My X-Files Alien Stiletto

[Sean]

Drago .i'm not getting in the middle of this. but I just had to make one small statement.
I own a few props created by Joatrash FX. and when it comes to the detail of screen accuracy. he goes above and beyond getting It just Right. very above and beyond. If he has a plastic version of this prop. It would be screen accurate.

The few props I have from Joe are cherished pieces in my collection. That's all. just wanted to make sure that was revealed.

 

[Apollo]

:lol Nope, it's all good though! :lol

(Am I alone in getting an "advanced action suit" vibe from this thread?)

 

[Drago]

If he has a plastic version of this prop. It would be screen accurate.

Nope. He basically forwarned it when he said it was based off a version from a propstore. Every version from propstores I've seen are far from screen accurate.

Unlike the CGI claim, screen accuracy can be proven with simple screenshots from the TV show.

 

[JOATRASH FX]

Every version from propstores I've seen are far from screen accurate.

Unlike the CGI claim, screen accuracy can be proven with simple screenshots from the TV show.

You might want to read up on what we generally refer to around here as as "screen accurate". An actual prop is screen accurate, no matter what you claim.

But this isn't about my replica (which isn't the best I'm the first to admit, though I do appreciate the kind words by Sean).

It's about you seemingly trying (and failing) to pull a fast one on the good folks here.

The thing is- and this is a real shame- if you had played it straight and not been so coy and elusive about the actual nature of the props(s) you showed us, you'd still be knee-deep in praise.

 

[Drago]

No one has called you an idiot. If my last response appeared snarky it was because my simple question was avoided and met with a wall of text that didn't go anywhere in what seemed to be an attempt to confuse and avoid the thing (I assume) most people following the thread would like to know.

Everything I wrote was very relevant. If you do not understand what an internal guide is, or a pivot pin, or a sear-bar, then you should ask what I am talking about, and I would elaborate. It doesn't mean the response isn't going anywhere. If you are not getting the response you desire, which meets your definition of "sufficient proof" (of whatever it is you are seeking), it doesn't mean that the response is a ramble. If I point out an undeniable fact about why a spike might wobble in certain moments, having to do with the simplest physics, it is definitely not "rambling". Again, I don't function in "yes or no" style when asked complex questions.

I don't think you've violated any rules either. However, your behavior in writing long agitated responses that circumvent what some of us are curious about serves only to strengthen the notion that you seemingly intended to (indirectly) fool everyone into believing that you had in fact succeeded in creating a functional Nato-style gimlet.

This is incoherent. So in my attempts to convince people that I have a NATO-style weapon, I clearly show a push-button (!) in the very first shot in the video, and I don't try to conceal this fact, neither in pictures nor in video. This makes sense. :confused

What makes even more sense is that in my attempts to convince people of NATO-style functionality, I point out in my earliest posts that people should pay attention that the button doesn't slide. :facepalm

If you've been following the X-Files threads around here you will know that an OTF-style gimlet has been something of a holy-grail of X-Files props (screen accuracy notwithstanding). Even if you didn't intend to do so, your responses are making it look like you did and that you can't handle the bluff being called.

Again, an incomplete statement. You have defined "OTF-style" gimlet as a sliding button NATO device, period. You have set up your definition of success and failure. A NATO gimlet as "success", and every other type of device a "failure". OTF means out-the-front. Automatic single action, gravity action, spring assisted gravity action, NATO style, and devices that can be tweaked, all classify as OTF.

Now who is making presuppositions?

Certainly not me. It was an assumption based on things you have clearly stated. You said it was plastic and based on a propstore version. I asked several times that you post a picture of it so that I may see it. Unlike your CGI claims, screen accuracy can be demonstrated by looking at screenshots from various episodes. I would never have brought up your replica if you hadn't compared my post to someone elses and labeled my long replies as ramble.

You might want to read up on what we generally refer to around here as as "screen accurate". An actual prop is screen accurate, no matter what you claim. But this isn't about my replica (which isn't the best I'm the first to admit, though I do appreciate the kind words by Sean).

Go ahead. Let "us" see it.

It's about you seemingly trying (and failing) to pull a fast one on the good folks here.

Yes, you are correct. Everything you have written makes perfect sense. You are representing everyone who has contacted me and everyone who has seen my props. The things I have written are just random ramblings, nothing to do with your questions. Your understanding of all the things I brought up is superb, and you have analyzed and "exposed" my CGI blade. If it will make you feel better to hear these words from me, no problem. There you go.

