I have a good eye for finding C.G.I or animated videos and I tell you no one can recreate or debunk this.There had been so much of hoaxes in the past that people have stopped believing...but this is the real deal and hope the disclosure happens soon.
If it is a fake, It's very well done. Who can really say these days with all the computer programs.... I do find the way the eyes blink a little intriguing because the lower lids move upward to meet the upper , Humans eyelids mostly blink downward, kinda find it odd that someone would think of that if this is fake.
I am about 90 % convinced that the footage is real. If it is a hoax, it is of the highest quality. What I believe we have here is the smoking gun. The footage has a patina on it that just simply can not be achieved with CGI.....
What if YOU put that mark on the video and then claimed it as a tell tale sign of fraud? Do you work for the FBI or CIA? They both filled with nothing but NIMRODS.
I knew it was fake. Suits don't have eyelids, the head and fingers were all wrong also. These beings weave their suits onto themselves with spider-silk (or something like it) and epoxy-like resin. You will never see one outside of its "grey" suit here on earth. The black "eyes" are protective lenses, which would be like a pair of sunglasses having eyelids. It makes no sense.
100% fake, take it from someone who knows more about it than you, whoever "you" may be.
You cite no evidence to back up your claims - you simply point out a mark on the screen and expect us to believe everything you say. Sorry but you're gonna have to do better than that.
@inthedarkesthole I claimed 1) there is a scratch that somehow appears neatly, exactly on the digit but not outside it. It's quite obvious to anyone with a reasonably normal eyesight. Claim 2) this suggests a fake "film aging" effect. You don't have to take my word on this either. If you're not happy with my explanation, just suggest a better one. How does this kind of effect happen if not faked?Are there genuine examples? After a few months and 7k views,there aren't any suggestions or examples.
Dude it's so pop art people need to get a grip and start making a better world instead of thinking some other creatures would actually respect us for how we as a species at. LOL! Nice better than x-files fx and I saw that prop stuff in person.
You clearly know nothing about film stock. A scratch can be only on a partial side of the film stock. It does not need to be all across from top to bottom. Go to film school or buy a book. Bet u do effects on Final Cut newbbie. Better luck next time!
@winterlonelywolf Another case of "I know everything about everything, you know nothing newbbie, and magically this video is authentic, I don't want to go into details, I'm an anonymous expert with bad spelling, and just registered on YT". It's been tried several times here and has been waste of time. If you have secret knowledge about film stocks and how the scratches appear across several frames, neatly inside the digits, go ahead, let the rest of the humanity know. Otherwise shut up, thanks!
@PeaceThroughHonesty: "You're no hero for trying to prove it's fake."...I am in the belief this is a real video..I guess you did not understand my comments..
Let 's just draw a possibility that could had happened on this case...
Let's say that this guy got a few pieces of the 8 mm film strip from this occurrence, they are real, but he has just a few frames-slides to work with...He run them through a projector and record them digitally from the projected screen... and captures audio also...
(Cont) take the recorded track into a Digital Editor Software, where he stretches the tracks to make them a bit longer that original film, then adds whatever You are claiming leads you into a Hoax...He adds the digits, the dust and -why not- the motion blur also to get a "blending effect"...
He had added some effects,OK, however his intentions were just to enhance and elongate the duration to a few more seconds, trying to hide his restoration work...But the original film is there in 8 mm slides...
And if you read Ivan's first part of the videos he says it clearly, that this videos had been edited from the originals...
@ufopolitics If he adds scratches, dust, and other effects to "hide his restoration", in other words to mislead the viewer, then the video is a hoax. Your idea is a slippery slope. You want to ignore the evidence of faking and speculate that other parts might be real. Following this tactic, you could always say in the end: "he forgot to take the camera with him, didn't get the ufo on video and wanted to hide this, so he faked it all; but that's ok; this doesn't prove the ufo wasn't there".
Now, Touko Qouko, watch this analysis related to the same video...but done by a professional in audio-video and CGI...Then I would like to read your opinion...
@ufopolitics I saw it over 2 months ago and commented on it. The author's response was "nice work toukoqouko. I was wondering about the font also." This professional in audio-video and CGI didn't note anything "dishonest" or otherwise erroneous about my analysis, its title, or view count. Instead he recommended people to watch my video. His analysis doesn't in anyway contradict mine. This is the difference between you and real experts.
@toukoqouko : The difference is that VParanormal believes it is a real video from the 60's, proving it, and it is not a CGI either, being him a CGI Expert, with a much deeper and better analysis than yours.
However, You, with a couple of non-substantial elements think is a Hoax, it is written in your title here and everywhere you write about it.
Again, the digits and anything else you've brought over could had been added to the original video, by the Restoration,not making it a Hoax or a Fake.
@ufopolitics You have misunderstood his video. His analysis is fps measurement from the audio. He then shows the video in a faster speed "so that you can analyze it in the original speed". Of course this proves nothing and he doesn't claim that. He doesn't claim it's a "deep" analysis. I have proven for instance that the scratches were digitally added after 2005 and that the ufo in the car scene wasn't in the original. That is "non-substantial" only in your personal fantasy world.
@toukoqouko : "Of course this proves nothing" ...Wrong again Touko!! The faster-original speed does proofs a lot, maybe not to you, but it does to a detail observer that the movements look completely real rather that those at a slower motion. Also the sound of the projector sound perfectly real in the original speed.
@ufopolitics "Movements look completely real" and "sound perfectly real" aren't a proof of anything. They are subjective opinions based on the impression. That has nothing to do with logical, checkable, reproducible measurements and observations.
@ufopolitics Previously you've insisted that audio is nothing, analyzing audio proves nothing and is totally irrelevant. I'm glad you've changed your mind and think an audio analysis is VERY GOOD. Now you're probably finally ready to accept my audio analysis of "Jerusalem" videos that prove them to be hoaxes.
@ufopolitics You said he proves it to be real. Then you admit he only shows the audio spikes are 12 fps. So you seem to think that any video with a 12 fps projector sound is provenly genuine. Another fine example of your level of logical reasoning. My goal has been to find out if the videos are authentic or if there has been manipulation (evidence of hoax). I have found conclusive proof of manipulation. That's all I wanted to know and show. It's nice that you now seem to agree my conclusions.
@toukoqouko : "So you seem to think that any video..." ...Again, you keep "assuming" that "I seem to think"...but that is you Touko...You keep assuming that I did not "understand" his video, when even a retarded could do it (Your try to set me as a moron)....You keep assuming that is fake according to your tiny little claims...or that you heard a fly in the background...!is fake!...that is you!!
Whenever there is an "added effect, or a change of audio tracks...fake!!
@ufopolitics Why did you say "VParanormal believes it is a real video from the 60's, proving it" if you don't actually mean that? I'm sorry that I for a moment assumed that you mean what you write. Of course you've been illogical and nonsensical before, that's why I added the caveat "seem to think". It's not my fault that you write things that don't make sense. You should blame yourself, not me.
Excellent comment and brief analysis, but exactly accurate into defining this videos.
I also agree in a 100% with you about the many transfers this video have gone through, from celluloid original film , passing to tape and finally to get a digital copy that of course have been restored.
This could be easy a third or fourth generation video.
@americanroadwarrior For some reason "ufopolitics" insists that I respond to your comment so here goes. I accept it looks real to you. Nothing to add about fps. Presence of interference effects don't tell much about authenticity, as there are video post-processing packages/plugins designed for producing them. I note that you agree my observation about the font being post-2005. Thanks for your comment and have a nice day!
Apart from a digital aging effect, nobody has suggested what kind of process could plausibly produce such "glitch". There are no known examples of such on other videos. The font is just a few years old so such effect is the only plausible method for scratches to appear. Everything in this explanation adds up. As to why they used a separate aging effect for the digits, I guess they wanted them to become unreadable at times, but didn't want the whole video to be excessively blurred at those times.
@toukoqouko So are you a digital expert?What are your qualifications?I'm not saying the footage is real,but I myself can't say it's fake either because I'm not any kind of digital expert.I'm just asking because there are people that claim to be so-called experts that like to go around debunking stuff like this with no qualifications.
But if you are a real expert in such things,then I'll look seriously at your findings.
@SunshineGirlz34 I've presented about as much formal qualifications as Ivan0135, i.e. none;) So if you judge by qualifications alone, I guess you've ignored Ivan's videos anyway. I think that regardless of qualifications we should just consider the facts to find the best explanation.
@toukoqouko I don't judge by qualifications alone,but for me,it helps me to come to a reasonable explanation.But I don't go by any experts findings alone,either.As I said,I myself cannot honestly say one way or the other because I know zero about digital manipulation.In my opinion, sometimes videos that people say are real are not,and videos that look fake turn out to be authentic.
@toukoqouko : The "qualifications" of Ivan are in all his videos...if you can not provide at least a similar animated video...how could we accept your ¨qualifications¨?
Again, you concentrate in the smallest and less significant details...like the ¨digits¨?What about the animation...could you brief us your opinions about it? ...No you can not, just 'cause you are far from knowing CGI, much less to produce a video like this one.
@ufopolitics Why are you repeating your nonsense again? Do you hope that people will be distracted and don't realize you can't find any weakness in my arguments? I don't have to reproduce the fake video. I'm not interested in deceiving people with fake videos. Even if you can't reproduce Stargate SG-1 special effects, that doesn't prove the aliens in that TV show are real.
@toukoqouko : If You have decided to create your videos in order to criticize, debunk, or prove an entire series of incredible good videos are fake...then you better come up with better-deeper reasons rather than a fly sound in the audio track...or the digits and a tiny piece of dust on the screen...or two frames blurred
Whenever you could be able to show how the characters were built, the animation process, the walking cycles, etc,etc...then your analysis would be more acceptable...
@ufopolitics Try that in a murder trial: "if you want to put a credible nice person in jail, you better come up with better proof than some tiny fingerprint, a small drip of blood in my gloves, or an invisible piece of my DNA on the crime scene!" All I need is conclusive evidence, that's what I have. You don't get to decide what evidence I can use. We've been through this.
