Skinny Bob Colorized and New Details

1. Digital camera video of 8mm film projection. Film recorded at 16fps
2. Projector running at 24fps, video slowed to exactly half making it 12fps.
2b. See projector sound youtu.be... SET TO 0.5X
3. Timestamp is from digital camera and is also going half speed.
4. Camera brightness constantly changes from bright flashing projector light.
5. Bright projector also causes timestamp to react. Line is just a glitch in the 6.
5b. Glitch likely occurs where the 6 is because it's changing every second.
5c. Only appears on the 6 and not around it. youtu.be...
6. Horizontal colored banding indicative of modern camera. youtu.be...
7. Black bars edited in to hide date and origin but KGB logo still present.
(my video below is speed corrected to 16fps and brightened)




I spent about 50 hours analyzing, researching, and debunking the myths about skinny bob.
If you have a link to an analysis, I've likely seen it. All can be explained.
He is likely real and no apparent manipulation was done to the footage except the black bars and slow down.

I don't agree that it's "obvious CG" or "ps2 graphics" but feel free to share that opinion down below.


(alternate link: streamable.com...)(i think youtube lowered the quality)

Ive seen this clip before but didnt realise there was a back story, or, that it had the name 'skinny bob'. Id just assumed it as cgi, any chance you can explain the story to this in a bit more detail please.

a reply to: Catch_a_Fire

there isn't much of a story surrounding the footage other than what was provided in the original videos themselves
which can be found here www.youtube.com...
many details were not explained in the original videos and people have been going absolutely wild with speculation. I looked into every theory like Judy Faltskog and James Vernan and their claims. What I listed there was pretty much all the detail that can be gathered. it took me a long time before i figure out the timestamp although i wasn't trying too hard. all of a sudden it came to me while watching that the timestamp IS from the digital camera. i thought it wasnt because of the way it changed with the brightness but all signs point to it being from the modern camera used to film the projection.
i just found this out and that was the only part of the video i couldnt explain previously.

so now that i have that bit of knowledge, i think we may know everything we can know for the time being. im working with a television producer and director to get to the bottom of where the footage originated. and if we cant find it, we're still going to try and go ahead with the making of the documentary about the footage but there are some legal hurdles to overcome and after that he can attempt to get funding for it's production. very early stages right now but if anything big happens i'll probably make a post about it.

a reply to: AlienAnonymous

I really hope you find out more, would be great if you could keep us updated.

a reply to: AlienAnonymous

Just my observation, and there might be a legit reason for this. The collar on the uniform seems a little small to get over skinny bobs head unless the material is super stretchy or has some form fastening at the back that I can't see.

Seems a tight fit to the skinny neck.

Kind regards,

Bally

a reply to: AlienAnonymous

Why is the year blacked out?

a reply to: AlienAnonymous

The video is great. But man with all the video capability today it's hard to think it's authentic without knowing its history. It could come from a guy who has masters degree in advanced video editing techniques. If this were the case where the video came from might provide some clues to authenticity.

Regardless, it looks terrific!! Lots of fun to watch even if it is fiction.

a reply to: dfnj2015

To not give away the time when this video was recorded.
It helps them remain hidden.
That year would be crucial to an investigation.

We know it was initially released 8 years ago in May 2011.
Much harder back then to create realistic CG animation.

Thanks, I went through all 175 frames twice. It took forever.

a reply to: AlienAnonymous

Here's an old discussion:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is a very easy way to tell the Skinny Bob videos are fake. Why would you hear an old projector on a YouTube video?

Another:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This seems to be the original posting on youtube.



Don't really see that your enhancements have done much more to resolve the issue.

Authenticity testing:

Find stock audio clip for old projector noise.
If found - Hoax=Yes

Find film grain effect filter as stock filter match from software libraries or online.
If found - Hoax=Yes
(The little thumbprint looking thing and panning vertical line on the left side of the screen can be very damning, if you look for effect filter matches.)

AKA, debunk this nice and easy.

a reply to: AlienAnonymous

Judy Faltskog

Judy, Judy, Judy. The NASA astrophysicist who received alien UV signals on a radio telescope? Not that Judy Faltskog. Please tell me not.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's a thread about it by a guy who works on SFX in movies. He said it would cost around $250,000 to produce this, and breaks down the costs in one of his posts.

Link

At first it looked like animatronics to me, but after reading his analysis, I don't know. It seems if there was that much money spent on producing something like this then someone, somewhere would take credit for it. Especially considering it would take a large team of people to pull it off. If it's fake it's definitely from a large studio. There weren't many places to do motion capture back in 2011.

a reply to: underwerks

He said it would cost around $250,000 to produce this, and breaks down the costs in one of his posts.