The thing is- and this is a real shame- if you had played it straight and not been so coy and elusive about the actual nature of the props(s) you showed us...

You keep referring to an imaginary army of people, over and over again. I understand. Maybe you are frustrated that not everyone decided to flood this thread with attacks, calling me a terrible, evil person. It happens. Life goes on. You could still try to private message some friends and tell them to join this thread and say that the video is beyond a doubt CGI.

You are seemingly unaware of how strange some of your accusations sound. I say that I do not have a weapon. I display a push button. I do not conceal the fact that it is a push button, and I don't even do a fake SLIDING motion with my thumb, but instead I push/press it down... and you say I wish to fool "the folks" to believe that my device is a double-action OTF NATO-style weapon. At some moments I start believing that you are only doing this to irritate me, because I can make no sense of it otherwise.

In fact I just read my own post, the one you proudley dismissed as me "rambling", and I see that I seriously addressed many of your misconceptions. I have also said: 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. Take it or leave it. I will not reveal more.

If you had asked me how a single action spring mechanism would work in such a handle, and which parts are necessary, I would have answered it. If you had asked me what a sear bar is and what it is exactly that I am referring to, I would have shown you a drawing. If you had asked what I meant by pivot pin and why it may be necessary for a certain prop, I would have elaborated and posted a picture. But if you ask me about the inner workings of the stiletto in the video I posted, I will not disclose it. I said it very early on. You will finally need to accept this. I hate to say it, but your repetitious attempts at "ridicule" are slowly getting boring.

... you'd still be knee-deep in praise.

Lol @ "still". When someone mentions my name publicly and thanks me for helping create one of his holy grail props, I couldn't be more satisfied than that. Especially when the holy grail in question is the X-Files stiletto prop. Enjoy: http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=144637&page=13&p=3788546&viewfull=1#post3788546

I should bow my head in shame.

Actions speak louder than words. You can discredit and ridicule, posting "witty" remarks every day in this thread, but when you manage to post a similar video like I have, showing the same opening closing shots in the same manner, let "us" know. My hat will be off to you.

Until then, look up "argument from incredulity"... and I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[JOATRASH FX]

Everything I wrote was very relevant...it is definitely not "rambling". Again, I don't function in "yes or no" style when asked complex questions.

I beg to differ. You keep going on about CGI and wobbling, when the discussion has long since moved on from those particular points. The question wasn't that difficult to answer but you instead chose to go on at length with technical jargon, in a rather obvious attempt to confuse and derail.

So in my attempts to convince people that I have a NATO-style weapon, I clearly show a push-button (!) in the very first shot in the video,

Not everyone knows that there is a sliding mechanism in a traditional nato-style setup. Even if they did, it's not inconceivable, with the ingenuity available on the RPF, that someone would have come up with a solution to that using push-button instead. In one of my earlier posts, I wrote "if you have indeed managed to replicate it with functional automatic extend-and-retract" with no mention of the specific nato-style. Your fanatical hold to specific technical details (such as the push-button) over clearly answering the question posed has simply dug you into a deeper hole.

The fact remains: you appear to have attempted to fool people into thinking that you have managed to construct a gimlet that works as the one in "X-Files lore" was intended to work. (I.e. automatic extend and retract using the activation of a button, not assisted by gravity or inertia and so on.)

screen accuracy can be demonstrated by looking at screenshots from various episodes.

Screen accuracy can also be verified by... you know... comparing with an actual prop.

Go ahead. Let "us" see it.

The physical print is actually in storage but very well, here's a render of the last revision I did before abandoning the project.

And in case you feel the need to go on a rant about how inaccurate it is in a futile attempt to discredit, let me save you the trouble: The button knurling is wrong (limitations of 3d printing a few years ago), the tapering is too strong, the bands aren't perfect, the button should be further towards the end along with a few other things but I'm sure you get the idea. It was based off photos of a resin casting that Propstore sold of (what I assume was) the pneumatically activated version. I threw it together in a few minutes because I was about to place an order with Sh*peways and testing the limitations of 3d printing. But again, my version of the prop is irrelevant to this discussion.

You could still try to private message some friends and tell them to join this thread and say that the video is beyond a doubt CGI.

How do you not understand that we've long since moved on from discussions of CGI and are now discussing your behvaior?

... when you manage to post a similar video like I have, showing the same opening closing shots in the same manner, let "us" know. My hat will be off to you.
Until then, look up "argument from incredulity"... and I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving.

This isn't an incredulous argument, it's reasonable presumption.