@toukoqouko : If you will be a State Attorney, or a Judge, with that "thinking-reasoning" mentality ,you will put in jail many innocent people.
Unfortunately for You, there is more than just the so called "plain evidence" that come "easy out" , there are many , way more clever forms of investigations, rather than the simple and tiny proofs.
You do not have "ANY" conclusive evidence on "ANY" of your analysis in your entire channel related to "ANY" of the sightings-videos you have.
@ufopolitics I'd find it strange if "many innocent people" had victim's blood on their gloves and their fingerprints and DNA at crime scene. If you're their defense attorney and you just say "there are more clever forms of investigations rather than simple and tiny proofs. You do not have ANY conclusive evidence" you'd be laughed out of court. This pretty much happens here. If innocent people go to jail, it's the fault of their incompetent defense -you. You have done nothing to refute my points.
@toukoqouko : Again, it is more clever than that Touko. The "suspect" could have gone to the murder scene where the victim was already killed, and got the "evidence" you have mentioned because he-she touch any of the surrounding objects or even the dead body for many reasons...
I will just cite a similar case...Simpson...he got out as innocent, he had all those "evidences" you mentioned..excellent defense.
@ufopolitics Another broken analogue. If guilty people go out as innocent, that means there wasn't enough evidence to convict them. In the case of ufo videos, that means the video can be fake even if we can't find evidence of faking. Not the other way around. In this case it doesn't matter much if the video was faked by someone else than the YouTube pseudonym "Ivan" - it suffices to know it's a hoax.
@toukoqouko : Ivan or anyone pseudonym could upload any video they decide that states a certain element to be accepted or not. The burden of proof resides in the ones who say they are fake, therefore, they must prove it professionally or else they are real.
Your analysis fall into the tiniest and remotely final issues to be considered when it comes to this particular videos, where very high concepts of CGI Animations are the basic content in all of them.
@ufopolitics Is this a joke? Your idea of burden of proof is ridiculous and hopelessly confused. If someone claims "I have a video of extraterrestrial aliens who are secretly co-operating with our governments" the burden of proof clearly rests on them, not the people who are skeptical about it.
@toukoqouko : You keep writing confusing terms..."If someone claims", No it is not just "to Claim" but to provide clear proof of the evidence -Through Videos- of whatever the statements are about .
If the videos-audio states clearly the cited statements, then the burden of proof is in the "other side", the side who say "it is not true"..to prove otherwise.
Answer to @americanroadwarrior I am waiting...or I am gonna think you run out of "answers"...
@ufopolitics I'm sorry that you find terms concerning video, photography, and logical reasoning confusing. Technical terms are quite inevitable in this kind of discussion. I can only suggest you check Wikipedia or Google when you find terms that confuse you. Yes, the burden of proof lies on the person who claims he has an authentic video showing extraterrestrials. We haven't seen such proof, but a plenty of proof to the contrary.
@ufopolitics It may seem to you that extracting individual frames from a video and comparing them is advanced technology that requires hiring an expert. To me it is a simple and everyday task. I'm sure you can find tutorials on the internet on how that is done. Anyone with basic computer skills can learn it. You're trying to hide behind the claim that it would be advanced rocket science, that nobody but hired experts can do. This is a very weak attempt at distraction.
@toukoqouko: While you keep avoiding my questions, now you develop a new form of misguiding everyone here by "inputting" things I never wrote.
"It may seem to you that extracting individual frames from a video and comparing them is advanced technology that requires hiring an expert."..and then you keep going like the Battery Rabbit...
It requires an expert to analyze this videos from the Animated CGI point, which is all they are primarily based on, where You obviously are an ignorant at large.
@ufopolitics The level of analysis I've produced here doesn't require special expertise. Some of it can be reproduced and checked just by careful viewing. This level of analysis is enough to show the videos are fake. You haven't even tried to show any weakness in this analysis. Instead you complain about title, view count, and other irrelevancies. This suggests the arguments are strong.
@toukoqouko : Why don't you answer to the comment-statement written by americanroadwarrior and leave me alone for a few minutes?
You do not want to accept my point, 'cause you know it will set all your videos in a third class analysis, and, of course you do not want that to happen, but it is the plain reality...
You know exactly that I am completely right and you do not have any arguments against my statements.
I have prove it in every single comment I have answered while you change subjects.
@toukoqouko : You have said, that you do not need to be a professional or an expert-artist in CGI to analyze this videos. That concept is as wrong as playing a Defense Attorney without passing through Law School or not having the slightest idea about the Law System. That kind of so called "Ignorant in Law Attorney" will bring out unimportant and irrelevant evidence, trying to make a case out of it..of course,not getting anywhere. That is exactly your case related to your analysis of this videos.
@ufopolitics You can't refute the facts so you keep repeating "argument of authority", a well known logical fallacy (check Wikipedia). Your analogy has other errors too. It would mean the judge and all members of jury would have to be experts in genetic biology in order to use DNA evidence. As we all know, this isn't true. The judge and members of jury just need logical reasoning. That's where your biggest problem lies.
The Jury, Judge, State or Defense Attorneys do not need to be an "Expert" in the fields of DNA evidence, but they do need to "acquire that knowledge during the trial process" through contracting the services of an "EXPERT" to provide the needed and at least, basic facts to be able to fairly "judge" that trial. The Expert Services could be "provided" by either Defense or Prosecuting parties...depending their "interests".
@ufopolitics Your whole "defense" at this point is that the evidence was somehow wrongly acquired, but you refuse to say what is wrong with it. All your previous attempts to refute it have failed. It's easily checkable by anyone. You also protest that "name of the attorney's law office is dishonest" and "there isn't enough audience in this room". It's clear to anyone that the defense has nothing else to grasp so he's distracting and hoping to confuse even someone in the audience.
@ufopolitics wow you really go out of your way just to prove people wrong? seriously get a life, just watch the video and believe what you want to believe. If you've got no evidence that it's fake, then fuck off, because there's no evidence it's real either.
All this videos are copies from very old celluloid film from the sixties, more likely 8 mm, which was the smallest cameras at that time, The KGB Seal in front denotes they all come from the Classified X Files from the former U.S.S.R , now released.
The few frames found were compiled and processed to render a very short sequences of video. The person who did the "Restoration Job" added a few digital effects to blend the images and of course stretch the frames by duplication.
@ufopolitics Do you now agree the scratches and dust are a digital effect? I already pointed to you that those were added after frame duplication. You couldn't refute this so you repeat your mantra, hoping that people won't notice. It's one of the main points of my analysis which you're desperately trying to avoid. Instead you complain about title, view count, "qualifications" and try to distract by bragging with computer programs you claim to have. You lost this one 10-0.
Also with this footage allegedly being quite some years old it could have been copied umpteen times before we have this what we see here causing all manner of scratches lines distortions etc, you culd never really say that its 100% authentic but if the actual clothing and small details ie blemishes on skin and folds on clothing can be compared in different sections of the footage for matches then it really would strongly lean towards being actual reality.. look for the very small details.
@britelite2657 If it was produced with a modern camcorder (max. a few years old), it is hard to see why someone went through the trouble of finding obsolete analog equipment to transfer it back to analog tapes ,then copy it umpteen times to get all that distortion, then digitize it again. Digital copying doesn't produce scratches, blurring, or anything else. The millionth-generation digital copy of this video is identical to the original.
@toukoqouko There is a thick dark line and they do occur in digitisation old floppy disks used to produce lines and so do flatbed scanners i know this because it used to happen to me many times its no good to tell me otherwise on that. The film i meant could have been copied hundreds of times as analogue or 16mm film state to distribute in military circles which is very likely due to the content and could very easily have been analogued again after a digital copy?? who knows
@britelite2657 Did I get this right? We have opposite views of whether there is a thick dark line against the white wall? I used the highest quality version available of this video, 1920x1080 pixels. I examined it frame-by-frame and magnified the individual frames and enhanced contrast with graphics software. The scratch is exactly clipped along the number edges. You're the first to present a claim that seems to go against what eyes and software enhancement tells. Any evidence?
@toukoqouko There is a thick dark line that moves from left to right behind the numerals surely you see it.
Why would a hoaxer of this caliber clip the line exactly to match the edge of the numeral anyway? why clip it? any one can see the line runing from right to left and left to right and they go behind the numerals except that number 6 ! tells me its just a giltch and tells nothing at all else, i aint having a go at you and well spotted but in the first place but ....come on now!
@britelite2657 So you're talking about some other scratch not on the digits, but on the background? It has been my point from the beginning that the background effects are separate from the digit effects. You also admit that the scratch on number 6 doesn't appear on the background. This is what I originally claimed, and it's against your previous theory that the scratch is actually on the background. Digital post-processing fully and plausibly explains this separation.
@toukoqouko Anyways keep up the analysis you never know what you might come across, i think its too good to be faked i have seen nothing like it in high budget fimography either in the past or present day i suppose time will tell its early days with this as of now and worthy of very top expert scientific analysis.
@toukoqouko This would explain as you said yourself why the digital numbers are blurrey itcould have even been copied again after the digital copy by a movie camera of a screen again maybe more than once over nobody knows, like i say the best way to find out is by using your own eyes for analysis looking at the small detail by perhaps brightening the image up , ive done this to some extent and so far i can't find anything that tells me its some kind of fake .
@britelite2657 The main point of this analysis has been that no matter how many times and how the footage is duplicated/copied, nothing but a digital aging effect explains the neatly clipped scratches on the digits. You claim that the scratches are NOT clipped along the digits but are behind the digits on the background, right? The problem is that the evidence is obviously to the contrary. It's not a matter of opinion. If you have any evidence supporting your theory, you should present it.
@toukoqouko Nooo no no i was aware all the time that the line was on the front of the number 6 all the time i'm on about the other lines and i personally think its a glitch on number 6, noone is going to bother going to go to the extraordinary length of producing this footage if its fake and then leave a fake ageing line on top of a numeral thats supposed to be at the forefront ! both these arguments are stalmate and theres not really any point proceeding with it really , i guess one day ??
