Faking or making of a murderer?

Be the 1st to vote.

I have succumbed to peer pressure and decided to watch this 0;viral” “binge watch” doc series based on a “true” story.

I’m on ep 3 now, but I am already suspicious, without doing research, on the veracity of the story.

I enjoy docs based on “true” crime. Problem is, I don’t know what’s true any more. I listened to the infamous Serial podcast, and deem it a work of fiction, and not at all based on a true story. I also put a huge emotional investment into Dear Zachary, an amazingly well done film – and am now quite sure that it too is complete fiction meant to change mental health laws.

I’ll open this thread and ignore most of the comments until I finish the series sometime in the next week. This is more proof that our culture creators – the CIA and their contractors – are constantly spinning fiction as real, completely throwing us off balance and making nothing we get from the media believable.



27 thoughts on “Faking or making of a murderer?

  1. Pingback: Faking of a murderer | Fakeologist.com

  2. wanda

    I am not going to pretend to know anything about 3D rendering, but common sense tells me a couple of things…

    We are shown movies, Gravity for instance, where it is possible to completely suspend disbelief… and they are flawless (at least seemingly flawless). But… we know they are fictions. Yet, with the news stories, which the general public believes to be reality, we get low resolution imagery with numerous glitches and anomalies, as well as implausible plot lines. One reference would be the ISIS be-headings. Some regular guys on YouTube made their own fake beheading video that was far more realistic than the clownish renderings the mainstream media provided. It seems to me to be deliberate. Given that… there would be no reason in the world to add expensive and time consuming FX.

    This is psychological warfare, the groundwork for this has been laid for quite some generations now. Part of this is the horror film programming… people turn away from scenes like that because they don’t want their senses assaulted…it is natural to do that. So, you look away and fill in the details with your mind. My son and i did this thing where we watched a bunch of horror movies to deliberately view the gore… when you look at it, and it is sometimes very hard to do, you are like… oh – so that’s how they did that… but the point is, we don’t look, generally. First they shock our psyches, and since we do not suspect the media would lie to us, we accept what we are being told… we are listening instead of watching. And that is how they slipped 9-11 to us. There is method in that madness for them because they can always pull out the trump card of it being an evident fiction, right?

    The phrase “Don’t believe your lying eyes” comes to mind.

    1. Zalian

      Finally some common sense in this thread.

      They are no doubt using excessive violence and gore, as a method to :

      A: not make the average person look closer, because its gruesome imagery and you glance at it and look away as you stated.

      B: to subject the people to trauma based mindcontroll, remember brainwashing works best on the people acting out of emotion.

      And yes the behedings were obvious fakes, and filmed with low budget cameras, no expensive effects needed,
      agreed completely Wanda.


  3. Videre

    Hey Zalian,

    Thanks for your response. I am excited at the prospect of having a CGI/animation specialist in our tiny corner of the world. Please provide us with your excellent links so that we may be better informed.

    I would love for you to review a video we put together. I apologize for its poor production quality but would appreciate your input regarding the CGI that was obvious to us.


    Thanks again,

    1. Zalian

      Already discussed this video in one of the side chats with Khammad, and my view has not changed since.
      Has been a major waste of time to actually watch these things, but ok ill bite.

      There is 1 major flaw that are made by the “cgi” crowd in this.

      So here i will break it down once and for all for you.

      When this video of a custom rig for maya is discussed, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua-g-0… pretty much everything said, indicates that the people talking are clueless towards the process.

      3d faces is not a button or preprogrammed or anything, it takes AGES to make (it is actually the most difficult thing to makes aswell, and requires alot of talent to even do badly).
      That face probably took some dude around 30-40 hours to model, and another 20 to texture, and at least 10 to rig and skin even with that plugin they show of in the “tech demo” for theire custom tool. And this does not include animation or the making of a body or tracking into “live action” which would both take at least 20 hours each to look convincing.

      If you are with me so far, these are the standard times for one person to make something like that. It’s not really doable by one person within reasonable time, which is why in production in hollywood entire studios split this work into seperate sub proffesion within the “3d artist” job.

      A modeller would usually only model, a rigger only rig etc. (personally i am a generalist and can do it all, but i have mainly worked a modeller in the past, and if i were to work in hollywood that would be where they put me aswell). doing it this way 5-10 people work on the same model at once and the turnaround for animation of around a minute is usually 1-2 weeks for even the best of studios, with alot of people working on it, then ontop of everything is the rendering process where the computer converts the animation to images at the very end, which in 3d animation is VERY VERY VERY VERY computer intensive and even small studios have what are called render farms to help this process.

