A Skeptical View
DAMN! Gunna get a whole lotta heat for this, so just gunna start off by saying I’m a believer in UFO’s (which may or may not be Aliens)… But… ugh… here we go… IT’S FAKE. It looks decent at first glance, to the uninitiated. Luckily, I’m initiated lol, and it’s provably fake. I’ll show you…
First, don’t be mad at me! I wanted to meet skinny bob one day, too!
What you’re looking at is not film, but digital filters made to look like film to sell its authenticity and/or to cover up the flaws that would be obvious if we all saw a crystal clear image of the original prosthetics/CGI/animatronic or hybrid of all three. I welcome a friendly debate with anyone who thinks otherwise, but it’s demonstrably fake 🙁
Proof? Sure! Thought you’d never ask! Just to start ya’ll off (and there’s A LOT more where this came from):
Turn the quality up to 1080 and go to 0:54 . It’s quick, but watch the time code burn in roll over from ***@ to 46. Notice anything on the number 46 seconds? Specifically the fake, digital effect of a film scratch on the number 6? The film scratch that doesn’t even run through the centre of the number 6 let alone the rest of the background image? That’s a digital film effect; A fake scratch preset (or custom effect) that has been added to a digital time code overlay, which leaves the image behind it untouched in the transparency between the numbers, which film scratches don’t do. Film scratches don’t defy physics. Nor do they discriminate between foreground, background, timecode, or even trans-bathrooms for that matter!
Also, guess when timecode was invented? The early 60’s. Hmm. And ONLY for video tape (eventually digital). There is no way this time code is burned into a film from the 40’s or 60’s unless it was optically printed after the fact, which it wasn’t. And that still doesn’t explain the fake film scratches that are obviously digital effects placed on the timecode.
Also, film has its own markings along the sides, between the perforations, making timecode redundant, especially redacted timecode that wouldn’t have the same redaction marking for each 24 frames per second if that timecode was really there. Timecode was used from magnetic and digital editing, not film.
Film scratches are also inconsistent / random. This is a patterned effect, clearly, with loops. The film scratches also run BEHIND the time code, in the background. Yet the time code has another digital film effect placed on it because it was probably added as an after thought to make it look more legit. “Doesn’t look official enough, add some timecode!”… “But sir, they didn’t have time code for film” “I SAID DO IT!” “Yes sir.” (but in russian).
Need more? Sure! Smoking guns aside…
“But Danâ€, you say, “what if this was a taped copy of the original film for preservation or bootleg purposes and that explains the timecode†do you ask? Excellent question! The answer is NO…. It isn’t. Because that time code burn in would be crisp and clean, SANS film effect, with the film image in the background if this was a dupe. Not an additional effect with its own separate film effect added to it, distinct from the background digital film effect.
I could keep going, but I’ll stop with the concrete statement that these are 100% digital effects to make you think it’s film. That is a fact. A lazy or inexperienced compositor did everything they could to manipulate this image to look as authentic or at least “dated†as possible. But in doing so, they merely dated it to the digital effects of a decade ago.
If it’s real, why did they add digital film effects to a timecode overlay that is clearly the same repeated effect added to the background image?
Now, I don’t know if this is the only version of this “filmâ€, I haven’t seen the original image, nor do I know how many hands this has gone through to get to here, so there could be fuckery along the way. But why? If it’s real, just show the real image and don’t screw with it, right? Sorry folks. I wanted it too!
Need even more?
A Less Skeptical View – from an expert
r/AliensAndUFOs • u/Bedeekinben • Apr 28 ’19
I work in special effects, creature effects and visual effects for the film industry. IMDB me… Ben Philips. I and those I work with could fake this. The problem is I would need a small crew and would have to spend a lot of prep time and money to pull it off. The clips of Skinny Bob and ‘family vacation’ are one thing… and arguments over frame rate and whether it’s 16mm footage is irrelevant, it’s the creation of the supplemental footage that people tend to ignore and overlook, all of which are totally unique to Ivan 0135’s uploads. None of the other clips have been seen before or since. They comprise of….
- A saucer being filmed from a moving vehicle hovering over what looks like a steam boat – digital composition using filmed footage and composited UFO with fantastic tracking.
- Cockpit footage showing a saucer flying beside it – again an edited video with an inserted UFO.
- An alien walking towards camera – this could be entirely digital but I think not because the camera shake isn’t added as an effect. This means it would be a makeup (mask) and performer or a digital edit with a CG alien.
- A panning shot of a crash site in a desert – this is a physical effect shot… meaning the camera was filming an actual thing. This could have been a location build or a miniature model. I don’t think it’s a miniature though because the camera operator is walking while panning which would require the camera being motion controlled to simulate someone walking.
- Autopsy footage – this would require a model alien and performers.
The last 3 clips I mentioned take the faking of this to a whole new level of expertise and professionalism. For a start the crash footage would need a location to film and a crew to either build the crashed saucer and bodies in a workshop or out on location, which appears to be a desert. This means money and people to pay, including transport to get the model saucer to location. The autopsy footage is interesting for a few reasons. One being that it’s not the same alien as Skinny Bob and is very short. it is very similar to the Ray Santilli autopsy footage that was admitted to be faked by Santilli himself. However, he claims to this day that he faked it because the original footage he bought degraded due to elemental exposure. This could possibly be a short clip of that original footage or if faked, the creators were hinting at it.
So…. if Skinny Bob was faked he’s either an animatronic puppet or CGI… or a blend of both. If it’s digital then it’s outstanding and the creator was a professional. If it’s digital then it wasn’t key frame animation but motion capture. If it was motion capture then it would need a studio set up. A studio set up means money and more people. If it was a puppet then it’s not only a stunning design but the puppeteers were top of the pile; the way he shifts his stance and looks down when he’s having his height measured is beautifully done and one of the reasons why if it is a computer generated character it was done using motion capture and not key frame animated.
I’m not saying it isn’t faked. I am proposing that if it was, then it was done by a multidisciplinary team of effects professionals. They spent a lot of time and money building physical models for extremely short clips that weren’t even the main subject matter of the video; Skinny Bob.
If faked none of those involved have broke silence since May 2011 to lay claim for their work.
About the Author