I have no inclination or need to post such a video. Usually, when I post things, I try to not be selfish or afraid to show how they work when asked. (If you don't believe me, go find some photos of my working Batman 89 belt buckle and Speargun. Here, I'll start you off.)

Happy Thanksgiving to you as well, though we don't celebrate it in Sweden.

 

[Drago]

I beg to differ. You keep going on about CGI and wobbling, when the discussion has long since moved on from those particular points. The question wasn't that difficult to answer but you instead chose to go on at length with technical jargon, in a rather obvious attempt to confuse and derail.

By all means, you can differ all day. When I write 10 paragraphs, you respond with three sentences, not addressing even 5% of it, because you conveniently label it as "ramble". The entire long post of mine was not all about wobbling, and you are clearly creating a straw man by asserting this. The reality is, wobbling was only a small part of it.

Did I make any valid points about an internal guide and your "wobble"? Most definitely. Have you acknowledged it and said "Hmm, good point, sorry". No, you haven't. Did I correct you in your assumption that what looks like the action in the video must not necessarily be able to retract when the prop is pointed down? Yes I did. Have you said "Alright I'm not familiar with these things"? No, you haven't. The list goes on, and the point being: Have you acknowledged ANY points I ever brought up as valid? Of course not. Because your interaction with me is not a real dialogue. It is this: "Show me A, and if you don't, you are a liar."

I was, among other things, pointing out to you that a single prop can be tweaked between takes, in order to display different functionality, absolutely not requiring CGI in even one freaking pixel. It is still a functional prop. I also, even though you keep ignoring it, do point out more than once that no person with a rational sound mind who lives in Germany would say publicly that he is in possession of any OTF style weapon at ALL, much less one going in both directions. I keep saying that I do not have a weapon, and I do not even refer to the prop as ANY kind of OTF neither in the video description nor on my webpage.

When I refer to one of my gravity props in another forum, I explicitly focus on mentioning that the blade cannot pierce anything. I keep talking about being careful with video demonstrations. I keep talking about my second video piercing and ripping a tissue being borderline risky. I keep mentioning certain experiences in life. However, you do not wish to acknowledge ANY of this, for obvious reasons. It is ramble. Because if you were to acknowledge these points as valid, it would be more difficult to scream "liar". You do not wish to acknowledge any points that go in my favor.

If you wish to believe (or at least pretend to believe, in order to irritate me to a point to start giving you detailed information about the prop) that everything I brought up is an excuse because of my inability to put the prop vertically in front of a piece of paper and pierce it, then by all means do so. I neither lose nor do I gain by Joetrashfx's acknowledgment or attempts at ridicule. This is why I keep asking, if you are unsatisfied with my explanations or "excuses", then what are you still doing in this thread? I ask this in all honesty. If you wish to believe that I can't demonstrate EXACTLY the same effect you are requesting with my pneumatic prop and demonstrate a "DA-OTF weapon" this way, then this is making no sense whatsoever.

You tell me I am rambling and compare my posts to another thread where the thread starter clearly can't communicate in normal english, plus doesn't even have a picture or a small clip of anything he is saying. And you do this after I make one of the longest posts in this thread when responding to you. Should I interpret this as a true, honest dialogue?

Not everyone knows that there is a sliding mechanism in a traditional nato-style setup. Even if they did, it's not inconceivable, with the ingenuity available on the RPF, that someone would have come up with a solution to that using push-button instead.

Absolutely, completely, utterly false. This is what I mean. You have these ideas, and you talk about ingenuity and what is conceivable and what isn't. Someone who doesn't understand basic engineering is the loudest and proudest to scream "liar, faker, manipulator, this is possible, this is not possible, you should be able to do A, you can't do B". A spring-operated double-action mechanism which opens and closes a blade in both directions with a push/press-button is something no person has ever come up with in history of automatic knives. There is not one OTF blade which functions this way. Spring assisted gravity yes. Even one where you have to "reset" it with the button in order to prepare for the next opening, yes.

A simple "push" button, open, "push" button, close, regardless of which direction it is pointed, has not been produced. Someone presented a prop in this thread, I can't remember what it was, but it was no knife. He said this is proof of the mechanism, but no, it's not applicable. There's nothing bad about that though, since the person who posted the video didn't have the know-it-all attitude.