      Clip for reference, here is only the modelling process of a dinosaur, by a fan of the jurassic world movie, in the program zbrush, the hollywood standard sculpting program, that was used for the actual movie aswell. (i personally have over 10 years experience in this program, aswell as many others)


      In this clip from the actual movie, you can see they used the same software as the 3d artist with the fan art (zbrush) for the modelling, and animating it maya (the program you had the face in, in your video).


      Now back to renderfarms.

      A renderfarm is usually one or two entire rooms with special render computers that are not like normal desktop computers (usually special made for the task of only rendering, with alot more computer power than normal computers), these computers are very expensive and you need MANY of them to be able to render any animation at a decent pace.

      For example the rendertime of ONE frame from most major movies would take around 40 hours just rendering on a normal desktop computer, if a normal computer could handle it at all.

      for this reason the normal procedure is splitting your animations into layers and rendering each layer indivdually with however many frames you need for that shot (shot in this context means self contained camera angle, everytime camera changes, is usually its own seperate thing).

      Lets say i have a talking head against a brick wall backround. the brickwall would be one layer in the camera being sendt to the render computers for rendering , and the face would be another layer.
      The human face has alot more heavy effects on it and would take alot longer to render per frame than the brickwall. leaving 10 seconds animation rendering OVER NIGHT on the special “render farm” computers is standard procedure on pretty much any studio.

      This would then go further down the pipeline to a compositor (a seperate profession) which is mainly using programs like after effects, fusion, shake, nuke or similar “layer compositing” or “node based compositing” software. Where the brickwall layer (lets say 100 frames of just the brickwall) would be combined with the face (the 100 frames of the face) into one continuous clip of 100 frames (around 4-5 seconds) and various 2d based compositing software effects would be added to add realism and to “join” the foreground with the backround. and it would then be rendered out of the compositing software to a final video clip.

      In hollywood production though there is TONS of layers (at least 20-40 is not uncommon) and the pure 3d animation ones have rendertime (that is just the render, not the modelling/unwrapping/texturing process) of at least 1 hour even on the renderfarm super computers, you can easily see the time and manpower required even for simple 100 frame clips.

      A clip for refernce : www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivREd2…

      This is from the foundry, the makers of the compositing software Nuke, the hollywood standard compositing software (its basically a more advanced version of after effects).
      Note that everytime they do a swipe , that is one seperate layer in the compositing software.

      So in conclusion what i am saying is, even in hollywood, the very smallest 3d effects shot (usually in movies shots get split to different studios, like in jurrassic world, one studio got maybe 50 shots (aka camera angles) and another studio 50 others and so on) Takes entire studios full of talented people a VERY LONG TIME, and cost A TRUCKLOAD OF MONEY.

      IT IS SIMPLY NOT LOGISTICALLY OR FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE to do this for news reports. And i can also see NO traces of “high level cgi” as in 3D COMPUTER ANIMATION.

      Now onto what you are actually seeing.

      The simple soloution being the most likely, in my view what you are seeing is REAL CRISIS ACTORS, doing just that, ACTING.

      Think about this for a second, would you use half a year, 5 studios and 200 million dollars to make a fake clip (that would even then not look as “real” as real people, just try it yourself, take the clip with the 3d face from your own video and hold a real face next to it, its not even remotely convincing) or just spend 200 bucks on a camera and pay some lowlives 1000 bucks each to shut up about it ?

      It’s obvious what is the solution they went with. and this is the same point i confronted Kham with and got no satisfactory answer.

      “Why fake it, when you can just film it for 1/100th the cost, 1/1000th the people involved” ?.

      Now onto the mysterious blurs.

      From my eye, i can not see any green screen in this clip or any reason for green screen for that matter. the only point i actually agree with is the blurs being mysterious.

      Now that we have broken it down to this degree, we are basically left with REAL video of REAL people with some strange blurs, hope everyone is still with me.

      When i discussed this with Kham in the chats, i said the blurs could be compression issues which it easily can, but let’s for a moment assume you are correct and they are inserted.

      A blur is a incredibly easy thing to track onto footage using even low level compositing software like After effects. and would take me around 20 minutes to do for that entire clip.