Not in the one you linked.

Others have mentioned it: why is there a noise from a projector? If his is a digital camera recording of a projected movie, there shouldnt be loud projector noise, should there?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: underwerks

He said it would cost around $250,000 to produce this, and breaks down the costs in one of his posts.

Not in the one you linked.

You have to click on one of the continue thread buttons under a response.

Assuming it’s not an utter genius who created it entirely by themselves on computer in their bedroom purely for the hell of it, then it was a team of professionals using a whole mix of SFX disciplines.

If I was asked to make it and it had to be an accurate recreation of the Skinny Bob footage, I wouldn’t make it with CGI. I would create him using an animatronic puppet, maybe augmented with a bit of digital editing. I would need a workshop and either a secret location (for the crashed saucer bit), or a space to build a set. I would also need to build an alien for the short autopsy clip. My crew would have to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement that basically states they can never disclose they worked on it to anyone.... potentially for ever. It would take at least 5 skilled workers - a sculptor, mouldmaker, fabricator, animatronic engineer and a Digital artist about a month to make Bob. That’s £2,000 a week for each. That’s £40,000. Put a bare minimum of one assistant with each pro at £1,000 a week - £20,000.. That’s £60,000 just for labour. Realistically I would hire more assistants putting it at closer to £100,000. Materials would come to about £20,000. To just create a shoot ready Bob it would be about £130,000 - £150,000.

I would need to hire an excellent puppeteers to reproduce those hyper real subtle movements Bob makes. Their salary can vary, but a good puppeteer like those who work for Jim Henson’s would charge about £5,000 to £10,000 a day. It would take at least 2 puppeteers to operate Bob, for a day’s shoot. I’ll use the lowest payment.., £10,000.

£160,000

I would also need carpenters and fabricators/model makers for the crashed UFO. They would be building the UFO, dead bodies and dressing the set/location. I also need a living walking alien to approach the camera. I would probably use a child performer wearing a pull over skinny Bob head mask we made in the puppet shop, which means I need to hire an extra mouldmaker for a week to cast out a child safe mask - £1,200. I would give the saucer and set construction 3 weeks. Film carpenters get about £1,500 a week and I want 2 of them - £9,000. Model makers get roughly the same and I need at least 2 for the UFO - £9,000. The fabricators would build the dead alien, bits of set and the suit for the child to wear including the costume. I’ve just worked with a master fabricator on Tom and Jerry. He was on £2’000 a week. He would need a week to create the dead body and suit, but I’m using him for Bob’s puppet body and costume so he’d be hired a week earlier than everyone else for about a week. For labour to create the crashed saucer clip it would be around £20,000. Materials wouldn’t be that much and would come to around £5,000 The budget would differ between it being an indoor set or a location. For an indoor set it would need the hire of a small sound stage for 2 weeks. The lowest price is £500 a day - £7, 000

£32,000

The autopsy clip depicts a different alien than Skinny Bob so that’s another small team for about 2 weeks. A sculptor, mouldmaker, fabricator and prop modeller - £16,000.

including a rough calculation for catering, insurance, an office, driver, workshop overheads and other things the rough budget to recreate the black and white Skinny Bob video would be around £220,000. Nearly a quarter of a million.

a reply to: underwerks

Thanks. Perhaps he's wrong about what it would take, but I'm no expert. There are those who claim crop circles can't possibly be made by humans, after all.

I'm not sure that poster is entirely unbiased.

Since uploading my original post there have been some massive breakthroughs in UFO Disclosure that the world and UFOlogists can’t argue with.

Do you think he might be talking about TTSA? That "original post" isn't very old.

That projector sound is just too obvious to ignore. Yet, he does.

a reply to: Phage

You may be right. I just thought his take on it was interesting. It looks fake to me. But if he's right about his analysis I find it hard to believe that no one has come forward to take credit for it. Because it's really well done.

a reply to: underwerks

Maybe they were suicided. Or just died.

Or maybe it's really an alien.

Or maybe some guys at ILM were fooling around after hours. And are stoked it's coming back around.

Maybe it's a demo.

That stupid projector track. Trying too hard.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah I dont know about the projector sound. That alone screams fake. But maybe that's why it was added..

Since we're talking alien conspiracies, maybe it was added to add an element of disbelief to it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been able to be released..

a reply to: underwerks

That's not a rabbit hole.
That's a whirlpool. Round, and round, and round. But no deeper.