Since you so confidently talk about a push button driving a spring operated double-action blade not being inconceivable, I must get into "technical jargon" (which you detest) in order to explain certain things. A sliding button, what I call NATO-type button, must first and foremost stretch the spring. This is the main purpose. It stretches the spring in one direction and the other direction, preparing the blade to "shoot" out. The second function is that when it reaches a certain limit, the maximum stretching point, it moves a CAM and allows the blade (or spike), to move. If you attempt to make a push button which drives a sliding mechanism (in both directions), then you will fail, even if you add 10 or 20 additional parts to try to help you. You see, by "pushing" the button down you can move it in one direction only.

The second problem is the distance. The distance when pushing the button down is significantly shorter than the sliding distance would be, meaning there is not a lot of distance to stretch the spring. It is no problem opening the blade this way, but then you have to reverse the process, and there is NO way the push button can make it close. You are talking about things you are completely unfamiliar with, "not inconceivable", "you should be able to do this, and that", and then after pointing out blatantly false statements you expect me to bow down to you. Why? Because I filmed a video according to my own "screenplay", and not yours. Well, I will not bow down.

In one of my earlier posts, I wrote "if you have indeed managed to replicate it with functional automatic extend-and-retract" with no mention of the specific nato-style.

Addressed several times. I do not have a weapon. The spike cannot pierce or damage things. Not willing to read between lines, or maybe, just maybe, pretending not to read between them in order for your point to become more "powerful".

Your fanatical hold to specific technical details (such as the push-button) over clearly answering the question posed has simply dug you into a deeper hole.

Yes, I am in a huge hole, because I am discussing with someone who obviously (proven fact) does not know the basics of the topic he is discussing, who made several pretty irrational statements, and some of them just blatantly false, as there is no other way to describe them. So I am the one in a hole, and you are standing above, crushing me. Great job.

Thanks for the "fanatical" compliment, but IMO if anything is fanatical, it is your attempt to try and get information. I applaud you for your persistence.

The fact remains: you appear to have attempted to fool people into thinking that you have managed to construct a gimlet that works as the one in "X-Files lore" was intended to work. (I.e. automatic extend and retract using the activation of a button, not assisted by gravity or inertia and so on.)

The fact remains: You appear to be wanting to do what I am doing in this video, but you cannot. The prop is a holy grail even if it not a NATO device, and you want to use every method possible to try and get me to say 1% of how it functions. You have demonstrated very little knowledge of OTF mechanisms, you have made false statements (proven fact), and you did not take into consideration simple physics when trying to use wobbles as proof of a 3D CGI blade. For what it's worth, you still didn't state clearly if you still believe it is CGI and if yes, exactly which scenes are CGI.

Screen accuracy can also be verified by... you know... comparing with an actual prop.

This depends. If someone based a replica off a prop which was only "described" as original and it actually wasn't an original, then screenshots from the show would be the only way to verify the screen accuracy. I have seen several original versions which looked nothing like what we've seen on the show.

The physical print is actually in storage but very well, here's a render of the last revision I did before abandoning the project. And in case you feel the need to go on a rant about how inaccurate it is in a futile attempt to discredit, let me save you the trouble: The button knurling is wrong (limitations of 3d printing a few years ago), the tapering is too strong, the bands aren't perfect, the button should be further towards the end along with a few other things but I'm sure you get the idea. It was based off photos of a resin casting that Propstore sold of (what I assume was) the pneumatically activated version. I threw it together in a few minutes because I was about to place an order with Sh*peways and testing the limitations of 3d printing.

Thanks for saving me the futile attempts as you call them. You said some things very well, but to be fair it's not that bad at all. I've seen much, much worse replicas. The taper is the worst thing about it. Although different episodes featured props with a different taper, this one is inaccurate. To say the entire handle is a bad attempt is not true though.

But again, my version of the prop is irrelevant to this discussion.

Your prop was brought up only after your somewhat irrtating attempt at stand-up comedy. As far as I'm concerned, there is no discussion here. There is "show me this, and if you can't, you are a liar". A third option does not exist for you. That is not a discussion. Responding to a huge post with one sentence and a "witty" remark is not a discussion.

Not apologizing when being offensive is not part of a normal discussion. I realized that killrmonkey was offended by my "lol" in parantheses, and I apologized. You call my posts ramble, fanatical, comparing my thread to another thread, and even in this post you say you want to prevent me from ranting. Then when I call you out for being unfamiliar with the topic (as I've done in this post), you will be shocked at my "behavior".

How do you not understand that we've long since moved on from discussions of CGI and are now discussing your behvaior?

