Johnathan Reed's Close-Up Alien Blinking Video - best footage ever? (video)

Originally posted by pjslug


Hold on there. The Reed videos could not have been made with a computer like an Amiga. Computer graphics back then were horribly primitive compared to today's standards, and certainly not capable of any CGI like the "Freddie" alien. If it is a hoax, it was a live model, not CGI in any way.

Unfortunately, you are wrong again. I never said this was CGI as I do not believe any was used at all. You need to do some research though because the images and effects the amiga was capable of in 1992 were amazing compared with much of the stuff on the market today.

No, it is probably not CGI, I would not claim it was but... you have no idea what those computers could do because primitive is a far cry from photo realism which is what you could do with on back then.

I wish I could just say things and then hope they are true and still feel good about myself.

The television show "SeaQuest DSV" ran from 1993 to 1996. They had some of the best and most believable special effects on tv and guess what computers they used for their special effects?

Any guesses???

Anyone?

It starts with an A and ends with an a and this was in the '90s. Here is another hint, I had the same equipment in my home, just not nearly as much of it.

No, this was most likely not at all CGI as it merely looks like poorly spun home made special effects and a puppet. Unfortunately, all the experts ruling out CGI need to take a step back and read something other than propaganda put forth by this hoaxer.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by Luciferdescending]

[edit on 15-2-2009 by Luciferdescending]

Originally posted by Luciferdescending

Originally posted by pjslug


Hold on there. The Reed videos could not have been made with a computer like an Amiga. Computer graphics back then were horribly primitive compared to today's standards, and certainly not capable of any CGI like the "Freddie" alien. If it is a hoax, it was a live model, not CGI in any way.

Unfortunately, you are wrong again. I never said this was CGI as I do not believe any was used at all. You need to do some research though because the images and effects the amiga was capable of in 1992 were amazing compared with much of the stuff on the market today.

No, it is probably not CGI, I would not claim it was but... you have no idea what those computers could do because primitive is a far cry from photo realism which is what you could do with on back then.

I wish I could just say things and then hope they are true and still feel good about myself.

The television show "SeaQuest DSV" ran from 1993 to 1996. They had some of the best and most believable special effects on tv and guess what computers they used for their special effects?

Any guesses???

Anyone?

It starts with an A and ends with an a and this was in the '90s. Here is another hint, I had the same equipment in my home, just not nearly as much of it.

No, this was most likely not at all CGI as it merely looks like poorly spun home made special effects and a puppet. Unfortunately, all the experts ruling out CGI need to take a step back and read something other than propaganda put forth by this hoaxer.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by Luciferdescending]

Yup stuff that could do the trick was around back then.
The capability was there in the programs but the GUI was`nt as user friendly on a consumer level as it is today (prosumer).

But i also read somewhere that Reed had a photography business and his half brother is a professional video editor or works as a video editor in a studio or somthing.

So it definately could have been done back then.





[edit on 15-2-2009 by johnjohn808]

reply to post by Luciferdescending


I'm not talking about 1993. I was referring to when the Amiga actually came out, which was sometime around 1986 or 1987. And at THAT time, you could not produce graphics such as the Reed alien, and possibly what was on Seaquest DSV (yes, I watched that show, too.) The computers in those days that specialized in CGI were Silicon Graphics machines. Apple computers back then could not do much. Technology advanced a lot from what you had in 91 - 93 from what you had in 86 - 87.

Up until a few months ago, I still had some videocassettes (which are now somewhere in a landfill I'm sure) from computer animation of the late 80s and early 90s. They were animations utilizing the latest CGI equipment to create other worldly landscapes. Compared to what you see today, they were primitive and unrealistic looking.

[edit on 2/15/2009 by pjslug]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
this was way before CGI....watch the video of the examination of the exit wound....the thing blinks....

Maybe it has ben commented..but way before CGI? Not true, a couple of examples is Terminator 2 from 1991, Jurassic Park from 93 and first series to use it was Babylon 5 witch aired its pilot in 93.

And we had programs like 3D studio in the early 90ties. Took forever to render som good scenes but it was very possible to make realistic stuff with it.

Oh and Amiga renderfarms did the Babylon CGI, made with Lightwave.

I should read posts better; Lightwave where also used for shows like Seaquest DSV and ST: Voyager

..And Apple had some impressive hardware back then too, it where the preferred platform for videoediting, photoshop and various programming progs when i whent to high school, i actually took a study wich back then was called Multimedia, the first and only of its kind in Norway between the years 1991 and 95. The pride then was the Apple Quadra 900 and then a 950 + a 800 a bit later.


