New Alleged Area 51 tape with alien. Claims to be human from future

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: IsaacKoi

Do you know if Aristomenis Tsirbas has commented on being recognized for this yet, or how it was created?

I'd be interested in his explanation.
Thanks Isaac.

He has referred to the video on a couple of his Facebook pages, just saying it is his new video - but not yet commented further. I've asked him a question or two, but not had a response ... yet. (With one of his previous hoaxes, he was quite talkative when approached by the main stream media).

Most of his posts on his Facebook pages are about the number of views he has got so far for his various videos.

Can we label this piece of junk as HOAX thread once for all?

a reply to: JackHill

Not yet.
5 more pages of drivel from the beweeverz

I personally don't find the video interesting, at all.

Some people on this board are so fickle and want to believe so much that they're willing to turn a blind eye to painfully obvious cues.

The cheesy put-on voice, very generic questions/answers, painfully bad CGI/puppetry. It's not interesting at all... it's just, in reality, a recycled version of the '96 Victor video... and that one, in my personal opinion, was way more realistic than this sad excuse.

Some people are quick to believe... they'd rather live in fantasy than reality. I've been a lurker on here for years, and the state of these boards saddens me. This video will be back on here in a year or so, and it'll get twice as many flags and stars.

a reply to: bknapple32

If it was a real alien would not the information disclosed regarding future atomic conflict, and the century said conflict allegedly took place, influence our timeline possibly negating said creature ever existing at some future point, thus make it traveling back in time an impossibility?

God darn time travel is complicated and rather paradoxical.

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: IsaacKoi

Do you know if Aristomenis Tsirbas has commented on being recognized for this yet, or how it was created?

I'd be interested in his explanation.
Thanks Isaac.

He has referred to the video on a couple of his Facebook pages, just saying it is his new video - but not yet commented further. I've asked him a question or two, but not had a response ... yet. (With one of his previous hoaxes, he was quite talkative when approached by the main stream media).

Most of his posts on his Facebook pages are about the number of views he has got so far for his various videos.

Aristomenis Csirbas works at Blur Studios which excels at realistic CGI creations for games and film. You're right he boasts that his new project is the video seen in this thread and revels in the attention he's getting. Safe to assume this is a bait click hoax. Sad to see the topic of UFO research marginalized by crap like this.

Agree this should be moved to the Hoax bin.

he said there are an infinite number of universes and most of them dont support life. That makes no sense unless infinite is a definable number now. Now my time doing calculus has taught me anything. Its that no matter what you divide infinity by (unless is by inf.) the answer is inf. HUGE HOLE in this vid. No advance being would say that.

a reply to: bknapple32

Good video, but i call fake also,

something i noticed is the creature kept referring to "Your species" yet he also states he is a descendant of humans, so aren't we the same species??

my issue is one day a real video will come out, an videos like this will muddle the water

good video though, will be good to find out its true origin

originally posted by: StargateSG7

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: StargateSG7

I envy your technical knowledge.

don't. he's been babbling technical nonsense for years now. trolling, basically, to appear knowledgeable, while having no idea what he's talking about.

as for the video, doesn't really matter that it's a hoax. the underlying message about life and death may still be very well true. actually, i guess it is, to a degree. stripped down a lot, yet the basic truth is there.

travelling light years just to go to the past - that is BS though. someone with that knowledge would be able to jump through time like we travel through the timezones.

===

Back again I see...Actually Mr. Hamster I actually DO know what I'm talking about

aka with regards to video systems, my education is from
Southern Alberta Institute of Technology with a Diploma
from the Cinema, Television, Stage and Radio Arts program
specializing in Broadcast Television Operations (Graphics)
And 25+ years of Video Production experience
(Maya/Alias/Lightwave/Premiere/etc, etc)
So I think I know what I'm talking about
when it comes to video. Not to mention
I have all the SAME gear in the photos....

Anyways, how was I supposed to know that the "Undocumented PC"
and "Bitmapped graphics" and "Graphics Gems" textbooks
I have on my shelf contains your code?

P.S. - I can't remember CGA and DOS interrupt coding from 1986 anymore!
I work in C++/Delphi mostly these days....with the odd GPU coding!

Don't have too many sour-grapes about my expertise,
It's what it is...now that I know enough about your
programming background I will concede to your machine
coding expertise. In my case I'm far too busy trying to
keep 32 incoming live 4k video streams in perfect
frame-sync in a Direct-X and Linux environment
which darn hard enough as it is doing that!