Most of the lines visibly go behind the digits which tells me as i have alredy said numerous times that its a modern cam corder filming off a projector screen, the fact that just goes behind one digit proves nothing as it may well be a thicker darker line on the film being projected being visible through the opaque camcorder digital numerals it has the hallmarks of being real footage this does whether you can accept it is entirely your decision.
@britelite2657 But there is no "thicker darker line" there. It would be clearly visible against the WHITE wall. You're saying an otherwise invisible dark line would be BETTER visible if it's behind OPAQUE digits? Opaque by definition means nothing is visible through it. You'd also have to explain why the modern camcorder digits have became equally, or more "aged" and blurred than the original tape from the 1940s.
toukoqouko simply get off of Youtube with your video knowledge and genius, and go create this video. Then come back, post said video with all your ingenuity. This will prove that you can explain away what is fraud or hoaxed, and what is the real thing. Otherwise, I challenge you to STFU and diffuse your denial of another reality that you choose not to accept. If you can explain this video as hoaxed, then you can duplicate it easily.
@DawgcityClev Why do you think that angry kids desperately wanting to believe in aliens can make me leave Youtube? As I said your fixation on duplicating the video is a logical mistake. However, just in case you somehow missed this too: I've duplicated the time counter text using a Microsoft font in this video (green numbers). That's how we know it's faked.
@DawgcityClev Why does it make you so angry that someone shows the alien videos were fake? Do you think that you saying "shit" or "fuck" or "child porn" will change someone's mind? If the truth is so difficult for you, can't you just forget my videos exist and keep watching the fakes? As you can see, countering facts with "fuck" and "shit" won't take you far. Don't try to start a discussion if all you have is blind faith and angsty rage.
@toukoqouko you're still here. Don't you have work to do? We'll be awaiting your video. Until then you're still here whining and spewing camel shit. Go make the duplicate video with the microsoft time stamp. Otherwise you've been owned.
@DawgcityClev Why would I re-duplicate the font? Again: I duplicated it in my other video. You repeating "no you didn't" or "shit" or "you're still here" won't make it go away. Nobody, to my knowledge, currently denies that the font is Microsoft Consolas. Don't refer to yourself as "we". I don't think anyone else has misunderstood what I said about duplicating the font. I'm not sure if you're just a bad loser or are these concepts really so difficult to grasp?
Anyone trying to debunk this is publicly proving to be a moron and a dipshit. Go watch a fucking Charlie Chaplin film and debunk that. This film looks a spitting image of 1940s stuff. GTFOH with these dead-brained debunk attempts. 95% of people always trying to debunk something are the ones who look like morons at the end of the day.
@DawgcityClev Apart from the meaningless name-calling your only argument is that it "looks" 1940s stuff. Well, it isn't. The time counter might look old to you, but it isn't - the font is from Microsoft. "Saving Private Ryan" looks like 1940s stuff but it is not. World of Warcraft game characters are animated better than this, but it's not proof that gnomes and orcs exist. Spewing insults doesn't make any of these real.
@toukoqouko You are saying nothing. You are in denial just like a pregnant woman for the first time. NOTHING you've said denies what is being seen here. If it's so easily computer generated that you have the expertise to explain it, then you can duplicate this to perfection. until you do so then shut the fuck up with your bullshit. You are not impressing anyone unless they are as ignorant as you are displaying. Duplicate this to perfection or once again, keep your mouth shut.
@DawgcityClev Again this doesn't make sense. To explain something doesn't require duplicating it. Think about e.g. explaining movement of planets or life span of stars. You have misunderstood "ignorance". Recognizing the font isn't ignorance, it's pretty much the opposite. If someone comes up with a plausible explanation for the font or the scratches, I will shut up about them. Why do you think you can shut someone up by aggressively spewing a lot of "fuck" etc?
@toukoqouko And once again you spew shit from your mouth. This isn't the Planets because many can't see most planets with the unaided eye. However this video CAN BE SEEN with the unaided eye. Now back to you shutting the fuck up because yet again you reveal your lack of intellect. Yet post here like you're some engineering guru. I'm sick of you idiots all over the web. You are admitting you cannot duplicate this, yet you can explain how it's created? Do you see the stupidity there?
@DawgcityClev I'll try to say it in an even simpler way. Don't know about you, but I can see the Earth and Sun. Explaining things like seasons or day and night doesn't require me to have a duplicate Earth and Sun. You may think it's stupid but it's also true. Saying "fuck" or "shit" doesn't change the fact. Note also that I did not admit I cannot duplicate this. Try to see the difference between reality and things you dream up.
@alienhunter32 Probably computer generated and post-processed with home studio software. Excluding fake parts and wanting to believe in the rest is a form of self-deception.
@toukoqouko And here you are a hypocrite liar. Under my post you commented that you knew exactly what is was. Here under this post you claim it "PROBABLY" is computer software simply because you'd like it to be so. You are a lying ass moron who types to sound impressive. And furthermore you're exactly as I stated, you are in denial as a pregnant woman for the first time. Go kill yourself clown.
@DawgcityClev I re-read my comments and didn't find the word "exactly". You must have misunderstood or read someone else's comment. You probably misunderstood something about pregnancy too. It usually doesn't involve any denial. You don't seem to have any idea about the basics or argumentation or reasoning, either. Just saying "fuck" doesn't magically win an argument. Don't they teach anything in school these days?
The numerals are flickering out of visibility at the point the striation is visible over the number six too making the striation to be seen, maybe it becomes momentarily see through because of some fault of flicker on the display inside the video recorder because they do seem to ghost at that point in the film.
strage too that that particular black stiation that goes in front of the number six seems thicker straighter and darker than the rest of the black lines too... someones added it on i think at some stage to try to debunk it or be clever
Any one could put that scratch there as to try to fool people into thinking its not real footage its funny that in all the rest of the footage the age striations go behind the numerals which tells me its a modern video corder recording old film footage off a projector screen and the numbers are in the video that took it not on the screen itself. thats why you can hear the projector too the video cam was probably placed near the projector with audio enabled because thats prob a silent film.
Just a scratch - what does it proofs? ;) Looks like some 3D program and a simple 'get old' plug-in anyway, but it's still the best image of an 'alien' that anyone could ever see. Looks dangerous.
I am not a special effects expert but I m very observant when it comes to human motion and I can only tell you that even though this is very impressive, the movements have NO PROPER MOMENTUM. The way the head tilts is not corresponding to its size and weight distribution. Note how it starts moving exceedingly fast, moves steadily and stops fast. This is typical in digital animation figures. The extension of the arm is NOT counteracted by any torso/upper back muscle engagement & change in posture
I am not a special effects expert but I m very observant when it comes to human motion and I can only tell you that even though this is very impressive, the movements have NO PROPER MOMENTUM. The way the head tilts is not corresponding to its size and weights distribution. Note how it starts moving exceedingly fast moves steadily and stops fast. This is typical in digital animation figures. The extension of the arm is NOT counteracted by any torso/upper back muscle engagement & change in posture
@urdriverman well how can you say that the movement is not proper if you're viewing something that you have observed moving before? Not counteracted by any torso/upper back....LOL, think about it...it's like you critiquing the quality of ice on Neptune to ice cubes in your freezer.
@urdriverman well how can you say that the movement is not proper if you're viewing something that you have observed never moving before? Not counteracted by any torso/upper back....LOL, think about it...it's like you critiquing the quality of ice on Neptune to ice cubes in your freezer.
@dralienface ALL moving objects on earth are exposed to gravity which we feel and describe as momentum. NOTHING organic escapes this effect. especially a bipedal mammalian humanoid..
@urdriverman I am a special effects expert... well... special effects technician and creature effects designer.
This could be a fake... it could be real.
No one... can have any opinion about this either being CG or practical effects. This could be achieved on a computer... it could be a rod operated puppet... an animatronic puppet with digital manipulation... a skinny person in a suit. It can be whatever you see.
The time code... scratches... projector effects are irrelevant.
@urdriverman I'm also a puppeteer... a hazard of the job... I study animal movement and human movement... as a job.
My opinion is that it is a real being... whatever it is. The reason you need to find it to be fake is because if it isn't.. well... you can't comprehend what that means really can you?
@urdriverman Let's look at why it could be real...
Every movement is accidental... relaxed and perfectly fluid to the point it is flawed... as is reality... and one of the reasons CG looks fake.
There is a frame where the eyes are visible... (I'll isolate it, enhance it and upload it to youtube) and they aren't what you think they are, nor where you think they are.
The anatomy is perfect, the neck the right thickness... the waist to elbow ratio is spot on.
@Bedeekin Hello. Please allow me to point out a few observations:
1. form follows function. this creature's muscles do not support its skeletal layout ie the sternocleidomastoid is atrophied not corresponding to the large head it needs to tilt. Numerous areas of such paradoxes in the face. This also holds true for his fingers. The bones thickness suggest hard manual labor. This is incosistent with the rest of the body. Their length requires significant forearm musculature which is absent.
@urdriverman well... all of your points make a lot of sense, but have you considered the fact that if this isn't fake, and if its real, what would you say? it will make all of your points you mentioned out of sense, and you would have to come up with some other observations to make this alien entity real, one thing that could change all of your facts to be reconsidered, its the fact that if real, this creature its not from earth, i'll pst another comment.
to prove that facts that this thing is real, if it is real, i'll say ok.. this creature its not from earth, it has a small scale humanoid form, very pale skin, large black eyes, and a large skull, you could say well.. his body its not well compensated, but thing again, its not well compensated HERE ON EARTH, well obviously its not, i could say this creature comes froma planet with, small gravity, with a small sun, and he could prob had diferent molecular structure.
@Bedeekin 2. All movements require muscular engagement and follow momentum. When the head tilts to the right, the left sternocleidomastoid should have stretched out. Also the speed with which it moves is clearly unsupported by its musculature. This movement would only hold true if this was an insect humanoid alien.