Lol, right. When it suits you, you scream CGI. When you think about it more, then "well, there may be other things involved", "something is happening". Sigh. You still haven't made up your mind 100% if it is CGI and if it is, which scenes are CGI. It's getting boring my friend. This is what I mean by argument from incredulity, because that's what it boils down to. You do not believe (or do not want to believe) what you see in the video, so therefore it is false, unless I prove you wrong... with a video according to your screenplay, which may or may not lead to your full satisfaction, and which may or may not lead to a new conspiracy theory.

This isn't an incredulous argument, it's reasonable presumption.

Yes, until it reaches a point where it becomes... a bit strange. Asking the same questions again and again, not taking all points into consideration, dismissing all answers that do not please you by labeling them as nonvalid, irrelevant, or "ramble".

I have no inclination or need to post such a video. Usually, when I post things, I try to not be selfish or afraid to show how they work when asked. (If you don't believe me, go find some photos of my working Batman 89 belt buckle and Speargun. Here, I'll start you off.

The part I bolded is the essence, the driving force behind your post(s). "Show me, and in return you might get a positive comment from me." If it were any other prop, I would disclose most, if not all details. But not this one. Call me liar, call me deceiver, call me evil, call me whatever you wish. If you are not satisfied with what I am writing, and do not accept any of my explanations as valid, then do not participate in the thread. This shouldn't be hard to do. I don't know what else I can tell you.

I will not check out the link you just posted for a very simple reason. I mentioned becoming friends with someone from the RPF who contacted me a long time ago about the stiletto, and that I helped him create one. This wasn't intended to be proof of anything, but I did mention it. So you ignored it, dismissed it. How could that possibly be, right? Me helping someone? I gave you a link in my previous post, with the RPF member thanking me, mentioning my name, calling the prop one of his holy grails, and even posting a picture of it. Your response? You don't even comment. You don't even say "it looks nice". You don't acknowledge it at all. Then you give me a link, and adding another witty "I'll start you off" remark, and expect me to be follow your instructions. I mean, what the heck? This is what I mean by animosity. It irritated me a lot, because it is one more thing that you simply do not want to acknowledge in any way, shape or form.

We can do this every day, if you wish. You ask the same questions, I will provide the same answers. You will label the answers as not true answers, but invalid, rambling, ranting, "fanatical", and insufficient to meet your level of satisfaction. But whatever you do, please do not talk about what is conceivable and what isn't. I mean this will all due respect.

It's a shame you decided to go after me with such vehemence, especially in your last response. Either way, I am not a person who displays hatred for such, after all, insignificant matters. Although I am firmly convinced that you are extremely overreacting and not taking valid points into consideration, I still have nothing personal against you. When I say "no hard feelings", I really mean it. You can believe, or disbelieve.

Happy Thanksgiving to you as well, though we don't celebrate it in Sweden.

Didn't pay attention that you were from Sweden. I don't celebrate it either.

 

[Sean]

I would just like to give my apologies to Triton for post 24. and trying to defend the OP. Iv'e made my decision. and that's that I regret ever looking into and posting on this thread..

 

[JOATRASH FX]

When I write 10 paragraphs, you respond with three sentences, not addressing even 5% of it,

That's because I only address the parts that are relevant to the question of whether or not you tried to let people think you have created a fully working double-action version. If you had come clean from the start (regardless of whether you used CG or not), when people started questioning the authenticity of your video, this discussion would have been over long ago.

no person with a rational sound mind who lives in Germany would say publicly that he is in possession of any OTF style weapon at ALL, much less one going in both directions.

The polizei are more likely to come knocking after watching your public video and seeing your photos than you admitting to having or not having a fully automatic gimlet. But either way I suspect that they have more important things to do than scour the RPF for illegal knife-like weapons.

A sliding button, what I call NATO-type button, must first and foremost stretch the spring.

I do actually know how the nato-style works, because I studied a lot of videos back when I was thinking of tinkering with a fully legal all-plastic (besides the spring) version. Though I doubt I'll ever get around to it due to my other commitments.

Not willing to read between lines

To be honest, reading between the lines in your walls of text is mildly exhausting. It would be much easier for everyone if you simply admit to any or all of "No, I haven't created a fully working double-action version and I honestly didn't intend to lead everyone to believe otherwise" and "I created the video using a variety of FX tricks". It need not be more complicated than doing so.

if anything is fanatical, it is your attempt to try and get information. I applaud you for your persistence.

Apologies, but I need to be a little snarky here and say that you've been watching a little too much X-Files if you think I'm running a conspiracy to get you to divulge your secret information about your prop internals. I don't actually care at all about the specific, technical details about how your replica works. (If I ever attempt make one, it would be a nato-type and there is plenty of information out there on those.)