      I saw some people in the youtube comments speculating the blurs were added to hide some identities and make it seem like motion blur (which is a thing that happens in cameras wether you like it or not), possibly so they can reuse the crisis actors later.

      Which would be a argument i can agree with.

      clip for reference, how to blur faces in after effects : www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv-QKo…
      Now just add bad compression over this and you have your video. no expensive effects needed, just some idiot with basic after effects knowledge.

      So after the breakdown, in my view what you are left with in your video is the simple explanation of this :

      -REAL crisis actors on Real Backround.

      -With ADDED blurs in after effects or similar application.

      – Rendered in POOR resolution so you get compression artifacts ontop of the blurs.

      The simple explanation is again, the most likely.

      But to re-iterate my point, the main problem in your argument stems from the fact you mix up 3d animation and cgi models with the proffesion of compositing.
      CGI being a long process with like 20 sub proffesion like modeller, animator, rigger, skinner, compositor and so on (simplified the list for ease of explanation if you want me to explain this in full detail, i might do that later in a post dedicated to explaining 3d to people)

      And compositing being just a dude with some after effects like software.

      see, this is where the confusion happens, compositing is usually the last stage of the 3d animation process done by a proffesionall compositor, but it can also be used as a standalone proffesion. since it is basically just the job of merging togheter many layers into one film.

      This is what Simon in september clues touched on, with the added planes.
      For this effect no cgi 3d department is needed, its just some photos of a plane overlaid on some buildings with a stock explosion layer added, basically 3 layers “composited” togheter, most likely by just one dude (and it wouldnt even take very long, 1-2 hours max).

      This is what many people call CGI and to some extent i can see why, it means COMPUTER generated imagery after all., but infact you should call it by its right name “COMPOSITING”.
      and leave the actuall hollywood effects with 3d animation departments and high level effects for the CGI term. Mixing them leads to people claiming very complex effects were added when it was just some amateur compositor being paid 25 dollars for a shitty effect like in your blur example.

      You will most likely never see 3d animation in any news report, it’s to expensive and we have still not crossed the “uncanny valley” when it comes to 3d generated faces.

      Most people also dont realize how INCREDIBLY SLOW AND METICOLUS the 3d animation process is, it takes 10 years to just get good, 15 if you want to be really good, and then you still need talent.
      and it takes 100s if not 1000s of people (if you want it done faster you have to add more people) to make even rudimentary effects, photoreal humans? forget it.

      I have also heard people say “but im sure THEY have programs holywood does not” which is a argument its not really possible to prove or disprove.

      And i have to stress the point that THIS IS WHAT HOLLYWOOD IS, it is set up to BE the special effects/brainwashing branch of the military.
      So in my view the top level of hollywood is the top level achivable effects.
      And im sorry to say, not even hollywood do cgi generated faces even 80% photorealistically.
      Can this change in the future ? most likely, but as of today, this is the state of visual effects.

      Hope this was helpful and you understood my explanation.


      1. Videre

        Hey Zal

        Great info – but seems rather outdated. As we say here, “follow those seeking the truth… Run like hell from those how have found it”.

        You seem awfully sure of what would be too expensive or time consuming for the military’s budget. Are you privy to what they use to promote propaganda? You also speak as though you know what the latest technology the government is using. How do you know what patents are pending? What makes you think that we are shown their latest bell or whistle?

        I too work in the computer industry and do have access to information regarding animation. Rendering time is nothing today compared to a few short years ago. People in this forum as well as the cgi industry are excited to share their findings on the latest greatest. You seem intent on gatekeeping and throwing up paragraphs of nothing that anyone with a background in computers can see has no substance.

        Pointing the agent finger? I think 3 are pointing back at you. I am at home here and have met a number of my fellow fakeologists personally. We are of a different caliber when it comes to analyzing topics. Approaching topics with an open mind and pondering the possibility is how people find their way here. Your style shows us that is not what brings you here.

        Some software:

        Exciting new technology:

        1. Zalian

          You say you know the animation industry and link to poser pro……

          I work as a 3d generalist and i have a master degree in animation to go with it, what is your “backround in computers” ?

          We can talk when you have opened maya/3ds max/zbrush/mudbox, cinema 4d or hell even lightwave.
          The software that are actually the top in hollywood.

          Sure you can claim the military has better, but my friend that i just made up, is a 140 star general and he said they do not.
          And there is about as much proof for my friends exsistance as for your military supertech.