3. Most movements show consistent intentions. This creature starts tilting viciously only to deccelarate instantly to a super slow tilt with blinking eyes. That makes no sense.
@Bedeekin 4. Whenever we see a humanoid alien we should consider the fact that it is a product of the conditions of a certain planet ie the dark eyes and light skin suggest dim light. These conditions dictate the course of evolution which must have been going on for millions of years for these creatures. Thus general cosmic principles such as form follows fuction, force molds shape, cause and effect etc must have flawless consistency, much more than in our bodies anyway.
@urdriverman I design and make creatures like this for a living for films.
The way the head is positioned in relation to the neck is well thought out (if fake). Note that the neck is positioned forward to compensate for the large over-hanging cranium at the back. The sloping shoulders also indicate more muscle mass needed to support the head. The muscles may be dense. The cranium may be lightweight, like a spongy lattice; not unlike the bones of a bird. Who knows really?
@Bedeekin Dont get me wrong. I agree with all of your points. We cant be certain for what this is. We can only make observations. I was a scientific advisor as an MD in an ex-government group that studies and catalogues such evidence. As a rule of thumb was to never reach an absolute; always work with propabilities. If this is a fake, its an impressive one. If its not then we have to rewrite certain rules. Btw, what your opinion on the 'Area51 alien interview' where medics come around to aid?
from our different perspectives we agree. I can't say for absolute certain it's not an animatronic/CG/motion capture. It is the most convincing 'non' film connected footage I've seen.
I was waiting with baited breath when that first came out in 96/97... I was a tad disappointed. It was shot in a bizarre hidden way and the head could have been done simply using a rod puppet. I have put that one in the 'not impressed' file.
@Bedeekin It was nice because it wasn't in the US so there was not such stress on disclosing information plus te public was very open and relaxed on the matter.
We do agree indeed. Initially I was stunned on its realism.
I couldn't agree more! We also concluded that it must have been a puppet. From my expertise, it is ridiculous how the medics lean over facing the alien upside down to check up on him. You do that in med school and they render you a danger to the human species!
@urdriverman I think that as a friend scantilli is 100% true the day he came clean. I think he did borrow money from dubious sources to buy footage from a guy in Las Vegas that depicted an alien autopsy. That the footage after exposure to oxygen, nitrated and degraded... that he recreated the alien in his living room based on some less damaged portions 'he still owns'... and that he used the money tmade to pay for the debt.
@Bedeekin I also think that the last section of another video from the guy who uploaded this origionally, depicts what Scantilli was trying to recreate.
@Bedeekin I couldn't agree more. Allow me to say that tis footage has been a 3-year study of mine. Of all the docs and evolutionary biologists I took it to, the most interesting comment came from a British medical genetics clinician that said 'this is a human only not of this planet' meaning that it is a viable humanoid entity product of a different planet. The incredible scientific consistency of its anatomy gets interrupted when Santilli inserts his own parts.
@Bedeekin There is an endless list of important biological observations that suggest this cannot be fake or a genetically altered human of this earth. Moreover it is the exact same being that another footage shows been brought on a stretcher. Note the medic's left ear deformity betraying his true identity as part of the 509th personnel. The USAF's argument's don't stand a chance anymore. They re history.
@AlienInvestigations Would a scratch on a lens explain why it appears only momentarily, exactly following the form of the digit that happens to be there? I thought "standing behind one's statements" equals to trying to prove them. Otherwise they're just beliefs.
@AlienInvestigations If you can show that 1) "telecine machines" produce vertical scanlines, 2) these scanlines appear only inside digits, then you may have a point. Until then, this looks like a grasping-straws argument based on false assumptions 1) and 2). It's been over a week and nobody has been able to produce an example of genuine video with similar artifacts.
@DaddyUnderground323 That's the first non-hoax scenario to consider. How else would the projector sound be there? To explain the other effects you'd need a scenario of multiple re-recordings from different kinds of screens. However it does nothing to explain the lines. Even if it was re-recorded 1000 times, with whatever technique, film scratches wouldn't neatly restrict themselves inside the digits.
I'm sure they were using a more advanced film process when taking this video for the times..it looks pretty friggin real to me, but I'm not an expert by any means when it comes to film, digital..etc... but damn that is pretty convincing footage..what if it was meant to decieve people and is actually a captured alien of today..... just saying!!
@SizeOfLight If it commonly appears on VHS, it should be easy to find an example. I'm not sure what you're referring to in those 2 example videos, but I didn't see vertical scratches or streaks moving inside the digits.
@SizeOfLight There are some compression artifacts on those videos, especially the WikiLeaks one which is low bitrate and only 320x226 pixels. This "alien" video however is 1920x1080 pixels HD and the digits are large (40 to 60 pixels wide and tall). The scratch on these digits is 50 pixels long, very clear, and stays for several frames, and moves across the numbers while they are not changing. It's nothing like a compression artifact.
@SizeOfLight No. Even if it's a 1000th generation copy, any scratches on the video tape should extend over the whole frame, not magically just on the digit.
They've over-done the degrading effect. There is a lot of military footage on YouTube from the 1940s, e.g. amateur and war footage. I didn't find anything near this low quality - and none with a time stamp. The font looks modern, Consola or something.
Of course this is NOT the original. The part still unproven is the CGI work itself. Let's see a comparable computer generate alien, exact to the detail, NOT made over the original.
@mujaku Again... we know this video is fake. Someone used special effects to make the time counter look old. All we know about the author of this video is: they're trying to mislead the viewer. And that's about all we need to know. To think that the most implausible part - the alien - could still be genuine, is ... don't know what would be the right word ... pathological? This irrational, semi-religious, wishful thinking is the main reason why these hoaxes keep surfacing.Same with Jerusalem hoax
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a good eye for finding C.G.I or animated videos and I tell you no one can recreate or debunk this.There had been so much of hoaxes in the past that people have stopped believing...but this is the real deal and hope the disclosure happens soon.
kraz450 3 days ago
Comment removed
kraz450 3 days ago
KGB video 1950
LUNA20003000 6 days ago
looks real and im sure the history channel series "ancient aliens" would probably check into it. lol if its real though.
chigoon57 1 week ago
club mix ver. so cool !
iinn4 1 month ago
If it is a fake, It's very well done. Who can really say these days with all the computer programs.... I do find the way the eyes blink a little intriguing because the lower lids move upward to meet the upper , Humans eyelids mostly blink downward, kinda find it odd that someone would think of that if this is fake.
swiftkickinthaass 2 months ago
yeah i see what he means. what gets me is when the supposed alien blinks, the eyelid doesn't seem to go all the way shut?
StumpyHead79 2 months ago
I am about 90 % convinced that the footage is real. If it is a hoax, it is of the highest quality. What I believe we have here is the smoking gun. The footage has a patina on it that just simply can not be achieved with CGI.....
Serpo71 3 months ago
Idiot. He's real.
turokdinosaurhunter6 3 months ago
Alien exists and it's real!!!!!!!!!!
edithvanher 3 months ago
What if YOU put that mark on the video and then claimed it as a tell tale sign of fraud? Do you work for the FBI or CIA? They both filled with nothing but NIMRODS.
ataturkwashomo 4 months ago
wut the fuck guys? i can tell its CGI just by glancing at it!
shinnok842002 4 months ago
I knew it was fake. Suits don't have eyelids, the head and fingers were all wrong also. These beings weave their suits onto themselves with spider-silk (or something like it) and epoxy-like resin. You will never see one outside of its "grey" suit here on earth. The black "eyes" are protective lenses, which would be like a pair of sunglasses having eyelids. It makes no sense.
100% fake, take it from someone who knows more about it than you, whoever "you" may be.
PainHoarder 6 months ago
@PainHoarder They are not suits, the eyes are from advanced evolution.. Im pretty sure this footage is real...
Serpo71 3 months ago
@PainHoarder so you're an expert on alien anatomy is would seem. where did you study alien anatomy?
StumpyHead79 2 months ago
You cite no evidence to back up your claims - you simply point out a mark on the screen and expect us to believe everything you say. Sorry but you're gonna have to do better than that.
inthedarkesthole 6 months ago 3
@inthedarkesthole I claimed 1) there is a scratch that somehow appears neatly, exactly on the digit but not outside it. It's quite obvious to anyone with a reasonably normal eyesight. Claim 2) this suggests a fake "film aging" effect. You don't have to take my word on this either. If you're not happy with my explanation, just suggest a better one. How does this kind of effect happen if not faked?Are there genuine examples? After a few months and 7k views,there aren't any suggestions or examples.
toukoqouko 6 months ago
@inthedarkesthole
Dude it's so pop art people need to get a grip and start making a better world instead of thinking some other creatures would actually respect us for how we as a species at. LOL! Nice better than x-files fx and I saw that prop stuff in person.
441rider 3 weeks ago
You clearly know nothing about film stock. A scratch can be only on a partial side of the film stock. It does not need to be all across from top to bottom. Go to film school or buy a book. Bet u do effects on Final Cut newbbie. Better luck next time!
winterlonelywolf 6 months ago 2
@winterlonelywolf Another case of "I know everything about everything, you know nothing newbbie, and magically this video is authentic, I don't want to go into details, I'm an anonymous expert with bad spelling, and just registered on YT". It's been tried several times here and has been waste of time. If you have secret knowledge about film stocks and how the scratches appear across several frames, neatly inside the digits, go ahead, let the rest of the humanity know. Otherwise shut up, thanks!
toukoqouko 6 months ago
Comment #153, 7/20/2011 6,388 views.
These timestamps on my previous comment relate to the actual full length un-edited video posted by other youtube members.
americanroadwarrior 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Comment #152, 7/19/2011 6,366 views.
I believe I have found the flaw that shows this to be fake
At 0:29 the hand doesnt look right.
