Physical shifter video

[Jamie]

I had a hypothetical question inspired by a practice I've seen on this board and many other werewolf discussion boards. In order to keep discussions civil and get rid of loonies, many werewolf discussion boards have a policy about people who claim to be physical shifters (that is, real werewolves who physically transform). These claimants are told to either produce proof, or to stop claiming something that easily disrupts werewolf discussion boards.

I assume (and I think everyone else assumes this too) that such proof would have to be in the form of a video showing a transformation, and, of course, that such a video would have to look far more realistic than any movie special effects we've ever seen (which should not be a problem for any real werewolf) or it wouldn't be worth a moment's notice.

If such a video were produced, it wouldn't convince everybody (the video maker could simply be the best special effects genius to come along in a long time), but it would be hard to think of any better proof that could be had without a highly impractical in-person demonstration, so that's as good as any discussion board requirements could be.

My question is this: if a video of that quality appeared, what do you think would happen? Would the world be changed forever, or would it be just another Internet urban legend among many?

[shey]

I think if a movie of that quality appered it would make a big media wave and I would have something to watch the news for other than the daliy show with john stewert and the colbert report but it would be watched and checked be every person who thinks its a fake but it would be cool though then I could tell my friends I was right and make them fell dum

[Anubis]

most people would just think it is a really good CGI tranformation. and it may fool some people but all it would ever realy be is a urban ledgend

[Ink]

I think that if such a video was produced -- and not a digital video but a hardcore copy of video -- it would be looked at with much criticism.

The skeptics and critics would make a fuss and ultimately it would lead to the fact that if such a genuine film this was, who's the author?

The author would then be thoroughly investigated. And say the author and/or participant shifting really was a werewolf they would be captured, siezed and studied. If not outright shot. The entire thing claimed to be a hoax and the government would remove said issue.

Unless all hypothetical werewolves came out at once and not just out like in video... Oh no. Like came out in video, and on your front lawn.

Otherwise there is no belief. You need

• Hardcore evidence.
• A subject willing to preform shift
• A willing subject/scientific guinea pig willing to shift for your local scientists, be poked, prodded and urged to die so they could get a look inside there.
• A mass release and viewing to cull belief. This is something so skeptical most of us would find this like eating asprin pills sized for your average 500lb calf.

And even then it's likely the public would never really know the difference... until your neighbors start marking their territory, digging up your lawn and you notice that they've converted their two story house into a rock-den and aren't looking very hominid lately.

And honestly -- shifting is a legend. People don't shift into wolves and wolves don't shift into humans...

And even if they did, I highly doubt we'd ever know the wiser.

[Lupin]

Unless all hypothetical werewolves came out at once and not just out like in video... Oh no. Like came out in video, and on your front lawn.

Eeew... I'd perfer not. I already have to deal with dog crap.

[Figarou]

Unless all hypothetical werewolves came out at once and not just out like in video... Oh no. Like came out in video, and on your front lawn.

Eeew... I'd perfer not. I already have to deal with dog crap.

Heh....I can see it now.


scientist- *looks at crap* "Well, this came from a werewolf."

scientist2 "How can you tell its from a werewolf?"

scientist- "Just look at the size of that pile. Unless elephants also roam this neighborhood."

[Celestialwolf]

A video would be interesting, but most would quickly forget it. All werewolf fans would have a copy on their hard drives, though!

[Scott Gardener]

A single video of a shift would be viewed with skepticism, and likely put along-side the bigfoot footage and the alien autopsy. To convince the world, we'd need to see a transformation in a public place, or the same person shifting more than once, with live witnesses.

[Figarou]

A single video of a shift would be viewed with skepticism, and likely put along-side the bigfoot footage and the alien autopsy. To convince the world, we'd need to see a transformation in a public place, or the same person shifting more than once, with live witnesses.

News reporter- "We are here live at the mall to show everyone that werewolves are for real. This is John. He is a werewolf."


John- *waves at the camera* "Hi mom!!"

News reporter- "So, what made you decide to show everyone you're a werewolf?"

John- "I'm just bored."

News reporter-"Bored of what?"

John- "Oh, you know. The constant hiding. I'm bored sick of that!! I want to roam free in the city streets as a werewolf! I'm sick of always hiding my wolf form!"

News reporter- "I see. Well, you should know this town has leash laws."

John- "Say what?"

News reporter- "Yes. We can't have dogs roaming the streets without a leash. I guess that means werewolves are included."

