104 replies to this topic

[hacktorp]

Slave2Fate, on 02 May 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

You know it's more about the quality of evidence than the quantity right? A ton of maybe's doesn't equal the weight of a single fact.

I do.  Which is why I pointed out the flimsy, non-factual nature of the Faltskog canard.

Cheers!

[psyche101]

hacktorp, on 02 May 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

Yeah, I saw that ats/Falstskog  post a whole year ago and the time that has passed since then hasn't exactly bolstered its credibility.  There was even a part in it about the video supposedly being transferred aboard a ship in Antarctica!  Not quite what you'd expect for a simple bit of cgi that anyone with a smartphone can make, eh?  Ironically, that fantastic story only gets believable if the video is, in fact, a truly hot commodity.  If anything, the short-lived Faltskog story is a great example of prosaic explanations becoming ridiculously contrived and convoluted like I mentioned earlier.

I take it then that you saw the thread about what is she up to these days? Judy/Wayne who appear to be the same person made large claims when he/she uploaded that video about working for NASA. Problem being that NASA has no record at all of this Judy Falstskog and not one Radio Telescope she claims to have worked at has any record of her at all. If anything, the trail went cold with regards to his/her claims. Colleges that she claims to have attended have no such records. Sounds much like the Lazar story over again.

I disagree that the link is convoluted, there might be a certain amount of contriving, but would that not be prudent with the information at hand? How else does one follow a trail? Why is that prosaic convoluted? It is a one page description that covers several aspects.

hacktorp, on 02 May 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

You know, were I able to blindly and blithely ignore the entirety of accumulated data and information concerning ET/UFO save for skinny bob, then perhaps not.  That, however, is a luxury afforded to the pure debunker, not the informed skeptic.  You?

I disagree with this as well, the informed skeptic would not bundle ET and UFO in the first instance. ET=UFO can only be reconciled with a leap of faith. Skeptics do not take leaps of faith.

Me? I find common sense dictates that the physiology would not work like that under our gravity and our atmosphere, the body of the creature never moves indicating a dummy, and I find the Judy/Wayne connection perfectly reasonable. All of which I find certainly offers reasonable suspicion.

[psyche101]

hacktorp, on 02 May 2012 - 02:09 AM, said:

I do.  Which is why I pointed out the flimsy, non-factual nature of the Faltskog canard.

Cheers!

No you didn't you objected to it, you falsified nothing.

[hacktorp]

psyche101, on 02 May 2012 - 02:25 AM, said:

No you didn't you objected to it, you falsified nothing.

Indeed I did.  At least to the extent that you used it to prove anything.

Now, it's been a long day.  What say we go have a beer?

[Sensible Logic]

hacktorp, on 01 May 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

Sensible Logic, on 01 May 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

. There is software available that can do the job and with the use of a render farm, time can be greatly reduced.

Rubbish. Easy to say, I'll grant. Harder to back up, I'll wager.

The only rubbish is your comment based on what appears to be no knowledge on the subject.   Just off the top of my head there are programs like zbrush ($700) and blender (Free) for photorealism, poser ($50) for movement of all the parts of the character from the eye blinks to finger movements, a variety of render programs (Free - $1500) for rendering and networked computers sharing the rendering as a render farm.  If I were you I wouldn't be making wagers just yet.

hacktorp said:

Sensible Logic, on 01 May 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

What you seem to be missing, whether intentional or not, is that if you have footage of a real alien, you don't need to add anything to the video to make it seem authentic. The fact is that elements were added to the movie to try to boost it's authenticity but do just the opposite and detract from it.

Again, this is pure noise. How many hands in how many agencies has this passed through being copied all along the way? No one knows. The above claimed "fact" is anything but.

There is no indication that the video passed through a number of or any agencies at all.  However if it did pass through agencies, I don't believe they would have been wasting their time adding elements to the video instead of using their time to study it.   Since you mentioned agencies and taking into account that it's first release on youtube had it as a KGB interrogation with a supposed KGB emblem in the beginning that was later removed and it was renamed as a roswell interrogation, which agencies do you believe it might have passed through?  Russian?  American? The elements that were added are easy to see if you examine the video.  Those additions are a fact regardless of your personal belief on the subject.

hacktorp said:

Sensible Logic, on 01 May 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

Why would someone do this? because they can and to see how long it takes to be shown as a fake. Maybe, just maybe, to hone their skills so they can be the next digital effects wizard.