It looks proportionally the size of a human hand in relation to the body
Not at all the size of a hand depicted in 0:39
Furthermore, the length of the arm, shoulder to elbow, and elbow to wrist is much shorter in 0:29 than in 0:42 - 0:43
Measuring the head size in 0:27 and 0:48 shows approximately the same distance from the camera in both segment
americanroadwarrior 7 months ago
Your entire youtube account is a hoax. Stop analyzing things that aren't there, YOU ARE A FAKE DEBUNK-ER! YOU REEK OF NWO!!!
usedive 7 months ago
@PeaceThroughHonesty: "You're no hero for trying to prove it's fake."...I am in the belief this is a real video..I guess you did not understand my comments..
ufopolitics 7 months ago
Ivan0135 about ALIEN and UFO documents:
The material is an "edited compilation" of the documents we have...
/watch?v=Xju_CY5ZESA&feature=related
ufopolitics 7 months ago
Let 's just draw a possibility that could had happened on this case...
Let's say that this guy got a few pieces of the 8 mm film strip from this occurrence, they are real, but he has just a few frames-slides to work with...He run them through a projector and record them digitally from the projected screen... and captures audio also...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
(Cont) take the recorded track into a Digital Editor Software, where he stretches the tracks to make them a bit longer that original film, then adds whatever You are claiming leads you into a Hoax...He adds the digits, the dust and -why not- the motion blur also to get a "blending effect"...
Then uploads this videos...
Is this scenario a Hoax to you?
ufopolitics 7 months ago
He had added some effects,OK, however his intentions were just to enhance and elongate the duration to a few more seconds, trying to hide his restoration work...But the original film is there in 8 mm slides...
And if you read Ivan's first part of the videos he says it clearly, that this videos had been edited from the originals...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics If he adds scratches, dust, and other effects to "hide his restoration", in other words to mislead the viewer, then the video is a hoax. Your idea is a slippery slope. You want to ignore the evidence of faking and speculate that other parts might be real. Following this tactic, you could always say in the end: "he forgot to take the camera with him, didn't get the ufo on video and wanted to hide this, so he faked it all; but that's ok; this doesn't prove the ufo wasn't there".
toukoqouko 7 months ago
THIS IS WHAT I CALL A VERY GOOD ANALYSIS :
/watch?v=9DfJp5CgHTg&feature=related
Now, Touko Qouko, watch this analysis related to the same video...but done by a professional in audio-video and CGI...Then I would like to read your opinion...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics I saw it over 2 months ago and commented on it. The author's response was "nice work toukoqouko. I was wondering about the font also." This professional in audio-video and CGI didn't note anything "dishonest" or otherwise erroneous about my analysis, its title, or view count. Instead he recommended people to watch my video. His analysis doesn't in anyway contradict mine. This is the difference between you and real experts.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : The difference is that VParanormal believes it is a real video from the 60's, proving it, and it is not a CGI either, being him a CGI Expert, with a much deeper and better analysis than yours.
However, You, with a couple of non-substantial elements think is a Hoax, it is written in your title here and everywhere you write about it.
Again, the digits and anything else you've brought over could had been added to the original video, by the Restoration,not making it a Hoax or a Fake.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics You have misunderstood his video. His analysis is fps measurement from the audio. He then shows the video in a faster speed "so that you can analyze it in the original speed". Of course this proves nothing and he doesn't claim that. He doesn't claim it's a "deep" analysis. I have proven for instance that the scratches were digitally added after 2005 and that the ufo in the car scene wasn't in the original. That is "non-substantial" only in your personal fantasy world.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : "Of course this proves nothing" ...Wrong again Touko!! The faster-original speed does proofs a lot, maybe not to you, but it does to a detail observer that the movements look completely real rather that those at a slower motion. Also the sound of the projector sound perfectly real in the original speed.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics "Movements look completely real" and "sound perfectly real" aren't a proof of anything. They are subjective opinions based on the impression. That has nothing to do with logical, checkable, reproducible measurements and observations.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Previously you've insisted that audio is nothing, analyzing audio proves nothing and is totally irrelevant. I'm glad you've changed your mind and think an audio analysis is VERY GOOD. Now you're probably finally ready to accept my audio analysis of "Jerusalem" videos that prove them to be hoaxes.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko: He does an audio analysis here to show very essential proof of the claims he is stating:
A frame rate of 12/sec that leads him to bring the video to "real time" according to its age, and the spikes from the motor projector.
Your "audio analysis" on the Jerusalem UFO is just to barely show that a "manipulation" had been done to it...nothing else.
I am with real good analysis on video or audio, deeper investigations , not gossip, and false judgments without the proper knowledge .
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics You said he proves it to be real. Then you admit he only shows the audio spikes are 12 fps. So you seem to think that any video with a 12 fps projector sound is provenly genuine. Another fine example of your level of logical reasoning. My goal has been to find out if the videos are authentic or if there has been manipulation (evidence of hoax). I have found conclusive proof of manipulation. That's all I wanted to know and show. It's nice that you now seem to agree my conclusions.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : "So you seem to think that any video..." ...Again, you keep "assuming" that "I seem to think"...but that is you Touko...You keep assuming that I did not "understand" his video, when even a retarded could do it (Your try to set me as a moron)....You keep assuming that is fake according to your tiny little claims...or that you heard a fly in the background...!is fake!...that is you!!
Whenever there is an "added effect, or a change of audio tracks...fake!!
I consider that superficial.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Why did you say "VParanormal believes it is a real video from the 60's, proving it" if you don't actually mean that? I'm sorry that I for a moment assumed that you mean what you write. Of course you've been illogical and nonsensical before, that's why I added the caveat "seem to think". It's not my fault that you write things that don't make sense. You should blame yourself, not me.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
Comment #107, 7/13/11, 6,288 views.
First and foremost it looks real to me.
I was astounded to find that the audio shows a frame rate of 12 fps.
That when you increase the speed by 1.5 to reach a projector of the times speed of 18fps the digital timestamps shows the correct speed adjustment.
The diagonal screen roll an obvious sign of transfer from film to videotape or digital format.
Digital timestamp is an obvious overlay done since 2005, this is proven by both Font and characteristics
americanroadwarrior 7 months ago
@americanroadwarrior : THANKS A LOT!!
Excellent comment and brief analysis, but exactly accurate into defining this videos.
I also agree in a 100% with you about the many transfers this video have gone through, from celluloid original film , passing to tape and finally to get a digital copy that of course have been restored.
This could be easy a third or fourth generation video.
Thanks again for your comment.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@americanroadwarrior For some reason "ufopolitics" insists that I respond to your comment so here goes. I accept it looks real to you. Nothing to add about fps. Presence of interference effects don't tell much about authenticity, as there are video post-processing packages/plugins designed for producing them. I note that you agree my observation about the font being post-2005. Thanks for your comment and have a nice day!
toukoqouko 7 months ago
the scratch over the "6" that you refer to is clearly an alien pubic hair.
Otholar 8 months ago
@Otholar Its deffo a pube well spotted lool
britelite2657 8 months ago
@britelite2657 hahaha
MistaGhost13 7 months ago
Comment removed
LashJin 8 months ago
Apart from a digital aging effect, nobody has suggested what kind of process could plausibly produce such "glitch". There are no known examples of such on other videos. The font is just a few years old so such effect is the only plausible method for scratches to appear. Everything in this explanation adds up. As to why they used a separate aging effect for the digits, I guess they wanted them to become unreadable at times, but didn't want the whole video to be excessively blurred at those times.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
@toukoqouko So are you a digital expert?What are your qualifications?I'm not saying the footage is real,but I myself can't say it's fake either because I'm not any kind of digital expert.I'm just asking because there are people that claim to be so-called experts that like to go around debunking stuff like this with no qualifications.
But if you are a real expert in such things,then I'll look seriously at your findings.
SunshineGirlz34 8 months ago
@SunshineGirlz34 I've presented about as much formal qualifications as Ivan0135, i.e. none;) So if you judge by qualifications alone, I guess you've ignored Ivan's videos anyway. I think that regardless of qualifications we should just consider the facts to find the best explanation.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
@toukoqouko I don't judge by qualifications alone,but for me,it helps me to come to a reasonable explanation.But I don't go by any experts findings alone,either.As I said,I myself cannot honestly say one way or the other because I know zero about digital manipulation.In my opinion, sometimes videos that people say are real are not,and videos that look fake turn out to be authentic.
SunshineGirlz34 8 months ago
@toukoqouko : The "qualifications" of Ivan are in all his videos...if you can not provide at least a similar animated video...how could we accept your ¨qualifications¨?
Again, you concentrate in the smallest and less significant details...like the ¨digits¨?What about the animation...could you brief us your opinions about it? ...No you can not, just 'cause you are far from knowing CGI, much less to produce a video like this one.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Why are you repeating your nonsense again? Do you hope that people will be distracted and don't realize you can't find any weakness in my arguments? I don't have to reproduce the fake video. I'm not interested in deceiving people with fake videos. Even if you can't reproduce Stargate SG-1 special effects, that doesn't prove the aliens in that TV show are real.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : If You have decided to create your videos in order to criticize, debunk, or prove an entire series of incredible good videos are fake...then you better come up with better-deeper reasons rather than a fly sound in the audio track...or the digits and a tiny piece of dust on the screen...or two frames blurred
Whenever you could be able to show how the characters were built, the animation process, the walking cycles, etc,etc...then your analysis would be more acceptable...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Try that in a murder trial: "if you want to put a credible nice person in jail, you better come up with better proof than some tiny fingerprint, a small drip of blood in my gloves, or an invisible piece of my DNA on the crime scene!" All I need is conclusive evidence, that's what I have. You don't get to decide what evidence I can use. We've been through this.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : If you will be a State Attorney, or a Judge, with that "thinking-reasoning" mentality ,you will put in jail many innocent people.
Unfortunately for You, there is more than just the so called "plain evidence" that come "easy out" , there are many , way more clever forms of investigations, rather than the simple and tiny proofs.
