while as actual footage of an alien, as I recall.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Looks like splotches of shadows to me.

Me too.

This is what i see

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
I still dont see any pulsating on the veins. I see movement in that area, but not pulsation.

I would like to see that area zoomed in and slowed down so we could determine once and for all if there is 'pulsating' veins there or not.

If anyone here could do that it would be great

What would that prove? It wasn't a difficult effect in 1965... it shouldn't be difficult in the 21st century.

That clip gave me a good laugh!

However, no one is claiming those might be real aliens.........

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

Well, I think the blood vessels in the neck are quite obvious.

The ones in the forehead are a little more subtle, if you watch the forehead area from the 25sec point to the 35sec point, pay attention to the forehead, you will see vessels stand out in relief and then disappear again, consistent with some kind of cardiovascular system.

Here is a blood vessel circled:



And now the blood vessel has disappeared:



Here is the original footage again:

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

That clip gave me a good laugh!

However, no one is claiming those might be real aliens.........

except that its the best example of what you are seeing. Big head, pulsating veins, campy 60s sci fi.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
I still dont see any pulsating on the veins. I see movement in that area, but not pulsation.

I would like to see that area zoomed in and slowed down so we could determine once and for all if there is 'pulsating' veins there or not.

If anyone here could do that it would be great

What would that prove? It wasn't a difficult effect in 1965... it shouldn't be difficult in the 21st century.

That clip gave me a good laugh!

However, no one is claiming those might be real aliens.........

So now the difference between a genuine video and a hoax is the claim? I thought it was the pulsating veins...

Pretty low bar, don't you think?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

That clip gave me a good laugh!

However, no one is claiming those might be real aliens.........

except that its the best example of what you are seeing. Big head, pulsating veins, campy 60s sci fi.

Could be quite convincing with a touch of Adobe After Effects.

a reply to: draknoir2

Could be quite convincing with a touch of Adobe After Effects

How about now?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2

Could be quite convincing with a touch of Adobe After Effects

How about now?

Yeah -- but I know of these aliens. They are called "Talosians" (from Talos IV), and you can never trust your eyes around them. They can make you THINK what you're experiencing is real, but they do so through mind manipulation.

Just ask Captain Christopher Pike. He'll tell you.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Just ask Captain Christopher Pike. He'll tell you.

I tried but I couldn't get much out of him.



Was it one beep for "yes" and two beeps for "No" or the other way around?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Was it one beep for "yes" and two beeps for "No" or the other way around?

One beep is "yes".....Which means two beeps is "double yes", obviously.

[...I'm going to quit there before the mods delete my posts due to lack of thread relevance (although I may be too late)]

a reply to: draknoir2

No, the difference is that with one, the "skinny Bob" video, millions of people on the internet believe it is a true alien, whereas with the second one, the Star Trek one, all it does is give people a good laugh, looking at a human with some effects added.

Or how about no one has been able to conclusively disprove or reproduce the "Skinny Bob" video, whereas through the decades there are dozens of creatures that have been reproduced by media similar to the character on Star Trek.