Isn't it interesting how attempts at prosaic explanations begin to look more contrived and convoluted than those a bit more outside the box. What does that mean? A VERY good question indeed.

In response to your question of why someone would create skinny bob I did not post explanations but mere possibilities of why something like that would have been done.  Prosaic or not they remain valid possibilities.  You should check out the various 3d communities on the net and see just how much work some have put into their creations just because they wanted to.

You have ignored, conveniently forgotten or dismissed most of what was posted that brings into doubt the authenticity of the skinny bob video.  Since the only person you believe has the facts is yourself, kindly explain why the video started out as a KGB interrogation with a fake KGB symbol that was later removed and the video renamed as a roswell investigation and how this change does not affect the validity of the video?

[psyche101]

hacktorp, on 02 May 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

Indeed I did.  At least to the extent that you used it to prove anything.

I would disagree, I felt I established at the very least reasonable suspicion to doubt the claim based on the author's identity and involvements and the characters movements, and I do not feel there is any reason put forth to believe that the film might be genuine or to doubt the suspicions placed.

hacktorp, on 02 May 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

Now, it's been a long day.  What say we go have a beer?

Maaaaate, now your talkin! I would be happy to get the first round! In fact I think you would be a more than interesting conversationalist.

Cheers!

[badeskov]

psyche101, on 02 May 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

<snip>

Maaaaate, now your talkin! I would be happy to get the first round! In fact I think you would be a more than interesting conversationalist.

Cheers!

When and where?!



Cheers,
Badeskov

[DONTEATUS]

At least we all know where or Beers are buttered ! A round for everyone Bade`s !

[psyche101]

badeskov, on 02 May 2012 - 05:22 AM, said:

When and where?!



Cheers,
Badeskov

Big D called, it prepare to be invaded!

[DONTEATUS]

Listens for the Key Master !!!

[stevoid2005]

IMO its fake.

But with todays tech even real alien vids will be called fake due to anything being possible.

Why say digital wasnt available in the 40s, in the military tech is kept secret until it becomes obsclete to them then gets released, who can say that the digital tech didnt spawn from a UFO and they reversed engineered it HAHAHAHA.

But still the vid is fake why only show tiny clips if that was me being the leader of majic 12 or whatever secret group, i would film constantly in full light and be filming the whole body and conducting test ike how the alien moves and filming the lot.

[coolguy]

its not  cgi because you need tons of power.  a single pc cant do cgi. if you look at cgi moives from dreamworks they use over 100 pcs .  could it be a  puppet may be?? could it be real may be?? keep an open mind

[*Frank*]

coolguy, on 04 August 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

its not  cgi because you need tons of power.  a single pc cant do cgi.

Nonsense. I've got Maya, 3D Studio Max and Cinema 4D on my computer at work and it handles them just fine.

Fair enough, if you're trying to render something complex (think Sully from Monsters Inc.) it can take some serious power - but all that power does is reduce the render time.

Don't believe me? Download Blender. It's a free 3D modelling program.

[hacktorp]

*Frank*, on 04 August 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

Nonsense. I've got Maya, 3D Studio Max and Cinema 4D on my computer at work and it handles them just fine.

Fair enough, if you're trying to render something complex (think Sully from Monsters Inc.) it can take some serious power - but all that power does is reduce the render time.

Don't believe me? Download Blender. It's a free 3D modelling program.

None of those programs can replicate the subject video.

If you can show otherwise, please do.

So far, nobody else has.

[Quaentum]

hacktorp, on 05 August 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

None of those programs can replicate the subject video.

If you can show otherwise, please do.

So far, nobody else has.

You might want to do a bit of research.  Maya was used to create the Davy Jones character and animation of it for the Pirates of the Caribbeans movies.  The quality of the cgi was soo good some thought the actor was wearing prosthetic but it was all computer animation.