====

Regarding the travelling light years to get to the past
is not necessarily untrue! As our Galaxy rotates and
our planet wobbles up and down in a sine-wave
type oscillation up above the galactic disk and
back down again, that linear distance indeed
is several hundred thousand light years rotationally
and several tens of light years up and down from the
galactic disc plane. So in order to get to OUR TIME,
from the far future you DO in fact must travel many
light years to get to the physical point where our
solar system and planet WOULD HAVE BEEN in
the time travelling alien's past from his
far-future location.

yeah, just keep trolling, just on another forum perhaps. how the f... you weren't banned from here is beyond me. i've proven once that you don't know squat about the stuff you're copy-pasting, shall i do it again?

originally posted by: StargateSG7
The movement is great but it wasn't done in Maya or Alias
because of the unnatural blooming on the shoulders and head
caused NOT by overhead lighting but rather by bad diffusion
as hard light goes to softer edges. That's typical of Blender
and Lightwave. (cheaper/faster 32-bit rendering vs
slow full 64-bit rendering causing striations on edges
or a bad convolution filter for the edge blurring)

32bit vs 64bit software and rendering accuracy? seriously? if the software is 32 or 64bit, has no influence on the precission of the calculations it can do. it can affect performance, since more SSE registers are available in 64bit mode, but that's about it. heck, even before SSE became available in x86 processors, people were using FPU for floating point calculations. guess what's the precission of that? 80bit. and that's just about what the processors support, since you can have arbitrary precission in software - at a performance cost, of course. also, that's not even mentioning the use of GPUs.

it so happens that i was using lightwave at work, together with tons of other software and hardware, and that was 18 years ago. so yeah, i can smell your BS from a mile.

now kindly go to hell and stop derailing threads on this great site with your sick delusions of an attention-seeking-wannabe-tech-dramaqueen.

I used to read the old UFO books from the 1970's, including the books by Eric von Daniken.

Some of the ideas were like having helicopters with four or more sets of rotating blades - these weren't possible with current technology (1970's) because microprocessors were so slow (1978 = 6502 8-bit microprocessor @ 1 MHz).

Reports described medical bays with cold blue light - bright but with no heat.

a reply to: bknapple32

Well, first of all, the "alien/future human" speaks a very goo English, up to the expressions. The exact ones we are using.
If I went back in time, even in my own country, 500 years earlier, I guess I would have a few communication problems.

also, the very final scene (last seconds of the video), where the "alien/future human" seems to be shooting up, looks... "interesting".

The interview as such also feels "interesting", discussing some cheap and easy philosophy.
You would have expected some more - e.g. some detailed technology discussion - if that happened in Area 51.

The voice also sounds conveniently sci-fi.

My take on this one, some very nice cgi. To promote a movie? A game?

originally posted by: KarmaComa
a reply to: bknapple32

Well, first of all, the "alien/future human" speaks a very goo English

Sorry...but that just made me crack up. I guess the alien is better than us sometimes

EBEy McFly is his full name.

a reply to: bknapple32

He uses the expression "Weapons of mass destruction" - that expression was at its peak in 2002. I reckon that dates it. In any case why was it necessary to "disguise" the aliens voice?

originally posted by: JackHill
Can we label this piece of junk as HOAX thread once for all?

Why? It's just as good as all the "alien hybrids are taking over the world" junk you peddle.

That's a great costume.

It's definitely produced post 1964 simply because of the audio effect that is used on the voice. That sort of digital signal processing did not exist yet.

Also I hear this sort of species is telepathic and do not have mouths.

In some documents/stories they say there are different greys from different periods in the future.

a reply to: jedi_hamster


"32bit vs 64bit software and rendering accuracy? seriously? if the software is 32 or 64bit, has no influence on the precission of the calculations it can do. it can affect performance, since more SSE registers are available in 64bit mode, but that's about it. heck, even before SSE became available in x86 processors, people were using FPU for floating point calculations. guess what's the precission of that? 80bit. and that's just about what the processors support, since you can have arbitrary precission in software - at a performance cost, of course. also, that's not even mentioning the use of GPUs."

====

32-bit and 64-bit floating point or integer numbers
used in calculations on indivudal or groups of pixels
can VERILY MUCH affect rendering quality! YOU as a
programmer should know that!

I WAS NOT referencing 32-bit software vs 64 software
as to it's MEMORY ADDRESSING AND MEMORY ALLOCATION
capability but rather the PRECISION of real numbers.
The lower the precision (i.e. 32 bit vs 64-bit floating
point numbers) USUALLY the lower the quality unless
some sort of anti-aliasing, de-blocking and/or blurring
functions take place during or after rendering rendering.