You do not have "ANY" conclusive evidence on "ANY" of your analysis in your entire channel related to "ANY" of the sightings-videos you have.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics I'd find it strange if "many innocent people" had victim's blood on their gloves and their fingerprints and DNA at crime scene. If you're their defense attorney and you just say "there are more clever forms of investigations rather than simple and tiny proofs. You do not have ANY conclusive evidence" you'd be laughed out of court. This pretty much happens here. If innocent people go to jail, it's the fault of their incompetent defense -you. You have done nothing to refute my points.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Again, it is more clever than that Touko. The "suspect" could have gone to the murder scene where the victim was already killed, and got the "evidence" you have mentioned because he-she touch any of the surrounding objects or even the dead body for many reasons...
I will just cite a similar case...Simpson...he got out as innocent, he had all those "evidences" you mentioned..excellent defense.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Another broken analogue. If guilty people go out as innocent, that means there wasn't enough evidence to convict them. In the case of ufo videos, that means the video can be fake even if we can't find evidence of faking. Not the other way around. In this case it doesn't matter much if the video was faked by someone else than the YouTube pseudonym "Ivan" - it suffices to know it's a hoax.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Ivan or anyone pseudonym could upload any video they decide that states a certain element to be accepted or not. The burden of proof resides in the ones who say they are fake, therefore, they must prove it professionally or else they are real.
Your analysis fall into the tiniest and remotely final issues to be considered when it comes to this particular videos, where very high concepts of CGI Animations are the basic content in all of them.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Is this a joke? Your idea of burden of proof is ridiculous and hopelessly confused. If someone claims "I have a video of extraterrestrial aliens who are secretly co-operating with our governments" the burden of proof clearly rests on them, not the people who are skeptical about it.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : You keep writing confusing terms..."If someone claims", No it is not just "to Claim" but to provide clear proof of the evidence -Through Videos- of whatever the statements are about .
If the videos-audio states clearly the cited statements, then the burden of proof is in the "other side", the side who say "it is not true"..to prove otherwise.
Answer to @americanroadwarrior I am waiting...or I am gonna think you run out of "answers"...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics I'm sorry that you find terms concerning video, photography, and logical reasoning confusing. Technical terms are quite inevitable in this kind of discussion. I can only suggest you check Wikipedia or Google when you find terms that confuse you. Yes, the burden of proof lies on the person who claims he has an authentic video showing extraterrestrials. We haven't seen such proof, but a plenty of proof to the contrary.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko :You wrote..."The judge and members of jury just need logical reasoning. That's where your biggest problem lies."
No, that is exactly where your problem lies, I prove it in the prior comment, but no answer from You, ¿Evading my answer?
They NEED to hire an Expert to provide the required knowledge.but they DO need it, not just "logical reasoning" applies.
Exactly the same thing in this videos...not just "logical reasoning" here either.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics It may seem to you that extracting individual frames from a video and comparing them is advanced technology that requires hiring an expert. To me it is a simple and everyday task. I'm sure you can find tutorials on the internet on how that is done. Anyone with basic computer skills can learn it. You're trying to hide behind the claim that it would be advanced rocket science, that nobody but hired experts can do. This is a very weak attempt at distraction.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko: While you keep avoiding my questions, now you develop a new form of misguiding everyone here by "inputting" things I never wrote.
"It may seem to you that extracting individual frames from a video and comparing them is advanced technology that requires hiring an expert."..and then you keep going like the Battery Rabbit...
It requires an expert to analyze this videos from the Animated CGI point, which is all they are primarily based on, where You obviously are an ignorant at large.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics The level of analysis I've produced here doesn't require special expertise. Some of it can be reproduced and checked just by careful viewing. This level of analysis is enough to show the videos are fake. You haven't even tried to show any weakness in this analysis. Instead you complain about title, view count, and other irrelevancies. This suggests the arguments are strong.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Why don't you answer to the comment-statement written by americanroadwarrior and leave me alone for a few minutes?
You do not want to accept my point, 'cause you know it will set all your videos in a third class analysis, and, of course you do not want that to happen, but it is the plain reality...
You know exactly that I am completely right and you do not have any arguments against my statements.
I have prove it in every single comment I have answered while you change subjects.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : You have said, that you do not need to be a professional or an expert-artist in CGI to analyze this videos. That concept is as wrong as playing a Defense Attorney without passing through Law School or not having the slightest idea about the Law System. That kind of so called "Ignorant in Law Attorney" will bring out unimportant and irrelevant evidence, trying to make a case out of it..of course,not getting anywhere. That is exactly your case related to your analysis of this videos.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics You can't refute the facts so you keep repeating "argument of authority", a well known logical fallacy (check Wikipedia). Your analogy has other errors too. It would mean the judge and all members of jury would have to be experts in genetic biology in order to use DNA evidence. As we all know, this isn't true. The judge and members of jury just need logical reasoning. That's where your biggest problem lies.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko WRONG AGAIN:
The Jury, Judge, State or Defense Attorneys do not need to be an "Expert" in the fields of DNA evidence, but they do need to "acquire that knowledge during the trial process" through contracting the services of an "EXPERT" to provide the needed and at least, basic facts to be able to fairly "judge" that trial. The Expert Services could be "provided" by either Defense or Prosecuting parties...depending their "interests".
Again, you loose friend...got no point really...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Your whole "defense" at this point is that the evidence was somehow wrongly acquired, but you refuse to say what is wrong with it. All your previous attempts to refute it have failed. It's easily checkable by anyone. You also protest that "name of the attorney's law office is dishonest" and "there isn't enough audience in this room". It's clear to anyone that the defense has nothing else to grasp so he's distracting and hoping to confuse even someone in the audience.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : I have ever said your evidence was "wrongly acquired" .
But I have said it is not conclusive, final, or as solid to finalize here with all your analysis...they are irrelevant to this videos.
Answer to @americanroadwarrior comment, I am waiting to read what you have to say...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toukoqouko : Wikipedia or Google will not provide the basic knowledge and reasoning you lack off, as well as "common sense"...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@SunshineGirlz34 : No Touko Qouko is not a digital expert...and very far from becoming one...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics wow you really go out of your way just to prove people wrong? seriously get a life, just watch the video and believe what you want to believe. If you've got no evidence that it's fake, then fuck off, because there's no evidence it's real either.
MistaGhost13 7 months ago
THE REAL TRUTH:
All this videos are copies from very old celluloid film from the sixties, more likely 8 mm, which was the smallest cameras at that time, The KGB Seal in front denotes they all come from the Classified X Files from the former U.S.S.R , now released.
The few frames found were compiled and processed to render a very short sequences of video. The person who did the "Restoration Job" added a few digital effects to blend the images and of course stretch the frames by duplication.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Do you now agree the scratches and dust are a digital effect? I already pointed to you that those were added after frame duplication. You couldn't refute this so you repeat your mantra, hoping that people won't notice. It's one of the main points of my analysis which you're desperately trying to avoid. Instead you complain about title, view count, "qualifications" and try to distract by bragging with computer programs you claim to have. You lost this one 10-0.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Ah,ok.That makes sense to me,thank you.I personally believe that the truth is stranger than fiction
SunshineGirlz34 7 months ago
Also with this footage allegedly being quite some years old it could have been copied umpteen times before we have this what we see here causing all manner of scratches lines distortions etc, you culd never really say that its 100% authentic but if the actual clothing and small details ie blemishes on skin and folds on clothing can be compared in different sections of the footage for matches then it really would strongly lean towards being actual reality.. look for the very small details.
britelite2657 8 months ago
@britelite2657 If it was produced with a modern camcorder (max. a few years old), it is hard to see why someone went through the trouble of finding obsolete analog equipment to transfer it back to analog tapes ,then copy it umpteen times to get all that distortion, then digitize it again. Digital copying doesn't produce scratches, blurring, or anything else. The millionth-generation digital copy of this video is identical to the original.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
@toukoqouko There is a thick dark line and they do occur in digitisation old floppy disks used to produce lines and so do flatbed scanners i know this because it used to happen to me many times its no good to tell me otherwise on that. The film i meant could have been copied hundreds of times as analogue or 16mm film state to distribute in military circles which is very likely due to the content and could very easily have been analogued again after a digital copy?? who knows
britelite2657 8 months ago
@britelite2657 Did I get this right? We have opposite views of whether there is a thick dark line against the white wall? I used the highest quality version available of this video, 1920x1080 pixels. I examined it frame-by-frame and magnified the individual frames and enhanced contrast with graphics software. The scratch is exactly clipped along the number edges. You're the first to present a claim that seems to go against what eyes and software enhancement tells. Any evidence?
toukoqouko 8 months ago
@toukoqouko There is a thick dark line that moves from left to right behind the numerals surely you see it.
