> cool now i've had a chance to have a look at it. the only
> reason people are saying that it's movement is realistic is
> because theres so much of it.
So much of it yeah. The idea is that it is either fake or not, right? Actually (technically) faking the video I know nothing about ie. computer enhancement. If it is fake production then it could either be a animatronic dumby, or a person in a mask, right? I kinda doubt it's a chimpanzee. I go to the movies a lot. Right now, animatronics cannot do the kinds of things I see in this video. So the alternative is that it is a person in a mask. Watch the video again and notice how the face changes expressions, yet... you never see the transition, it happens too fast. Just like animatronics cannot duplicate an eye blink, animatronics cannot change a facial expression that fast. Neither can a person in a mask. I'm not saying it's authentic, just that this is actually what I meant by the movement.
> Take a look at two people
> conversing and then take a look at two people that are just
> staring at each other. Do they bob there heads that much now
> take a look at two actors in a movie. always moving their
> heads. see the camera knows that if nobody moves on camera the
> viewer will lose interest .
The camera knows stuff....? I think what you mean is the person behind the camera, and I doubt that in this case they were worried about losing the viewers attention... ;) Wouldn't matter if it's fake or authentic.
> the only time the face of the
> chinwiper can be seen is in the monitor. why.
Appearantly this is only part of the interview. In this portion they only had to whip his chin once. If it was longer you may have seen it twice.
> why isn't anyone
> else lit up like the alien when they come into shot with it.
Besides the 'chinwipers' flashlight, there was only one light and it was mostly pointed on the alien.
> why do they shine a light into its face. surely they know it
> doesn't like bright lights, isn't that the excuse given for the
I don't know the excuses you are refering too, I haven't got that far I guess. But you are assuming they are trying to comfort the Alien. Seems like an interigation to me. Does 'it' look comfortable to you?
> and why bother wearing a face mask and then leave
> your arms bare.
I don't know. Why don't we ask a doctor, they do it all the time. They have gloves on and masks, to protect from infection maybe. It seems like the Alien is coughing or something. This is fine protection from respitory infection, dude. Your suggesting what? Underkill or overkill on the protection?
> got an identity secret huh those secret guys at
> the department of naval intelligence. If you were in the
> department of ontelligence would you label your movies d.n.i.
> do you label your movies at home with your street adress. It
> all seems like a movie production to me. the lighting and the
> other effects don't add up to realsitic to me. they add up to
> I'm sorry merc i hate debunking this stuff cos i want it so
> much to be true.
Debunking? You just asked a bunch of questions. If obvious questions amount to debunking then consider this Video debunked. But if you are really interested in the topic you may want to open your mind a little further. At least give evidence an opportunity to be judged on true merits, instead of simple questions obviously aimed as a rouse to point out the Video is terribly staged and fake. This whole thing where it's a bad fake was done with the Alien autopsy video too. When it first aired debunkers were all over it as a horrible fake. This argument went far enough as to bring in experts in special affects to ask them if this could have been faked. Every special affects expert said that if it was faked the people who faked it are in the wrong line of buisness it was done so well. In the Alien autopsy video there was a clock on the wall. The investigators found this model of clock was rare. And used by the Army during a time that corresponded to the date used on the video/film. The debunkers actually said they believed that was all part of fake. My point is that after push came to shove that film was FAR from a horrible fake if it was a fake at all. So the debunkers view of the authenticity of the video/film was as good as there specialty in that field, which is none.