If anything, I'm only trying to get you to understand that the only way you can save face in this situation is to calmly come with some very clear statements instead of writing minor essays about why you refuse to do so. Also, making derogatory statements about my skills and knowledge is not likely to win you any favor either.

This depends. If someone based a replica off a prop which was only "described" as original and it actually wasn't an original,

I've never heard of Propstore having bad provenance for the items they sell. Even though props often look quite differently in real life than they appear to on screen, they are still considered to be screen-accurate.

but to be fair it's not that bad at all.

It should have been quite obvious that I was neither seeking nor desiring your validation. I posted the image only so that you couldn't come up with some wild reason for me refusing to do so.

I don't know what else I can tell you.

Apologies in in advance if this comes off as insulting, but I'm beginning to think that's probably for the best.

I will not check out the link you just posted for a very simple reason.

I would only suggest that before you had continued to make claims about what you think you know about my level of skill and knowledge, you should have educated yourself. My body of work is modest compared to many on this forum, but it does speak for itself.

You don't even comment. You don't even say "it looks nice". You don't acknowledge it at all.

It does look nice. So does the one you showed off in this thread. I've said so previously. And kudos to you for making another RPF member happy. But I didn't comment on it because it has no bearing on what you wanted people to think about the functionality of the replica in your video.

When I say "no hard feelings", I really mean it. You can believe, or disbelieve.

Well, it's starting to feel like this discussion has gone about as far as it can. As far as the video and prop are concerned, I'm going to remain in Scully mode, but as for that last part... it's as Mulder's poster stated. Cheers.

 

[Drago]

As usual, you have dissected the post and responded to only about 5% of it. I know... you selected only the "relevant" parts. :thumbsup

That's because I only address the parts that are relevant to the question of whether or not you tried to let people think you have created a fully working double-action version.

Again, your terminology. Working double-action version? Spring operated double-action? Spring-assisted gravity which mimics a double-action? Something else? You have misrepresented my position from the beginning. First and foremost, when I said people compare this to the guardfather spike, and pointed out that guardfather is single action while this is double action, it was not a claim of me having a double-action weapon.You know this very well. I was referring to the prop how it is seen on the show. I said that I do not have a weapon. The video does not contradict that, as it's carefully presented. The claims in my video description as well as on my website do not say anything. The second video, I said is borderline risky, but you do not care, you dismiss what I'm trying to say. I will not dwell on it now.

My claim is this: what you see in the video "can" be accomplished without a NATO-style double action and without even one single pixel of CGI. There are hundreds of things I could say now, but it would be repetition, and it would be ignored. My claim is that I do not use one pixel of CGI in my video. Me not wanting to go into details and reveal the "workings" is my choice. You choosing to believe, disbelieve, or something in-between, that is your choice, and I respect the choice as a choice.

Before you attempt to refute something, try to figure out what the person is actually claiming. Also, critical thinking says that it is irrational to claim "you haven't proven me wrong, so therefore I'm right", which seems to be your position in every post.

You are addressing the parts which you think are the easiest to attack/discredit. You will not comment on anything where I make a valid point, or where I debunk an assertion about what is possible and what isn't, among other things. When I correct you about anything, it is ignored, as if I never said anything at all. To say that I haven't made any valid, relevant points, would simply be untrue.

If you had come clean from the start (regardless of whether you used CG or not), when people started questioning the authenticity of your video, this discussion would have been over long ago.

You continue to assert that there is an army of people after me. And even if it were so, you will not see from me a video according to your direction/screenplay, and I do not care the slightest how you may interpret it. I did care a few days ago, when I believed you were interested in honest dialogue. You don't understand (or better said, don't wish to acknowledge) that I could achieve the exact same effect you desire using "trickery", and demonstrate a weapon while still not really having a weapon.

The polizei are more likely to come knocking after watching your public video and seeing your photos than you admitting to having or not having a fully automatic gimlet. But either way I suspect that they have more important things to do than scour the RPF for illegal knife-like weapons.

You are oversimplyfing it. I could talk about very relevant personal experiences, but then it'd just be hearsay (as you put it).

I do actually know how the nato-style works, because I studied a lot of videos back when I was thinking of tinkering with a fully legal all-plastic (besides the spring) version. Though I doubt I'll ever get around to it due to my other commitments.

I don't see how this can be true, because you made a completely false statement that a push-button operating a nato-style is not inconceivable, and that an RPF member could make it happen. Saying you know how it works, and then saying a push-button can accomplish it, are two statements which are incompatible with one another. This is what I mean with you not wanting to admit things you didn't know about, or saying you were wrong about something. Yet I'm the one with terrible behavior.