Why would a hoaxer of this caliber clip the line exactly to match the edge of the numeral anyway? why clip it? any one can see the line runing from right to left and left to right and they go behind the numerals except that number 6 ! tells me its just a giltch and tells nothing at all else, i aint having a go at you and well spotted but in the first place but ....come on now!
britelite2657 8 months ago
@britelite2657 So you're talking about some other scratch not on the digits, but on the background? It has been my point from the beginning that the background effects are separate from the digit effects. You also admit that the scratch on number 6 doesn't appear on the background. This is what I originally claimed, and it's against your previous theory that the scratch is actually on the background. Digital post-processing fully and plausibly explains this separation.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
@toukoqouko Anyways keep up the analysis you never know what you might come across, i think its too good to be faked i have seen nothing like it in high budget fimography either in the past or present day i suppose time will tell its early days with this as of now and worthy of very top expert scientific analysis.
britelite2657 8 months ago
@toukoqouko This would explain as you said yourself why the digital numbers are blurrey itcould have even been copied again after the digital copy by a movie camera of a screen again maybe more than once over nobody knows, like i say the best way to find out is by using your own eyes for analysis looking at the small detail by perhaps brightening the image up , ive done this to some extent and so far i can't find anything that tells me its some kind of fake .
britelite2657 8 months ago
@britelite2657 The main point of this analysis has been that no matter how many times and how the footage is duplicated/copied, nothing but a digital aging effect explains the neatly clipped scratches on the digits. You claim that the scratches are NOT clipped along the digits but are behind the digits on the background, right? The problem is that the evidence is obviously to the contrary. It's not a matter of opinion. If you have any evidence supporting your theory, you should present it.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
@toukoqouko Nooo no no i was aware all the time that the line was on the front of the number 6 all the time i'm on about the other lines and i personally think its a glitch on number 6, noone is going to bother going to go to the extraordinary length of producing this footage if its fake and then leave a fake ageing line on top of a numeral thats supposed to be at the forefront ! both these arguments are stalmate and theres not really any point proceeding with it really , i guess one day ??
britelite2657 8 months ago
Most of the lines visibly go behind the digits which tells me as i have alredy said numerous times that its a modern cam corder filming off a projector screen, the fact that just goes behind one digit proves nothing as it may well be a thicker darker line on the film being projected being visible through the opaque camcorder digital numerals it has the hallmarks of being real footage this does whether you can accept it is entirely your decision.
britelite2657 8 months ago
@britelite2657 But there is no "thicker darker line" there. It would be clearly visible against the WHITE wall. You're saying an otherwise invisible dark line would be BETTER visible if it's behind OPAQUE digits? Opaque by definition means nothing is visible through it. You'd also have to explain why the modern camcorder digits have became equally, or more "aged" and blurred than the original tape from the 1940s.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
toukoqouko simply get off of Youtube with your video knowledge and genius, and go create this video. Then come back, post said video with all your ingenuity. This will prove that you can explain away what is fraud or hoaxed, and what is the real thing. Otherwise, I challenge you to STFU and diffuse your denial of another reality that you choose not to accept. If you can explain this video as hoaxed, then you can duplicate it easily.
DawgcityClev 8 months ago
@DawgcityClev Why do you think that angry kids desperately wanting to believe in aliens can make me leave Youtube? As I said your fixation on duplicating the video is a logical mistake. However, just in case you somehow missed this too: I've duplicated the time counter text using a Microsoft font in this video (green numbers). That's how we know it's faked.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
@toukoqouko you are still here. You haven't duplicated shit. Go back to watching child porn. you're not impressing anyone here. Have a nice day.
DawgcityClev 8 months ago
@DawgcityClev Why does it make you so angry that someone shows the alien videos were fake? Do you think that you saying "shit" or "fuck" or "child porn" will change someone's mind? If the truth is so difficult for you, can't you just forget my videos exist and keep watching the fakes? As you can see, countering facts with "fuck" and "shit" won't take you far. Don't try to start a discussion if all you have is blind faith and angsty rage.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
@toukoqouko you're still here. Don't you have work to do? We'll be awaiting your video. Until then you're still here whining and spewing camel shit. Go make the duplicate video with the microsoft time stamp. Otherwise you've been owned.
DawgcityClev 8 months ago
@DawgcityClev Why would I re-duplicate the font? Again: I duplicated it in my other video. You repeating "no you didn't" or "shit" or "you're still here" won't make it go away. Nobody, to my knowledge, currently denies that the font is Microsoft Consolas. Don't refer to yourself as "we". I don't think anyone else has misunderstood what I said about duplicating the font. I'm not sure if you're just a bad loser or are these concepts really so difficult to grasp?
toukoqouko 8 months ago
Anyone trying to debunk this is publicly proving to be a moron and a dipshit. Go watch a fucking Charlie Chaplin film and debunk that. This film looks a spitting image of 1940s stuff. GTFOH with these dead-brained debunk attempts. 95% of people always trying to debunk something are the ones who look like morons at the end of the day.
DawgcityClev 8 months ago
@DawgcityClev Apart from the meaningless name-calling your only argument is that it "looks" 1940s stuff. Well, it isn't. The time counter might look old to you, but it isn't - the font is from Microsoft. "Saving Private Ryan" looks like 1940s stuff but it is not. World of Warcraft game characters are animated better than this, but it's not proof that gnomes and orcs exist. Spewing insults doesn't make any of these real.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
@toukoqouko You are saying nothing. You are in denial just like a pregnant woman for the first time. NOTHING you've said denies what is being seen here. If it's so easily computer generated that you have the expertise to explain it, then you can duplicate this to perfection. until you do so then shut the fuck up with your bullshit. You are not impressing anyone unless they are as ignorant as you are displaying. Duplicate this to perfection or once again, keep your mouth shut.
DawgcityClev 8 months ago
@DawgcityClev Again this doesn't make sense. To explain something doesn't require duplicating it. Think about e.g. explaining movement of planets or life span of stars. You have misunderstood "ignorance". Recognizing the font isn't ignorance, it's pretty much the opposite. If someone comes up with a plausible explanation for the font or the scratches, I will shut up about them. Why do you think you can shut someone up by aggressively spewing a lot of "fuck" etc?
toukoqouko 8 months ago
@toukoqouko And once again you spew shit from your mouth. This isn't the Planets because many can't see most planets with the unaided eye. However this video CAN BE SEEN with the unaided eye. Now back to you shutting the fuck up because yet again you reveal your lack of intellect. Yet post here like you're some engineering guru. I'm sick of you idiots all over the web. You are admitting you cannot duplicate this, yet you can explain how it's created? Do you see the stupidity there?
DawgcityClev 8 months ago
@DawgcityClev I'll try to say it in an even simpler way. Don't know about you, but I can see the Earth and Sun. Explaining things like seasons or day and night doesn't require me to have a duplicate Earth and Sun. You may think it's stupid but it's also true. Saying "fuck" or "shit" doesn't change the fact. Note also that I did not admit I cannot duplicate this. Try to see the difference between reality and things you dream up.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
So your explaination on the footage excluding the time-count is?
alienhunter32 8 months ago
@alienhunter32 Probably computer generated and post-processed with home studio software. Excluding fake parts and wanting to believe in the rest is a form of self-deception.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
@toukoqouko And here you are a hypocrite liar. Under my post you commented that you knew exactly what is was. Here under this post you claim it "PROBABLY" is computer software simply because you'd like it to be so. You are a lying ass moron who types to sound impressive. And furthermore you're exactly as I stated, you are in denial as a pregnant woman for the first time. Go kill yourself clown.
DawgcityClev 8 months ago
@DawgcityClev I re-read my comments and didn't find the word "exactly". You must have misunderstood or read someone else's comment. You probably misunderstood something about pregnancy too. It usually doesn't involve any denial. You don't seem to have any idea about the basics or argumentation or reasoning, either. Just saying "fuck" doesn't magically win an argument. Don't they teach anything in school these days?
toukoqouko 8 months ago
You have only addressed the digits. Thats all. By your own analysis the video behind the digits could still be very real.
americanroadwarrior 8 months ago
@ivandeclassified Wow tape 07 is really very convincing footage must have took a real genius to do that!
britelite2657 8 months ago
The numerals are flickering out of visibility at the point the striation is visible over the number six too making the striation to be seen, maybe it becomes momentarily see through because of some fault of flicker on the display inside the video recorder because they do seem to ghost at that point in the film.
britelite2657 8 months ago
strage too that that particular black stiation that goes in front of the number six seems thicker straighter and darker than the rest of the black lines too... someones added it on i think at some stage to try to debunk it or be clever
britelite2657 8 months ago
Any one could put that scratch there as to try to fool people into thinking its not real footage its funny that in all the rest of the footage the age striations go behind the numerals which tells me its a modern video corder recording old film footage off a projector screen and the numbers are in the video that took it not on the screen itself. thats why you can hear the projector too the video cam was probably placed near the projector with audio enabled because thats prob a silent film.
britelite2657 8 months ago
PS. On a very similar video, they used a zoom in a 'Roswell crash' video (from '47), as it was mentioned to be. ;)
najtofajer 9 months ago
Just a scratch - what does it proofs? ;) Looks like some 3D program and a simple 'get old' plug-in anyway, but it's still the best image of an 'alien' that anyone could ever see. Looks dangerous.
najtofajer 9 months ago
Interesting analysis about the scratch and the counter....now explain the alien.
boomadatigger 9 months ago
also the animation is bad, its moving around too much, the blinking is too slow, better animator could pull it off.
zambot3 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It could be a film of a film.
CellOptimizers 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am not a special effects expert but I m very observant when it comes to human motion and I can only tell you that even though this is very impressive, the movements have NO PROPER MOMENTUM. The way the head tilts is not corresponding to its size and weight distribution. Note how it starts moving exceedingly fast, moves steadily and stops fast. This is typical in digital animation figures. The extension of the arm is NOT counteracted by any torso/upper back muscle engagement & change in posture
urdriverman 9 months ago
I am not a special effects expert but I m very observant when it comes to human motion and I can only tell you that even though this is very impressive, the movements have NO PROPER MOMENTUM. The way the head tilts is not corresponding to its size and weights distribution. Note how it starts moving exceedingly fast moves steadily and stops fast. This is typical in digital animation figures. The extension of the arm is NOT counteracted by any torso/upper back muscle engagement & change in posture
urdriverman 9 months ago
@urdriverman well how can you say that the movement is not proper if you're viewing something that you have observed moving before? Not counteracted by any torso/upper back....LOL, think about it...it's like you critiquing the quality of ice on Neptune to ice cubes in your freezer.
dralienface 9 months ago
@urdriverman well how can you say that the movement is not proper if you're viewing something that you have observed never moving before? Not counteracted by any torso/upper back....LOL, think about it...it's like you critiquing the quality of ice on Neptune to ice cubes in your freezer.
dralienface 9 months ago
@dralienface ALL moving objects on earth are exposed to gravity which we feel and describe as momentum. NOTHING organic escapes this effect. especially a bipedal mammalian humanoid..
urdriverman 9 months ago
@urdriverman I am a special effects expert... well... special effects technician and creature effects designer.
This could be a fake... it could be real.
No one... can have any opinion about this either being CG or practical effects. This could be achieved on a computer... it could be a rod operated puppet... an animatronic puppet with digital manipulation... a skinny person in a suit. It can be whatever you see.