          Now back to reality, and dealing with your rendertime statement.

          There is a saying in the 3d industry : “A final render will always take 45 minutes”

          And it is simply because that is the lowest you can get away with timewise in a production environment. And no matter what technology gets invented to make rendering go faster, there is a equal technology/effect being invented that you add to the image, putting you back at 45 minutes.

          You keep going on about my explanation being to simple for you (and i will agree i dumbed it down for ease of explanation). But i doubt it was simple enough, because you missed my point by miles.

          Let us say for second you are correct and “THEY” having fictional sci-fi tech from your imagination, and limitless money and talented artist on the payroll that never talks.

          Even if that was the case,


          Also, I effectively analyzed your video for you and i didn’t need a 2 hour video to do it.
          Yet you are strangely silent on my analasis.
          (I guess scary super CGI tech for no reason is more logical than a guy with a camera)

          But i guess it is way easier to attack me as a person and call me gatekeeper et cetera, than deal with the case i presented, and answer my question of “why go to all the effort even if it was possible, when filming it takes any idiot 20 minutes”

          Gatekeeping is actually the furthest from what i do, i just specify what can and can not be done as of today with todays top tech, without going into lala land with speculating.

          I actually do go out of my way to tell people when stuff is noticably CGI, like most of NASA’s newer stuff, where it actually makes sense somone would use CGI to make certain things.
          But have you noticed they film alot of real stuff too? curious that…

          Also dont try and pull fakologist rank, you have been here a long time, good for you.
          But i am not gonna suck up to anyone no matter who they think they are.
          you are wrong in this case, unless you can provide some provable evidence towards your case, and that is that.

          Also my mind is plenty open, i entertain everything at least for a little bit (yes even your theory) but this happen to be the one subject where i know more than most people,
          And i will talk as such, if you find my “attitude” harsh, then well, tough.

          Then again i should know better than to discuss with people with one eyed logos.


          1. Videre

            Such emotion you display… What is your analysis of what we saw in our video where the faces disappear in front of the crisp brick background? It seems you missed sharing that with us.

            For all the words you type, you say very little.

          2. Zalian

            Yep i am passionate about my profession, i hope you are the same for yours.

            Well i took a look at the first clip and gave you my tought on that. if you answer my direct question that you have been dodging for three posts now i will be happy to dig into the brickwall/face shot.

            Question : Why go to all this trouble to fake something you can just film?


          3. Videre

            We are at a place in time where everyone is a potential journalist walking around with a cell phone HD cam. I was at a coffee shop late one night a few weeks ago where a fight broke out between two women. The crowd – mostly young people having breakfast after a night at the bar all stood up with their cameras recording the event. It was a sight to see.
            Why is it we don’t see photos of Robbie Parker or his wife out on the town or at the grocery store. They gave a few national media interviews (each with a slight difference in his persona — I think it is hard for the animators to change the lighting and maintain consistency in the character’s look and mannerisms) Robbie Parker is a well known name in this country yet there are no pictures uploaded. He has just disappeared just like many of the psyop characters presented to us.
            I believe the sims are much more economical no money to keep them silent no worries about them being recognized on the street, questioned or harassed. You can clearly see in the 911 footage sims (where we saw “half a head guy” or “see thru lady” used. That was in 2001. Maybe they were actors superimposed over the New York backdrop then but times have changed. Technology has changed. I am not the first to bring this topic up. There are many out there. We are growing in number and can clearly see it. Your “it just can’t happen certainty” is clearly words of an agent. You keep saying your are explaining how it can’t be possible and all you come up with is, why would you go to this length when actors would be easier? That’s it? That is how you are educating us? ANSWER: A CGI PSYOP IS MUCH MORE ECONOMICAL. IT MAY HAVE BEEN A HUGE INVESTMENT TO BEGIN WITH BUT THIS COUNTRY IS KNOWN FOR THE SKY IS THE LIMIT WHEN IT COMES TO MILITARY BUDGET. – THERE ARE NO ACTORS TO PAY, NO WORRIES ABOUT ACTORS BEING DISCOVERED OR NOT KEEPING THE PSYOP SECRET, TOTAL CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION, TOTAL CONTROL OVER THE PRODUCTION, VICTIMS THAT JUST GO AWAY (BACK IN THE CAN… OR BACK ON THE HARD DRIVE PLATTER). NO WORRIES ABOUT PAYING OFF VICTIMS FAMILIES. TOTAL CONTROL. IT IS BRILLIANT AND QUITE EFFICIENTLY DONE BY THOSE WHO CONTROL US. Apologies for the caps. I just wanted to be clear in my answer.