To be honest, reading between the lines in your walls of text is mildly exhausting. It would be much easier for everyone if you simply admit to any or all of "No, I haven't created a fully working double-action version and I honestly didn't intend to lead everyone to believe otherwise" and "I created the video using a variety of FX tricks". It need not be more complicated than doing so.

It is -- and you can deny and scream "liar" all day, even with a megaphone, hoping everyone will join you -- much more complicated than that. But I'm glad you've progressed from CGI to "a variety of FX tricks".

Apologies, but I need to be a little snarky here and say that you've been watching a little too much X-Files if you think I'm running a conspiracy to get you to divulge your secret information about your prop internals. I don't actually care at all about the specific, technical details about how your replica works. (If I ever attempt make one, it would be a nato-type and there is plenty of information out there on those.)

Yes, for what it's worth, I've been watching too much X-Files, and I'm extremely excited about the revival in 2016, actively discussing the show on various forums. As far as I'm concerned it is the best show ever created, and I love discussing with various fans.

Apologies on my part as well, but I don't believe that you're "not caring about the details", because I am absolutely convinced that this is the driving force behind your animosity. IMO there is no other rational reason for your reaction(s). I would never in a million years react the way you did in this thread because someone didn't want to make a video according to my wishes, or didn't want to disclose exactly what a prop can do. It's very strange, because you act like I have stolen someone's idea or even recasted something. This is not a life-or-death situation... so try to lighten up.

If anything, I'm only trying to get you to understand that the only way you can save face in this situation is to calmly come with some very clear statements instead of writing minor essays about why you refuse to do so.

If you, after reading all of my posts, haven't understood that my goal isn't to please every skeptic, then you are not a very good psychologist. I am not, and have never been, in the "need to fit in under all circumstances" group. Ever.

And before accusing someone of lying, or manipulating, or anything similar... make sure beforehand what it is they've actually claimed in the first place, what they've said, and how they've said it, or else your entire position will be based on a strawman argument.

Also, making derogatory statements about my skills and knowledge is not likely to win you any favor either.

Do not care about winning a favor from you, as you are most definitely not the person who should be speaking about derogatory statements. If you attempt stand-up comedy with remarks such as "this guy sounds like that other guy", or "ramble, ranting, fanatical", then you should expect the same, or similar, in return. Secondly, I'm sure you make some fantastic props (I never doubted that - ever - so please don't deflect), but I did say that you are very unfamiliar with the OTF topic, and have proven it. This is why you should think twice before saying what is possible and what isn't possible in an OTF device, nato other otherwise.

I've never heard of Propstore having bad provenance for the items they sell. Even though props often look quite differently in real life than they appear to on screen, they are still considered to be screen-accurate.

My bad. I'm not familiar with Propstore, so I thought it was just a place where people show off their stuff, not necessarily a place with original props. I'm new to the prop world, as the X-Files Stiletto was my first project (completed in 2014). Either way, the taper is inaccurate. If you pay attention, I registered in 2010, and made only one single post back then.

See? What I just did is I admitted I was wrong about something. You should try it sometime.

It should have been quite obvious that I was neither seeking nor desiring your validation.

It wasn't that obvious to me.

I posted the image only so that you couldn't come up with some wild reason for me refusing to do so.

Yeah, naturally, because you "don't care" about what I think.

Apologies in in advance if this comes off as insulting, but I'm beginning to think that's probably for the best.

Nothing you speak or write on the internet can insult me. It can only be an attempt at insulting me. However, you can irritate me, and have irritated me in the past with that other post. In any case, your future attempts at irritating me will not have an effect, because not only will this be my last reply to you (at least in this thread), but also because you've made it clear to me (and I'm sure to others, but also not to "all" of course) that you can only reply to a post in a very interesting pick-and-choose style, where lots of truly relevant information and honest response on my part is immediately dismissed as irrelevant and invalid. This is known as diatribe, not dialogue.

And if someone corrects me about anything, regardless what it is, and I realize that he was correct, I will definitely not bow down to him, but I will surely say "Ok I didn't know that", "You were right", or similar. This kind of behavior does not seem to exist in your style of discussion. It is simply a game of "show me this, show me that, in the way that I request, or else you are a liar."