The time code... scratches... projector effects are irrelevant.
Bedeekin 9 months ago
@urdriverman I'm also a puppeteer... a hazard of the job... I study animal movement and human movement... as a job.
My opinion is that it is a real being... whatever it is. The reason you need to find it to be fake is because if it isn't.. well... you can't comprehend what that means really can you?
Bedeekin 9 months ago
@urdriverman Let's look at why it could be real...
Every movement is accidental... relaxed and perfectly fluid to the point it is flawed... as is reality... and one of the reasons CG looks fake.
There is a frame where the eyes are visible... (I'll isolate it, enhance it and upload it to youtube) and they aren't what you think they are, nor where you think they are.
The anatomy is perfect, the neck the right thickness... the waist to elbow ratio is spot on.
Bedeekin 9 months ago
@Bedeekin Hello. Please allow me to point out a few observations:
1. form follows function. this creature's muscles do not support its skeletal layout ie the sternocleidomastoid is atrophied not corresponding to the large head it needs to tilt. Numerous areas of such paradoxes in the face. This also holds true for his fingers. The bones thickness suggest hard manual labor. This is incosistent with the rest of the body. Their length requires significant forearm musculature which is absent.
urdriverman 9 months ago
@urdriverman well... all of your points make a lot of sense, but have you considered the fact that if this isn't fake, and if its real, what would you say? it will make all of your points you mentioned out of sense, and you would have to come up with some other observations to make this alien entity real, one thing that could change all of your facts to be reconsidered, its the fact that if real, this creature its not from earth, i'll pst another comment.
drazapatos 8 months ago
@urdriverman ok...
to prove that facts that this thing is real, if it is real, i'll say ok.. this creature its not from earth, it has a small scale humanoid form, very pale skin, large black eyes, and a large skull, you could say well.. his body its not well compensated, but thing again, its not well compensated HERE ON EARTH, well obviously its not, i could say this creature comes froma planet with, small gravity, with a small sun, and he could prob had diferent molecular structure.
drazapatos 8 months ago
@Bedeekin 2. All movements require muscular engagement and follow momentum. When the head tilts to the right, the left sternocleidomastoid should have stretched out. Also the speed with which it moves is clearly unsupported by its musculature. This movement would only hold true if this was an insect humanoid alien.
3. Most movements show consistent intentions. This creature starts tilting viciously only to deccelarate instantly to a super slow tilt with blinking eyes. That makes no sense.
urdriverman 9 months ago
@Bedeekin 4. Whenever we see a humanoid alien we should consider the fact that it is a product of the conditions of a certain planet ie the dark eyes and light skin suggest dim light. These conditions dictate the course of evolution which must have been going on for millions of years for these creatures. Thus general cosmic principles such as form follows fuction, force molds shape, cause and effect etc must have flawless consistency, much more than in our bodies anyway.
urdriverman 9 months ago
@urdriverman I design and make creatures like this for a living for films.
The way the head is positioned in relation to the neck is well thought out (if fake). Note that the neck is positioned forward to compensate for the large over-hanging cranium at the back. The sloping shoulders also indicate more muscle mass needed to support the head. The muscles may be dense. The cranium may be lightweight, like a spongy lattice; not unlike the bones of a bird. Who knows really?
Not I...
Not you...
Bedeekin 9 months ago
@Bedeekin Dont get me wrong. I agree with all of your points. We cant be certain for what this is. We can only make observations. I was a scientific advisor as an MD in an ex-government group that studies and catalogues such evidence. As a rule of thumb was to never reach an absolute; always work with propabilities. If this is a fake, its an impressive one. If its not then we have to rewrite certain rules. Btw, what your opinion on the 'Area51 alien interview' where medics come around to aid?
urdriverman 9 months ago
@urdriverman ok... maybe you!! haha
That's a wonderful ex job. wow...
from our different perspectives we agree. I can't say for absolute certain it's not an animatronic/CG/motion capture. It is the most convincing 'non' film connected footage I've seen.
I was waiting with baited breath when that first came out in 96/97... I was a tad disappointed. It was shot in a bizarre hidden way and the head could have been done simply using a rod puppet. I have put that one in the 'not impressed' file.
Bedeekin 9 months ago
@Bedeekin It was nice because it wasn't in the US so there was not such stress on disclosing information plus te public was very open and relaxed on the matter.
We do agree indeed. Initially I was stunned on its realism.
I couldn't agree more! We also concluded that it must have been a puppet. From my expertise, it is ridiculous how the medics lean over facing the alien upside down to check up on him. You do that in med school and they render you a danger to the human species!
urdriverman 9 months ago
@Bedeekin Lastly, what do you think of the Roswell alien autopsy? Regardless of Santilli's (forced) testimony?
urdriverman 9 months ago
@urdriverman I think that as a friend scantilli is 100% true the day he came clean. I think he did borrow money from dubious sources to buy footage from a guy in Las Vegas that depicted an alien autopsy. That the footage after exposure to oxygen, nitrated and degraded... that he recreated the alien in his living room based on some less damaged portions 'he still owns'... and that he used the money tmade to pay for the debt.
Bedeekin 9 months ago
@Bedeekin I also think that the last section of another video from the guy who uploaded this origionally, depicts what Scantilli was trying to recreate.
Bedeekin 9 months ago
@Bedeekin I couldn't agree more. Allow me to say that tis footage has been a 3-year study of mine. Of all the docs and evolutionary biologists I took it to, the most interesting comment came from a British medical genetics clinician that said 'this is a human only not of this planet' meaning that it is a viable humanoid entity product of a different planet. The incredible scientific consistency of its anatomy gets interrupted when Santilli inserts his own parts.
urdriverman 9 months ago
@Bedeekin There is an endless list of important biological observations that suggest this cannot be fake or a genetically altered human of this earth. Moreover it is the exact same being that another footage shows been brought on a stretcher. Note the medic's left ear deformity betraying his true identity as part of the 509th personnel. The USAF's argument's don't stand a chance anymore. They re history.
urdriverman 9 months ago
@AlienInvestigations Would a scratch on a lens explain why it appears only momentarily, exactly following the form of the digit that happens to be there? I thought "standing behind one's statements" equals to trying to prove them. Otherwise they're just beliefs.
toukoqouko 9 months ago
@AlienInvestigations If you can show that 1) "telecine machines" produce vertical scanlines, 2) these scanlines appear only inside digits, then you may have a point. Until then, this looks like a grasping-straws argument based on false assumptions 1) and 2). It's been over a week and nobody has been able to produce an example of genuine video with similar artifacts.
toukoqouko 9 months ago
@AlienInvestigations Scanlines are horizontal. Also there's no reason why they'd appear only inside the digits.
toukoqouko 9 months ago
@toukoqouko Have you considered it being played on a projector while later recorded by a newer camera? this would explain the lines.
DaddyUnderground323 9 months ago
@DaddyUnderground323 That's the first non-hoax scenario to consider. How else would the projector sound be there? To explain the other effects you'd need a scenario of multiple re-recordings from different kinds of screens. However it does nothing to explain the lines. Even if it was re-recorded 1000 times, with whatever technique, film scratches wouldn't neatly restrict themselves inside the digits.
toukoqouko 9 months ago
good job,gr8 eye!!
ghost2be 9 months ago
what's the name of the song
ExtraTerrestrials 9 months ago
@ExtraTerrestrials
opus 3 "its a fine day"
BEPATYP 9 months ago
not convinced. thanks for trying though.
outerspace2012 9 months ago
you need to keep making these videos and spreading awareness that `ivan` is a load of b.s you seen his latest video? laughable!
jewishmusick 9 months ago
I'm sure they were using a more advanced film process when taking this video for the times..it looks pretty friggin real to me, but I'm not an expert by any means when it comes to film, digital..etc... but damn that is pretty convincing footage..what if it was meant to decieve people and is actually a captured alien of today..... just saying!!
unoitaliano 9 months ago
@unoitaliano the person behind it is a user named mr351nova a self admitted hoaxer who did this crap a few years ago,
jewishmusick 9 months ago
@SizeOfLight If it commonly appears on VHS, it should be easy to find an example. I'm not sure what you're referring to in those 2 example videos, but I didn't see vertical scratches or streaks moving inside the digits.
toukoqouko 9 months ago
@SizeOfLight There are some compression artifacts on those videos, especially the WikiLeaks one which is low bitrate and only 320x226 pixels. This "alien" video however is 1920x1080 pixels HD and the digits are large (40 to 60 pixels wide and tall). The scratch on these digits is 50 pixels long, very clear, and stays for several frames, and moves across the numbers while they are not changing. It's nothing like a compression artifact.
toukoqouko 9 months ago
@SizeOfLight No. Even if it's a 1000th generation copy, any scratches on the video tape should extend over the whole frame, not magically just on the digit.
toukoqouko 9 months ago
They've over-done the degrading effect. There is a lot of military footage on YouTube from the 1940s, e.g. amateur and war footage. I didn't find anything near this low quality - and none with a time stamp. The font looks modern, Consola or something.
toukoqouko 9 months ago
Of course this is NOT the original. The part still unproven is the CGI work itself. Let's see a comparable computer generate alien, exact to the detail, NOT made over the original.
mujaku 9 months ago
@mujaku Again... we know this video is fake. Someone used special effects to make the time counter look old. All we know about the author of this video is: they're trying to mislead the viewer. And that's about all we need to know. To think that the most implausible part - the alien - could still be genuine, is ... don't know what would be the right word ... pathological? This irrational, semi-religious, wishful thinking is the main reason why these hoaxes keep surfacing.Same with Jerusalem hoax
toukoqouko 9 months ago
Comment removed
wqui2if 9 months ago
@wqui2if In any case, I can't think of any kind of mechanical process that would scratch the film only on the digit area, across several frames.
toukoqouko 9 months ago
Maybe he is filming the footage from a tv with a old projector?
wqui2if 9 months ago