          1. Zalian

            I was gonna stay quiet but its very hard to contain myself under these conditions.

            At 5 minutes he is talking about real-time models aka GAME models (Lower poly count, lower resolution textures, not as many bones in the rig, and NO REALISTIC HAIR SIMULATION), they are not the same models as the CINEMATIC models in your second clip (that took ages to render, most likely 2 hours plus per frame), the second clip also still looks obviously fake, easy to tell by the eyes, the animation, skin shading and hair, if you cant tell, then you probably shouldn’t be discussing this.

            Also they still scanned a REAL EFFING PERSON so that means that face is still walking around, so, so much for your theory about “sims that dissapear from public view”.

            To be able to sculpt at that level is something very few people can do, which is why they used a scan, and scans is not a magic button either, you still need to retopologize (google that word) it and make it work with the rig, and clean up the scan errors.

            I know you are gonna say the military owns al the artists that can sculpt at that level from scratch, but no, the military does not.
            Hollywood on the other hand does.

            (also Tal Shiar, seems they managed to fool Videre with the “free” 4000 euro software Maya, guess it isn’t for beginners after all)

            Then again i know now you are trolling, so give me your best shot i guess, sigh……

            (This was my final word, unless Videre manage to sink even lower and i can’t help but point it out again)


          2. Videre

            Lol! Who is expressing the anger here?

            Actually I my phone puts replies in an odd order on here. The video I was referring at the minute mark was this one. Where USC specialist makes a laughing stock of you. He is talking of Emily and how a render of her took 30 minutes and how IRA was at that point in time running RENDERS IN REAL TIME 30 renders per second. I think your equipment, knowledge and info is outdated when discussing technology of today.

            This it the clip I was referring to:


            Dude even confirms what I said. They scan the actors and make them digital so they have total control of the media. As for you seriously stupid comment about them still using actors.

            Let me explain this to you in very simple terms so as not to confuse you… Avatar? Do you think the actors really looked like the blue people? Do you with your expertise know that you can pretty much change the size look and shape of your model? Or were they not able to do that in your day?

            You guys do try hard and you don’t make me angry, you make me laugh.

            Have a fabulous weekend!

          3. Zalian

            lol you did it, you actually sunk lower, guess i shouln’t underestimate
            trolls nowadays.

            USC specialists she says as if i should worship her youtube gods.

            I got my masters 5 years ago at the University of Teesside in England
            (The full title of my degree is “Master of arts : Digital character animation”, feel free to look it up, and if that is not enough for you, i will be happy to send a copy of my diploma with my real name on it, to AB so he can tell you to stop trolling),
            And i do the same work as these guys, they are nothing special, honestly.
            They are just average 3d artists, and they are not faking your news people, now or anytime soon (thats what crisis actors are for).

            So stop this “USC SPECIALIST” crap, not impressed.

            Now adressing your trollpoints again :

            Emily took 30 minutes per frame you say, Well “Emily” is a 3d Face overlaid a real actor,
            at any time the 3d Emily is nothing more than 20% of the screen, and the rest is a real “plate” as we say in the industry (oooh look i know fancy terms aswell).

            this does OFCOURSE take shorter time to render than a fully CGI image, use your brain.

            Next statement.


            NOTE THE ABSOLUTE LACK OF DYNAMIC HAIR (to render intensive for realtime)

            And don’t try and tell me IRA and Emily are on the same level quality wise, they are not.

            Emily is a Cinematic model, IRA is a game model (real time is a another way to say game).

            but hey if you are still not convinced i will link you to a game character i myself made last year.


            The game character ADAM, made by me, works fine at even 60 fps
            in Unreal engine 4 (one of the leading GAME engines of today)
            this character has cards for hair, and that looks ok in games.

            But if they needed this character for a movie, i would start creating it over again from scratch. And use alot more “heavy” effects, like SSS, hair, displacement maps and alot higher polygon count.

            IRA is made the exact same way as my Adam, except i made Adam alone in my spare time, and they were an entire studio trying to push photorealism with IRA (hell i probably even created Adam faster).

            So if you claim my knowledge is outdated, feel free to post YOUR character that YOU made,
            or Shut the F*** Up, You are speaking out your ass, and you know it.

            your next point about scanning does not even make sense.

