AUTHENTIC Footage of "Grey Alien" Absolutely NOT C.G.I
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Looks like a person with a big head, the most unlikely thing for an alien to look like.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Why doesn't the blinking actually cover their eyes? Seems evolutionarily useless to have eyelids that can't even cover the eyes.
Seems useless to make CGI that doesn't cover the eyes too. Maybe it's just the fps of the camera.
Tell me what it is then.
You'll say that right up to even if you see them with your own two eyes?
Guy in a mask.
Masks can stretch realistically like skin? Watch the whole video.
i actually agree w/ you on that one...
Sure. Watch any monster movie.
Obviously Godzilla, et al, are real... erm, sorry... AUTHENTIC monsters--there was no CGI in the 1950's.
What makes you so sure?
Before CGI in the film industry (especially animation) there were techniques known as Compositing (which is still used to create things nowadays), I'm pretty sure you have a mixture of techniques being used to generate the appearance, a persons face, a textured head and the compositing of enlarging and inversing a persons eye colour and overlaying it.
What you could query is if the footage is supposedly old, "Where are the negatives or actual film?" (since you can date the negatives to identify the methods available at the time) I'd question this because I'm pretty sure if you were to have a real film, it wouldn't look so "washy" in the sense you'd have great definition, the washy effect is a great way to disguise doctoring, which is why any washy images or films get so much stick from sceptics.
Reminds me of the costumes used in the CJ Boland Music Video for "Sugar is Sweeter" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyO68rXJcJ4)
What you could query is if the footage is supposedly old, "Where are the negatives or actual film?" (since you can date the negatives to identify the methods available at the time) I'd question this because I'm pretty sure if you were to have a real film, it wouldn't look so "washy" in the sense you'd have great definition, the washy effect is a great way to disguise doctoring, which is why any washy images or films get so much stick from sceptics.
Reminds me of the costumes used in the CJ Boland Music Video for "Sugar is Sweeter" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyO68rXJcJ4)
(In the style of the OP's video commentary)"Look at the Texture... the Lighting, the Backdrop... The trains are obviously real, if you squint closely you can see the terrified expression of the occupants as they are catapulted back and forth inside the carriages by this King Lizard "
View attachment 6395
(In the style of the OP's video commentary)"Look at the Texture... the Lighting, the Backdrop... The trains are obviously real, if you squint closely you can see the terrified expression of the occupants as they are catapulted back and forth inside the carriages by this King Lizard "
View attachment 6395
How the hell are you comparing that picture to this video? That's pretty disingenuous. Why even bring the trains into this? We should be comparing the Godzilla creature to the alien creature. And we could do that if there's video. Of course you wouldn't do that because it's much easier to see how FAKE it looks in the movie. How the hell could you compare Godzilla to this video? It's ridiculous. Just goes to show the extremes people will take when desperate.
You can obviously see those costumes are fake....
Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your argument Stryder.
It's no problem, I know sometimes "humour" doesn't translate the same if there is language differences or even just differences in culture.