I saw wobble in more places than that, often when you turned or tilted the prop, causing the bottom and top of the spike to become misaligned with the handle. But again.. key frames, video compression, video field errors and other things can cause similar artifacts.
If the spike is connected to an internal guide which is guiding a spike, and if this internal guide is even 0.4mm smaller in diameter than the inside (0.2mm of "space" on each side), then it can most certainly cause a slight wobble when opening or closing, unless it is in a carriage and driven by springs operated by a NATO sliding button mechanism, preventing any wobble. Any slight wobble when opening or closing is more indicative of a physical spike than it is of CGI. This is fact. It's called physics, and it would be more visible when closing than opening. When the thing is opening or closing, the hand is still, and there is no reason for a CGI spike to wobble with a still hand. There could be other problems, but no wobble left or right.
I have no idea what wobble you are referring to which occurs "often" when I am turning the prop. I do not see it. I watched the video again. The one and only wobble that I think can be pointed out as a true wobble-effect is the one in the horizontal "problematic" shot. In all honesty, the ONLY significant parts are 00:24 and 00:27. I don't see any other wobble and firmly believe that the "often" wobbles you are referring to is simply a case exaggerating/nitpicking frames. I have a right to my opinion as you have a right to yours. When I claim that you are extremely exaggerating I don't think I am being offensive.
FWIW, the spike does not once, ever, come misaligned with the handle. It cannot become misaligned with the handle because it comes out of the hole, and retracts into the hole. I am glad that you do admit that video compression etc. can cause such issues... although again, I think the "issues" are being extremely exaggerated. I only see two, 00:24 and 00:27.
A slight spike-wobble with a still hand is not indicative of CGI, unless it's a NATO mechanism. The problem is that sometimes you presuppose some things, and then ask a complex question, just like when you asserted that a prop cannot work the way it works in the video because we don't see it retract when pointed down. This is not entirely true. You can have a powered open, gravity close, looking to the eye like a classic NATO.
I'm not underestimating anything. I'm sorry, but you are going in circles. Why start bringing up other versions of the prop?
I believe you are understimating even a gravity mechanism locking open and closed. If you are doing it with a sear bar and two sears, you will face issues. It is not AS simple as you may think. Yes, I am going in circles, to make you consider other possibilities aside from CGI. If you wish to firmly believe in the 3D CGI spike that behaves extraordinarily well aside from two (to some odd, to others insignificant) moment which last a total of 1 second, then go ahead. No harm done.
It does seem that not knowing how it works is the driving force behind the CGI claim. What I want to say is, the CGI "evidence" (00:24 and 00:27) isn't very convincing. It is not knowing how it works, and then using 00:24 and 00:27, or any oddity you can get your hands on, to attempt to discredit it.
A steel spike would be heavy enough to move like it does in the second video- especially if you add a small weigh to is inside the handle. As i said, my plastic version (with an aluminum spike made out of a tent-hook) can do it but it's so light that I have to really put effort into it.) A little spring-steel "stopper" just inside the exit hole, connected to the button could be used to stop it.
I'm not familiar with a spring-steel stopper. If you are referring to a classic see-saw mechanism, the prop would need to have a pivot pin. Do you see one in the video?
And to be honest in return, following your explanation of things is hard because you keep jumping back and forth between topics, questions and mentioning different versions of your prop. Instead of addressing each point succinctly, you go off on tangents like mentioning how people have held the item in real life and sent you PMs, when that does nothing to prove your validity. (I could claim that I got several PMs telling me that they have held your prop and told me that it's definitely fake but that would be no more than hearsay, just as your similar claims are.)
Me mentioning private messages and other events was not in an attempt to present any proof. I was simply "talking", just like you are talking. Your CGI insinuations aren't proof either. Each person makes up their own mind when looking at the whole picture, based on their knowledge of how 3D CGI functions, and their knowledge of physics, and/or mechanisms.
In the first video? I don't know for certain. I suspect that it might be a couple different physical props (maybe one single-action spring loaded and one that works with gravity) that could have been aided by CG inserts.
Ok. I think all of your points are valid points, except the CGI.
In the second video it looks like a physical prop that works with gravity/inertia. I suspect (but obviously can't prove) that it works by holding down the button to keep the spike from moving. (It looks a bit like you press the button after the spike is fully extended and you keep your thumb there the entire time, then release pressure so that the spike falls into the handle. Such a function would be very easy to do.)