Perhaps you mis-understood me! I was talking about
the rendering precision (i.e. 32 bit single precision vs
64 bit double precision floating point numbers)
causing either banding effects upon final rounding
or clipping on the luminance portion of a pixel value
or causing human-discernable "blooming" on white levels
or excessing "crushing" on black levels ...or... the
rendering software using linear fall-off instead of
something like inverse-square on luminance levels
during compositing (i.e. detect artificial feathering
of object edges) ALL OF WHICH can be forensically
examined and determined by comparing between
any number of modeling and animation programs.
I cannot be certain HOW SSE/MMX type of
calculations are used in Blender because
I haven't read it's source code. Lightwave
would highly like use as much GPU-assisted
rendering as possible on the local machine
and a combination of x86/SSE/MMX rendering
AND GPU's if on a network renderfarm.

Blender is definitely ONE program which if used
inexpertly or setting render output to lesser-quality
levels WILL result in visible artifacts. It's a matter of
an ARTIST's expertise in lighting and render settings
which will determine final output quality.

I have used Lightwave since it was included
in the Video Toaster package on Amigas so
I think we BOTH have some expertise in it.
Again, quality of lighting and final render
output settings is the KEY differentiator.

ONE ISSUE I HAVE in this case, is the original artist
of the Alien Video is PURPORTED to be an EXPERT
3D Animator/Modeller which means either did his
"mistakes" ON PURPOSE or he was severely
time-constrained!

I am VERY curious as to his reasons for the
voice-over quality and rather "quick" renderings!

---

P.S. Did you NOT understand all my far-in-the-past-ATS-posts
which THOROUGHLY INDICATED my UTTER desire to be
an ATS attention-seeking-wannabe-tech-drama-king?

I AM TRYING to BE the NEXT "Internet Cat" and that
means I know MORE about BIOS-hidden air-gap-communications
microcode which changes sound cards to secretly capture
all your keystrokes and monitor images to send to spy agencies
AND I also know MORE about double-pipelining in CPU chips
which sends all unwrapped CPU instructions and data to
secret locations in RAM such as the memory addresses of:

1: 4269 7465 204d 6521
2: 2049 276d 2043 616e
3: 6164 6961 6e20 6568
4: 2120 2020 2020 2020

than you do and I know all
about yes-masking interrupts
and JMP POYSN,0x666666 commands
than ANYONE here..... ;-) :-) :-)

So again....

MOV 0x0D, AH
MOV 0x80, DL
INT 0x13


So touche! and En Garde!

originally posted by: nOraKat
That's a great costume.

It's definitely produced post 1964 simply because of the audio effect that is used on the voice. That sort of digital signal processing did not exist yet.

Also I hear this sort of species is telepathic and do not have mouths.

In some documents/stories they say there are different greys from different periods in the future.

====

Technically they COULD have done at least the pitch shifting and speed change
BACK before 1964 but yes that FLANGING effect which sounds like super-compressed
MP3 audio didn't come out until the 1960's or 1970's.

---

I've heard too that the Greys are actualy like PLANTS
and very simply-built and "grown" in a plant-like manner
Maybe they are biological robots and/or biological
artificial intelligences!


who knows.....

a reply to: PandaPrincess

His name is Paul...he smokes, swears, and really misses home.

Here is a more recent pic of him.

originally posted by: StargateSG7
32-bit and 64-bit floating point or integer numbers
used in calculations on indivudal or groups of pixels
can VERILY MUCH affect rendering quality! YOU as a
programmer should know that!

I WAS NOT referencing 32-bit software vs 64 software
as to it's MEMORY ADDRESSING AND MEMORY ALLOCATION
capability but rather the PRECISION of real numbers.
The lower the precision (i.e. 32 bit vs 64-bit floating
point numbers) USUALLY the lower the quality unless
some sort of anti-aliasing, de-blocking and/or blurring
functions take place during or after rendering rendering.

i know.

i also know that nothing stops 32bit software from using 64bit precission in calculations, 32bit software is free to use SSE instructions as it wants. so basically, you're calling a software 32 or 64bit based on the type of calculations you think it does, without even analyzing its source code (which is, with the exception of Blender, usually unavailable). even more, now you're backtracking from that, saying it all depends on the settings.

it's actually much more than that. badly written double precission (so using 64bit calculations) code can probably produce worse results than properly written single precission code. it's not about the errors in calculations, which are usually impossible to notice, it's about accumulation of those errors, and that may depend on the type of blending used to merge different rendering passes for example.

but even that's not the point. the point is what you've just admitted yourself: you're trolling. go, be an internet cat elsewhere.