it is hard but it can be done, a lot of hobbist can do it and fool a lot of people, here is an example of how too use aftereffects to make convening looking videos www.youtube.com/watch?v=vECmNK0xHNk
I know it can be done, but I was responding to your claim that it was "not hard to do at all".
In any case, I don't think we're gunna learn much more about this for at least a couple days.
Yea I agree I could be just putting my own foot in my mouth so I will just wait and see
I'm on the fence about the footage, but real or fake, my impression is its casual inclusion is definitely a publicity stunt for the dude's channel. Think about it - do you remember the username of the guy who found Mickey Mouse in Vietnam? I don't, at least not off the top of my head, but I remember the story of how it was found. What about the username of the guy who found Apples And Breaks? Same deal. It's a given that people care more about the media than the person who found it.
And here we have a guy who's been making YouTube videos for years only to get middling popularity at best. Let's humor him and say he actually got the real footage somehow - if he just uploaded it on its own and announced it as a big find, everyone would pay attention to the footage being found but completely ignore the other stuff on his channel. So he put it in one of his traditional videos with no explanation, to get people talking about him. Notice that with the Treadwell audio, he has a disclaimer about where it came from and that it might be fake. Same with the London After Midnight clip - he says it's POSSIBLE footage (it isn't, by the way). There is no such disclaimer for the Chubbuck footage, he just drops it in without saying anything. That's not an accident, he's definitely winking at us.
This is the reason why he's taken the time to respond to silly comments about his channel username, but not the elephant in the room. He knows everyone wants to know the origin of the footage, but the longer he ignores it, the more time we'll have to analyze him, his video, his motives, and therefore remember his content. And it's so coincidental he uploaded this at the exact same time he opened up a new message board on his website! Given how much exposure his small channel is getting just from this, I have no doubt he'll milk it for all it's worth and keep us in the dark for as long as he can.
Well, NationSquid, your publicity stunt worked. Bravo. From your video I get the impression you've used the site before, so if you're reading this, I'll just say: You have our full attention now, and we're ready for the backstory whenever you are.
It's weird because, let's just say it's fake footage and it was something he just happened to find and didn't make himself, where did it come from? The fake Treadwell audio's been around for a while. same with the London clip. But if this reenactment has been around, nobody here or on other sites have recognized it. Just really bizarre.
Kobochat could be right - this may well be a publicity stunt. If so what's the endgame?
At this point he's sort of backed himself into a corner, so I'd expect full transparency from him eventually (if it's real, he'll say how he obtained it, if it's a re-enactment he'll say how it was done). In the meantime, I predict that he's letting it pick up more steam, waiting for it to be reported on by a major news site or something (maybe Vulture again). I'm assuming they'd want to contact him for an interview, and if that happens he has two options. He could either reveal everything right there, or ignore the interview request and build up the mystique even further. I'd caution him not to wait too long though - if someone like Mollie Nelson confirms this to be fake before he says anything about it, people will lose interest in him entirely.
After repeated viewings and much thought, my conclusion is that it's a very detailed fake created under one of two circumstances: 1: Someone (or someones) with more than normal access to a small TV studio (they still exist across the US, I'm sure many look very similar and haven't been upgraded) created it as a hoax. It would account for the ancient equipment and convincing set. In addition to normal TV studios, many colleges and even community colleges had small studios and equipment like that used at the time of the incident, and many of them still exist as well. 2: With all of the recent publicity surrounding the tape, who's to say there isn't another movie being made (or even more than one?). This could be part of another upcoming movie production. In that case, building an exact replica of the set isn't that big of a chore, rather a regular part of the process.
I suppose it could'be just been someone(s) not in either of those situations who just has a lot of time, space, money, and a very strict commitment to detail, but I just don't see it.
i dunno...the way she drops onto the table after shooting herself just isn't convincing. it seems more forced than anything - people don't fall like that when they're shot.
Dumb question, but did they have more than one camera? Could it be from a different camera angle that was in storage that someone had made a copy of? Again, I'm doubting this, but just throwing out possibilities.
Edit: My gut says it's a fake, they made it fuzzy so it was hard to make out the detail, the ABC dates etc etc was added to give it an air of authenticity...I doubt it's the real deal. But it certainly makes you wonder. Also, I believe according to the article it says she was wearing a black print dress...it looks like she's wearing a sweater over something else? Again, you can't really tell...just thought I'd throw in my two cents.
I know that plugins like that exist for various programs, but the video you linked to looks way more artificial than that of the Chubbuck video in my opinion.