New Roswell Alien Footage!

originally posted by: Adam524819
So ... couldn't help myself. I put it through resolve frame by frame. Houston we have a problem lol.

Got to do some work on some some stills. Resolve is being a b£tch so I cant render a slowed down version hence the stills. Working next on stills regarding Ealing Studios. But ... another issue. That film wasn't only filmed at Ealing Studios. It was also filmed at another UK studio. Aside from the American film locations. There are a few subtle problems ...

The incoherence besides... could you verify the age of the "broken" footage?
I'd guess not. The story is that the hoaxer recreated the "actual footage" in an attempt to fool a potential buyer.
Some of the footage is apparently from a severely damaged reel and the majority of the "autopsy" footage is a faked recreation.

This may all be a true event. The evidence is severely lacking in my opinion.

originally posted by: Kreeate

originally posted by: Adam524819
So ... couldn't help myself. I put it through resolve frame by frame. Houston we have a problem lol.

Got to do some work on some some stills. Resolve is being a b£tch so I cant render a slowed down version hence the stills. Working next on stills regarding Ealing Studios. But ... another issue. That film wasn't only filmed at Ealing Studios. It was also filmed at another UK studio. Aside from the American film locations. There are a few subtle problems ...

The incoherence besides... could you verify the age of the "broken" footage?
I'd guess not. The story is that the hoaxer recreated the "actual footage" in an attempt to fool a potential buyer.
Some of the footage is apparently from a severely damaged reel and the majority of the "autopsy" footage is a faked recreation.

This may all be a true event. The evidence is severely lacking in my opinion.

Its a fake. But its a a really good fake. There are some really cool things going on in the filming which enrich what is quite a cruddy end result. Degraded film appearence etc. Uniforms. Subtle little things. And some things they thought they could get away with. But all said and done it was filmed in 2005.

So we need to deal with your assertion that the panel sections were ... not the correct ratio and that the argument for such was weak.

I let that be because maybe you dont know much regarding lenses and image compression optically not digitally. And it doesnt really matter to me because I had only done it for myself and wasnt trying to convince anyone. But lenses do alter quite a bit more than you would expect in ways that you wouldnt expect. Like people crammed onto beaches during covid was actually a lens effect and a drone shot of the same time showed people were in fact 20 feet apart. So when it comes to the panels the dimensions arent set in stone so to speak. But as you correctly stated the ratios should be very close. They wont be exact and crisp because the footage isnt sharp and the back walls are quite distant from the camera and the lens used also pushes the wall further back than it actually is. Optically. Also, althought the stages only have 4 walls, each wall has slightly different ratio panels. And by panel I mean the smallest rectangle you can see. Further studio 4 and 3 where the Ant and Dec movie was flimed are joined. So thats 8 different walls and even on each wall there are different ratios of panel. And most importantly the source photos of the studio walls arent endless. There are only a few and they arent usually photographed square on and the footage wasnt filmed square on to the wall either. But luckily we got pretty damn close in one or two frames.

So in addressing the ratio issue I was lucky that one frame had an extra clue.



A corner of Stage 4 Ealing Studios.



The grey blob is a section of panel taken from the footage. The lighting is brtual in the footage but this panel was one of 3 that werent completely blown out. Here you can see it has been reduced in size and overlayed onto the wall of stage 4 and I coloured it yellow.

There were attempts that didnt fit. The ratios were close but there was some slight overlap. Not the case here.

Another fit.



And one that didnt for proof



And it would have been left there but I wanted to do a timeline of events through the footage. For instance when the stretcher first arrives it is covered with a blanket. Lots of details can be seen. And that concerned me because the footage isnt really filmed to show those off. In fact there are many events in the footage that are visible for two frames or less. Which makes the possibility greater that its real.

Then while looking for more panels to match up as ratio proof I found this frame. Its at the beginning, the stretcher is just being brought in and for a brief few frames you see the far back wall almost square on. But you also see another feature other than some clearly defined panels, which at the time I assumed was deliberate and a prop/background clutter etc. But it wasn't.



As it turned out, they had left the bottom of the wall exposed which is a corrugated panel which you can see in the above pictures. And to confirm I overlaid it. The wall is further away in the footage but I just enlarged it and made it opaque. It lines up perfectly with the bottom corrugation and the small panels. I moved the footage slightly to the side because it matches so well you cant be sure the footage is in the part of the overlay. Anyway, there it is. If we had a better selections of studio 3 and 4 photos we could probably narrow each section of the film down to the location within the stage. I just geek out at filming.

Ealing Studios Stage 4 and 3, 2005

a reply to: Adam524819

A hearty but, alas, unconvincing refutal of the situation.
The eyes see what they see. Of course different people will have different interpretations of what they see... and that it is fine.