It sounds funny though. It would mean that in the first deployment as you call it, the thing comes out at the push of a button, via "gravity". I am using prop "A" here. Now in the second video, I am supposedly pressing the button AFTER it has opened (?), and then I have to hold it pushed down. This would obviously be a second prop, we will call it "B". And in the very first shot where it neither opens or closes, this would be prop "A" again. I don't see a point there.
Many of the things you state in your responses skirt around or ignore the main question folks are wondering about:
The folks you are referring to are a very small minority, currently three people. All I ask is that you do not present the "folks" as an entire community who is screaming "CGI". This couldn't be further from the truth. No offense.
Have you made a functional, double-action gimlet that can extend and retract without the aid of gravity, pneumatics, hand-movements and/or any other trickery? Or, to put it in another way- have you made a replica that functions the way the FX artists on the show wanted us to believe?
Again, presuppositions. Functional must not mean double-action, and what appears as double-action to the eye must not mean that gravity can't be involved.
Maybe you don't "wish" to read between the lines because this makes it easier for you to discredit me. I will say this: If had an OTF (out-the-front) weapon, I would never directly say it on a public forum, and I would never post conclusive 100% beyond-a-doubt evidence that I have such a weapon. That's why the video is a fan video and not a demonstration of a weapon, where I open the "device" pointing up, pierce a cardboard, and close it. I live in a country where manufacturing an OTF weapon (you don't have to carry it, possessing is sufficient, keeping it in your basement) is punishable with huge fines as well as five years inprisonment. That's why I have a prop, not a weapon. That's why the video is theatrical, with shots replicated from the show. I could further elaborate and say lots of things about legalities and personal experiences, but then again, this would just be "hearsay".
On my website, which exists since early 2014, I do not have one sentence written which indicates I am in possession of a weapon. In fact, I only have pictures of a prop. The abbreviation OTF is never mentioned either.
Think about what I've done when posting on another public forum, a long time ago, referenced in the first page of this thread. I was talking about an early gravity mechanism prop and I specifically state that the spike cannot damage anything, and that it will retract when pushed against anything. Put two and two together. There is a reason I am saying over and over again that I do not have an OTF that can hurt someone. Take what I just said into consideration and then think why I said that the new video I posted is borderline risky.
I will answer your question as follows, however you may interpret it: I have a prop that can replicate all the opening/closing shots from The X-Files, and I do not need to use one pixel of CGI to accomplish it. At the same time, it is not a weapon.
If you answer "yes", then you will have to prove it if you want people to believe it at this point.
There is nothing I will have to do, because the people you refer to are less than 1%, and this is an insignificant number. My intention was never, ever, to convince every single skeptic of anything. This would be mission impossible.
If you answer "no", then the discussion need not go any further.
Your acknowledgment or your disbelief does not affect the existence of my prop. If people have started working on a gimlet I am willing to help and give some insight, if they have a mechanism that needs some fine tuning. That's why I wanted to see your prop. I will not send any detailed drawings or 3D files though.
(You know... now that I think about it, I'm not sure you actually claimed clearly and openly that you made a fully functional double-action version
You are correct. Actually I have said, many people compare the gimlet to the guardfather spike, but the guardfather spike is single-action, and this one is double-action. This is referring to how the gimlet is supposed to function, because many people just refer to it as a different looking guardfather, which is false. In this very same thread I also write, on the first page, that what I have cannot be used as a weapon in it's current state, unless it is tweaked. With this sentence I have said more than enough, to those who are willing to listen.
but you did allow people to think it when everyone assumed as much and you did refer to "one" gimlet in your first post, which does insinuate it.)
Not exactly. To those who are familiar with mechanisms, they know there can also be "one" prop that can be assembled, end caps changed, a part added or subtracted. It would be one prop, with the ability to be tweaked, depending on which functionality is desired. No need for CGI in order to have it act as double action to the eye.
The only thing I was irritated by is the CGI claim. If someone had written that he suspects each different shot having a different prop, or even an air hose that is removed through VFX in post production, I wouldn't have been irritated. It is just the CGI claim, because there is no CGI.
Either way it's a lovely looking prop, static or not.
Now I'm confused. After everything we've discussed, and established, and you see a physical object being affected by something that comes out of something, you say that I might have a static prop. I have no idea what's going on. You may be joking, or I am misunderstanding.
I do have an idea though. Perhaps literally everything in the video is fake, and what I'm holding in my hand is a 3D CGI handle, and the pictures on my site are photorealistic 3D renders. The tissue could also be CGI, with sound effects added. I have no prop whatsoever.