            And for your closing point about Avatar, i personally have worked with one of the compositors for that
            movie years ago when i Freelanced for the same small studio he worked at in Norway (Bug studio in Bergen, bug.no/),
            doing advertisements for TV.
            This Guy : www.euqahuba.com/

            So please don’t talk to me like a child, when infact you have been wrong on every syllable uttered in your entire post.

            Angry commentary? yes, sorry about that.
            But you really are not listening, and your lies about my profession is ticking me off.

            Edit: Note at 13:42 in your clip you can see the “free” “amateur”
            software Maya, yet again. just saying…


  4. Blue Moon

    Dear Zachary reminds me in form of another fakeumentary, Exit Through the Gift Shop, by the female lead team of graffiti artists known as Banksy- All edits, no time to gather one’s thoughts- Emotional blackmail at its worst-
    Just looking at the credits of the producers for Zachery and you see mainstream media ties which of course means military intel approved and vetted operatives- Plus, that Jack White lookalike dead guy just does not vibe as a “doctor”- I work in doctorland and that kind of personality would be whittled down from the frat boy we see to a pill popper with a huge malpractice law suit hanging over his head in nothing flat-
    Capturing the Friedmans (2003) is another fake that is in this genre of legal reform, in this case it has the added bonus of furthering the counter-intuitive normalization of pedophilia-
    Having made several films over the years, my instinct tells me that documentaries relying heavily on “found” footage and quick edits are agenda driven propaganda trying to pose as objective cinema-
    Kony 2012, anyone?

  5. Videre

    Call me crazy! Why do these all look like computer generated sims. If you can’t see it I guess you never will. If you have an eye for light and balance in images, it will scream at you when you start to really look.

    Hey ab!
    Thanks for having a place where I can share what I see in this illusive world.

    … and yeah… I am truly okay with being called crazy. 😉


    1. Zalian

      Ok i will go first then, YOU ARE CRAZY!!!

      (hehe, hopefully you are not, and just misguided)

      It makes me both happy and sad when you people that have been toting this Goldbuggery 2.0 stuff, the last months go on these rants.

      – It makes me happy because if Ed is what you consider “hyper realistic” i will certainly never starve.
      (any high level 3d artist can do that, the guy that made it is talented sure, but come on. it does not look THAT good, and certainly would not hold up if you put a real face next to it, he overdid the SSS and rimlighting/falloff abit aswell).

      But it also makes me sad that you honestly cant tell real from fake.

      Ofcourse i am aware of the fact that lets say a barber will be able to spot how someones hair was cut and i can not.
      And i have the same ability when it comes to 3d,
      but i still don’t go on forums claiming to know how cutting hair works, and not ask actual barbers first.

      This is where the “cgi people everywhere” crowd go wrong.

      I have been hammering this point mercilessly everytime it pops up, because if anything was a “DBA attempt”, this would be it, intentional or not.

      Anyone with a tiny bit of 3d experience can EASILY tell whenever a 3d model is used, i dont care how impressive X movie or X showreel on the internet seem to you,
      to us in the actual business its obvious what is 3d and what is not (when it comes to faces anyhow, ill fully admit that inorganic objects is at the point where even i cant tell, if very high level studios do it).

      So please, stop this madness, it was a interesting theory, but it is just not true.

      I will be happy to answer any legitimate questions about CGI you want answered, and provide
      real links and tutorials or whatever you need, to learn more about the subject if it’s of interest to you.

      (And i have been thinking about making a big post on the subject where i explain in detail what can and what can not be faked from a 3d artist standpoint, but it will be a looong post and i haven’t felt like starting yet).

      But if these things never happen and you keep spouting this BS from here on out, you leave me with only one conclusion…..Agent.

      (i do not mean to come across harsh or condecending, but imagine if someone spouted outright lies of your proffesion on fakeologist, wouldnt you make a post like this aswell? and i have reiterated this like 10 times already in the chats, im getting tired of shooting this bs down, so if anyone got personally offended, know that this was not my goal)


      1. Tal Shiar

        Hey Zal,

        About your comment, “We can talk when you have opened maya/3ds max/zbrush/mudbox, cinema 4d or hell even lightwave. The software that are actually the top in hollywood. ”

        I would just like to point out that most of these software platforms you have listed are free and they are the type of software for beginners. Not someone who is an expert in the field. Videre might have stumbled onto something or maybe now. She is just presenting this theory to the group to research. A polite explanations on the reasons you don’t support her theory are always welcomed. I too would like an explanation more than you have given.