John-"Did I say I was a werewolf?" Oh silly me!! Heh!!" *runs and hides*



Ok, that was odd.

[Lupin]

It's really variable, it depends on the video and other things. A single video, I would assume was probably a hoax, or a promo for something, depending on the quality. Two would be way more believeable. And three would sell it comptely, especially if there were bystanders. Of course if I see a video, and then there is an article in the newspaper, then that changes things.

[Jamie]

It's really variable, it depends on the video and other things. A single video, I would assume was probably a hoax, or a promo for something, depending on the quality. Two would be way more believeable. And three would sell it comptely, especially if there were bystanders. Of course if I see a video, and then there is an article in the newspaper, then that changes things.

Of course, if said videos were all of the same quality, then a larger number of them would strengthen belief in people who believed the first video, but my guess would be that only a small proportion of skeptics would switch sides by the addition of more videos.

I suspect that the world at large would probably view it with the same attitude as the baby dragon hoax (or try searching google for lots more articles). A physical shifter video would make an initial stir among people who were inclined to believe in that sort of thing to begin with, the serious scientists would refuse to even look at it, and maybe one or two professional image analysts would come forward to say that it hadn't been faked in any way that they could test for. Then, within a year or two, everyone except the fringe would have forgotten about it.

[Scott Gardener]

Hmm... concoct a hoax to sell a book to a publisher. I hadn't thought of that. OK, that settles it. I'm going to shift on the news!

[Terastas]

It would depend on the nature of the video, and even moreso on how much effort the werewolf on film puts into safeguarding his identity (which I suppose he could do just by putting a bag on his head durring the beginning stages), although it would certainly spark some controversy, possibly of a long-term variety. The government also wouldn't be able to swoop down in time to stop it because, knowing the Internet, thousands would see it before the closest FBI agents could get to their cars.

If you don't believe me, look what happened to Carson Williams and Gary Brolsma. Their respective clips were featured on countless websites before anyone even knew their names. The same would happen with the werewolf in the film -- there would be skeptics (a lot of people thought Carson's lights were fake) and supporters, and until the truth came out, it would be a subject of debate. Once it reached that point, the werewolf would have to come out and admit to being the werewolf in the tape, that way he could use the eye of the press to protect him from any agencies that might be getting close to him. . . Or he might not, get found out and his video would remain an Internet legend.

His tape might never actually be accepted as proof if he didn't come forward, but it could never be denied either. Classic Internet legends like Snowball the Giant Cat and the 9/11 Tourist have been dismissed because people successfully identified graphical errors (the cat's tail in the window is mishadowed) or inconsistencies with the event (the plane in the picture is a 747, the plane that hit the first tower on 9/11 was a 767). Presumably, if the video is authentic, nobody would be able to find any such way of denying it.

Moreso than anything else, I believe, is that his video might inspire other werewolves to make videos of their own, and with the success of the first clip, they might decide to make their identities known right away for the same reasons mentioned above (the government rarely makes anyone disappear once they've spoken to the press). And then, well. . . God only knows where it would go from there.

[vrikasatma]

I think you'd need to have a "shapeshifting ombudsman" who'd basically be a diplomat (Philodoxen, pay attention ). This diplomat would be something of a celebrity and go around, giving live demonstrations on demand, in real time. Say, at fairs or something.

The diplomat would have to be very comfortable with shapeshifting and be alright with basically giving up their privacy when s/he's not in their own house (that, of course, would have to be sacrosanct if only for sanity's sake). They'd probably also need a fairly gentle, touchy-feely personality and wouldn't mind overmuch if someone came up and touched them.

I think that'd be the only evidence that would be widely accepted, anything else could be explained away as "special effects." Photographic/videographic evidence would not constitute proof by any stretch of the imagination, not when a three-dee modeling animation program can be had for less than $1000.

[Lupin]

I think that'd be the only evidence that would be widely accepted, anything else could be explained away as "special effects." Photographic/videographic evidence would not constitute proof by any stretch of the imagination, not when a three-dee modeling animation program can be had for less than $1000.

While that's true, it still takes a massive amount of work to render fur realistically, and even now we still don't have it pefect. CGI fur is still real easy to spot.

[Figarou]

I think that'd be the only evidence that would be widely accepted, anything else could be explained away as "special effects." Photographic/videographic evidence would not constitute proof by any stretch of the imagination, not when a three-dee modeling animation program can be had for less than $1000.