[edit on 15/2/09 by BenDozer] tired..need sleep..

[edit on 15/2/09 by BenDozer]

reply to post by BenDozer


I remember the ads for lightwave usually had a ship from Babylon 5 in them because they were such impressive scenes, they were great advertisement for what the Amiga was capable of.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by Luciferdescending]

Originally posted by pjslug

Up until a few months ago, I still had some videocassettes (which are now somewhere in a landfill I'm sure) from computer animation of the late 80s and early 90s. They were animations utilizing the latest CGI equipment to create other worldly landscapes. Compared to what you see today, they were primitive and unrealistic looking.

[edit on 2/15/2009 by pjslug]

Interesting how after you were thoroughly corrected, you now have a specific time frame for when you meant. When did Reed make these videos again?

Yeah, the Amiga was awesome, had a 500 before i went over to PC. They where also with right software or mad programming skills capable of doing early raytracing(Like in the legendary demo Hardwired)

reply to post by pjslug


Ok...I will help you out. The Reed incident supposedly took place in 1996. Why on earth would the computer graphics technology of the '80s be of any importance?

So because you think that the computers in the early '80s were primitive, then Reed could not have used a computer to do it in 1996?

You are really reaching here and losing.

Originally posted by pjslug
reply to post by Luciferdescending

 

I'm not talking about 1993. I was referring to when the Amiga actually came out, which was sometime around 1986 or 1987. And at THAT time, you could not produce graphics such as the Reed alien, blah blah blah

And yet....the Reed incident happened in 1996. Can you please explain yourself?

As far as the alien blinking.
It may only be me, but i dont even think it blink.
It looks like it could be an artifact of the lighting source.

Concerning the alien coming to visit him and controling the amulet.
The thing disintergrates his dog, he in turn beats it over the head. Then he sticks it in the freezer.
I thought the gov took the body?
If so, did it escape?

And after the alien zapped his dog, why did`nt he zap Reed? He only had a stick?

Now if someone bashed my skull, then stuck me in a freezer, If I lived through all of that, you can best bet that my future visits would`nt be friendly at all.

reply to post by Luciferdescending


Because we were just talking about computer technology. I've already stated that the alien is in no way CGI, so I assumed that it was implied that my discussion of computers wasn't relevant to this case anyway.

I attended Reed's first lecture in San Diego back in 98 was it? When he showed us video of him unwrapping the alien for the "examination", I recall him and Raith stating that the eyes were NOT blinking and that they were merely the lights reflection. It wasn't until his UFO Congress lecture that he decided to say it was blinking.

Think about this-if the eyes were blinking, don't you think he would've noticed right away? Does not matter how "sick" he was. Fact is, all his attention was focused on the alien. So if the eyes were blinking, he would've jumped back away from the alien and discontinued the examination. He would not be touching the alien or go near it, especially since he already knows that the creature could tear him apart like it did his dog. There is no way he could have not noticed the eyes blinking.

If you think realistically, you'll notice how there's just so many things wrong with this story.

Originally posted by pjslug
reply to post by Luciferdescending

 

Because we were just talking about computer technology. I've already stated that the alien is in no way CGI, so I assumed that it was implied that my discussion of computers wasn't relevant to this case anyway.

No, we were not just talking technology. You stated that it could not have been CGI because nothing capable of doing that was available to the public at that time.

Now that time is 15 years before Reed's videos? Who cares about technology at that time. You can say his tapes from 96 must not be CGI because it did not exist in the '40s and that makes as much sense.

Your words were that Reed could not have used CGI because it was not available to the public at "that time."

Why would "that time" be 15 years before the Reed videos? Nice try though.

reply to post by MisterS


I dunno, VT claimed you can see the ocular muscles moving when it opens its eyes. I cannot see that but apparently it is there.

Hey all,

I know ATS discourages one line answers but here gos. This caper is just that.
Decoy

I know ATS discourages one line answers but here gos. This caper is just that.

where's your proof?

Since I created this thread years ago, I may as well chime in now. I still havent made up my mind entirely. I certainly can't rule out a hoax. UFOwatchdog has given no verifiable info. on their sources, and neither has Reed. Bottom line: Put the artifact on display. Until then I remain skeptical.

Originally posted by answers

I know ATS discourages one line answers but here gos. This caper is just that.

where's your proof?

The proof is in the Reed story. Read it all for yourself and then come back and tell us you still believe it is anything but a hoax and perhaps you can present us with proof that it is real.

There's no conclusive evidence to point either way, i'm leaning more onto Reed's story as its more entertaining to do so.