        Personally, I’ve been working in the IT field for the last 8 years and I’ve worked in Los Angeles/Hollywood. Your response to Videre seems very aggressive, which I am not sure why? Videre is the type of person who wants to be challenged, so she can learn more about the technical skills and understand the “magic” behind it. Also, she works in the IT field. So she has a better understanding than most when it comes to computer software. So before you make judgement, please understand who are you talking too.

        I look forward to your response!

        Kind Regards . . .

        1. Zalian

          In what universe are any of those free? they are 5000 usd and up all of them…

          and for beginners really?

          Go right ahead then and make photoreal animation in maya.

          Starting to see why i am the first 3d artist on this page, you must have driven the other ones insane.

          Edit : yes you are correct, this does irritate me, people being this wrong and not listening no matter how many times i explan this is actually getting to me lol

          Edit 2 : what do you mean more detail? was the actually a part there i didnt re-iterate 20 times? what was unclear?

          Edit 3 : The buy page of the “free” software Maya www.autodesk.com/products/maya…
          and 3D studio Max
          (and yes they are the main hollywood packages, not amateur, amateur would be blender)


      2. Videre

        “spouting this BS”? This is a forum to discuss what we see and what ab has presented to us along his path in seeking the truth.

        I don’t see what ab sees when it comes to his flat earth theories yet I respect his need to look into it. One day he may convince me of the reality he sees in his discoveries, or one day he may abandon this path and decide that he has been navigating through yet another rabbit hole.

        Most of us here have found our way here to this corner along a pathway filled with distraction and lies. The longer we hang here the more aware we become.

        Your aggressive language, sarcastic and rude behavior usually work wonders in making those seeking the truth scatter at the Alex Jones layer. Your language and actions reveal who you are and what your agenda is. You are not here to share in the discussion and bounce ideas off of each other. You are here to create confusion and conflict.

        I am amazed at your supposed eye for detail when it comes to CGI, yet when it comes to your own grammar and spelling you fail miserably. This is not the trait of someone who has an eye for graphics and animation.

        We are a watchful bunch and we pay a great deal of attention to detail here. I think that is what sets us apart. Most glance once or twice and are satisfied with what they see in their world. We Fakeologists have a need to analyze. Not satisfied that we’ve got it right, we go back and analyze again and again until we see a more complete picture of what it is that we are researching. It is who we are… and it appears it is clearly who you aren’t.

        Sincerest regards,

        1. Zalian

          Does the personal attacks ever end with you, grammar really? my english is 100 times better than your norwegian even on my worst day.

          Also the trying to set me up as a outsider to this page by using terrible NLP with “We” and “You” paradigms dont work on me miss. Sorry.

          And my aggressive language comes from the fact that in MY VIEW you are so terribly wrong i want to hit my head against the wall when i read your theories.

          Anyhow i realize now what im talking to, and you are either one of two things.

          Either you honestly belive this, and will not hear anything pointing out the fallacies ever, and just go deeper into “but cgi because i think so” logic.

          In which case talking to you is a waste of my time.

          Or you are that other thing.

          In which case talking to you is also a waste of my time.

          My points have been made.
          And in summary they are this:

          – Is there low level compositing being done on news? surely no doubt, 100% agree.

          – Is there people that are entirely or even partly CGI (as in computer animated) ? NO, not even remotely possible.

          That was the opinion of a guy that work as a 3d generalist. If you think i am a agent, you are free to think so and i suggest you go to any big CGI forum like Cgtalk, polycount, or zbrush central (those are the 3 largest, but feel free to find your own if you dont trust those either), and get a second opinion, if you are that certain of your theory.

          Don’t even post it under fakology, just post the clip there, and ask if anyone see any CGI at all.

          At Cgtalk.com (the very largest CGI forum of them all) you will ofcourse find the best people, the actual people working for the likes of ILM and other world leading studios.

          But then again i already know, you won’t do something logical to test your theory.
          But instead try for cheap internet fame in these circles, steering people with little knowledge of the effect field wrong.

          This is just Dallas Goldbug all over again.

          (this is my final post on this subject, i’ve said my piece, the people that get it will continue to do so, and the others, well its obvious to me now i can’t reach them at this point in time anyway)


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.