While that's true, it still takes a massive amount of work to render fur realistically, and even now we still don't have it pefect. CGI fur is still real easy to spot.

Its getting really REALLY close to perfect. They can simulate wind blowing across fur, bits of snow in fur, and wet fur.

[Lupin]

While that's true, it still takes a massive amount of work to render fur realistically, and even now we still don't have it pefect. CGI fur is still real easy to spot.

Its getting really REALLY close to perfect. They can simulate wind blowing across fur, bits of snow in fur, and wet fur.

Yeah, but you can still tell that it's CG most of the time.

[vrikasatma]

Yeah, we can't have realistic CG in movies because producers are leaning over your shoulder, telling you to quit making it look pretty and just give them product to put out.

But say if a prankster got hold of Bryce or something, happened to own a wolf-dog so they'd have realtime, live, instantly-checkable reference material on demand, and <i>took a year to figure out the vectors and get it JUST right?</i> Then they come out with the video, say "Look, werewolves exist, here's a video I shot!" And it looks a damn sight better than anyone in Hollywood could come out with because there's this one guy, with a kick-a** Mac graphics machine, $1000 software and continuous on-demand reference material...who's taken his time and gotten it as good as it can possibly be gotten...

[Figarou]

While that's true, it still takes a massive amount of work to render fur realistically, and even now we still don't have it pefect. CGI fur is still real easy to spot.

Its getting really REALLY close to perfect. They can simulate wind blowing across fur, bits of snow in fur, and wet fur.

Yeah, but you can still tell that it's CG most of the time.

Sure, when CG is mixed with live action.

[Lupin]

But say if a prankster got hold of Bryce or something, happened to own a wolf-dog so they'd have realtime, live, instantly-checkable reference material on demand, and <i>took a year to figure out the vectors and get it JUST right?</i> Then they come out with the video, say "Look, werewolves exist, here's a video I shot!" And it looks a damn sight better than anyone in Hollywood could come out with because there's this one guy, with a kick-a** Mac graphics machine, $1000 software and continuous on-demand reference material...who's taken his time and gotten it as good as it can possibly be gotten...

Honestly? No. While computers are getting faster, there's only so much that a single person with a PC can do. For those ooh-ing and ahh-ing graphics you see in the movies, you need CPU power, and you need lots of it. Most normal people don't have the budget to go out and buy a renderfarm.

[Terastas]

While that's true, it still takes a massive amount of work to render fur realistically, and even now we still don't have it pefect. CGI fur is still real easy to spot.

Their close to it, but the programs Dreamworks and Pixar use to animate fur and feathers are still pretty much under lock and key, not something you'd expect a blue-collar worker or college Freshmen to have. Plus, animators spend months and get payed top dollar to animate fur. It wouldn't make sense for someone to put that much time, money and effort into something that extensive at no charge.

[Mix Bouda-Lycaon]

I videotape my shifts all the time...

...it helps me prepare for the championships.

Oh wait...

*burns them*

[Scott Gardener]

CGI is getting increasingly realistic, but there are experts who can spot things to determine what is real or is not.

Still, a single video surfacing, with no subsequent followup, and with no public appearance, would likely be seen as the modern version of the grainy "bigfoot" film. You'd need witnesses, too.

[Terastas]

CGI is getting increasingly realistic, but there are experts who can spot things to determine what is real or is not.

This is what would keep it from being denied. Inevitably, one of those Sci-Fi channel programs will decide to cover the werewolf video and get ahold of a few Dreamworks and Pixar gurus to look it over. If they declare the film inconclusive, that would be a pretty heavy statement.

Still, a single video surfacing, with no subsequent followup, and with no public appearance, would likely be seen as the modern version of the grainy "bigfoot" film. You'd need witnesses, too.

That's what would keep it from being confirmed. No matter how compelling the footage may be, the werewolf would eventually have to step forward and admit to being the one on camera before it could be accepted as truth.

[Figarou]

CGI is getting increasingly realistic, but there are experts who can spot things to determine what is real or is not.

This is what would keep it from being denied. Inevitably, one of those Sci-Fi channel programs will decide to cover the werewolf video and get ahold of a few Dreamworks and Pixar gurus to look it over. If they declare the film inconclusive, that would be a pretty heavy statement.

Odd...I thought NASA scientists would take a look at the video.

http://www.notbored.org/nasa.html