To now reply to your "probably for the best" remark, yes you are absolutely right... it is best for me (huge, honest "lol" this time), as your skepticism (or someone else's) has a huge impact in my life. I will not be able to sleep if you don't believe that my gimlet does the things in the video without CGI. Your statements have not only demonstrated a solid understanding of OTF mechanisms, but also extraordinary knowledge of what is going in the video. You figured out what is going on and have "exposed" me. I told you before that if you want me to say something to satisfy your ego, I will do so. I did it once before, and I'm doing it again now.

Because you know... I would definitely be lying if I were to say that you don't have an idea about what is going on in the video, except jumping from one conclusion to another in an attempt to fish for information and see more, and more, and more. It is "CGI" to "something is going on" to "maybe practical trickery" to "a variety of FX tricks". Sigh.

I would only suggest that before you had continued to make claims about what you think you know about my level of skill and knowledge, you should have educated yourself.

Says the person who doesn't admit he was wrong about anything I pointed out even once. :facepalm

My body of work is modest compared to many on this forum, but it does speak for itself.

Classic strawman and deflection. I never doubted your work on props. This is an attempt to make it look as if I am attacking your work.

It does look nice. So does the one you showed off in this thread. I've said so previously. And kudos to you for making another RPF member happy. But I didn't comment on it because it has no bearing on what you wanted people to think about the functionality of the replica in your video.

Or you didn't reply to it because you dismissed all of my claims very early on ("hearsay"), and didn't want to admit that I told the truth about anything. Just like dismissing my claims that X-Files fans have seen my prop live and held it in their own hands. Just like when I say that I swear on my life that nothing in the video you see is CGI, and you don't even stop to think that I might, just might, be actually telling the truth.

Nonetheless, I must admit I'm surprised you didn't come up with a theory how "Terrasolo" is actually me under another username, talking about myself.

Well, it's starting to feel like this discussion has gone about as far as it can. As far as the video and prop are concerned, I'm going to remain in Scully mode, but as for that last part... it's as Mulder's poster stated. Cheers.

No problem, and cheers to you also. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is finished, and as I mentioned earlier in this post, this will be my final response to you in this thread.

I will now let you have the last word. If you wish, you can satisfy your ego and start a monologue, reminding your followers and your huge army of people who are against me, about my lies and my horrible behavior. Be sure to PM friends so they can join you in the "exposure" of my lies. That's just a tip, as I'm sure the "exposure" will look better that way.

Anyway, I'll definitely update the thread whenever I get to doing another X-Files gimlet project (probably the "Talitha Cumi" prop someday), and even then... I will post the pictures I want, and the videos I want. To my knowledge there is absolutely nothing in the forum rules which prevents me from doing so, or which forces me to reveal ANY detail about any prop(s). Especially not something which cost me a ton of money, research, determination, time, lack of sleep, and trial and error. I'm sure there are others who love to reveal anything about everything, but I am not one of them, at least as this particular prop is concerned.

Of course I'll continue posting in this thread generally and if there are any other inquiries, but the CGI nonsense (and related questions) is something that does not exist for me from this point on. Attacks on my character, such as me not revealing something shows "exactly what kind of person I am" (said by "Triton") will be ignored, as a reply to such remarks is most definitely not worth the keystrokes.

On a side note, I never even remotely implied that I wouldn't help anyone who has already started working on a prop, but in that case I prefer to be contacted privately, per PM or e-mail.

So yeah... that'd be it.

Hope everyone from the States has had a nice Thanksgiving.

 

[Nexus6]

This thread makes me tired

I will say this: The prop looks awesome. :thumbsup

I will also say: Setting aside the most of the stuff that has been discussed ad infinitum, isn't the only question being asked here, this:

If you hold your prop motionless & pointed at the ceiling, when you activate it, does the spike extend into a fully opened position? And if you then turned your prop 180 degrees, so the tip of the spike is pointed at the floor, then while holding it motionless, when you activate it again, doe the spike retract into a fully closed position?

Isn't ^THAT^ the only question REALLY being posed? I mean, certainly there are some side questions about workings & mechanisms & whatnot (& CGI, FX, etc). And I could understand a person not wanting to necessarily just blurt out all that information for free. (Try asking Rylo for all his schematics for his Dare-devil movie clubs. (<--quad-emoji for emphasis)), but AGAIN, I'm setting discussion of all that aside.

I will definitely NOT be going back-&-forth, in any fashion, in this thread. It just seems like the bolded question above, is the only REAL question here, & it only requires a "yes" or a "no". The caveat being, if the answer is "yes", you will undoubtedly be asked to prove it. And you either will or you won't. And people will either believe you or they won't. *shrugs*

I'm a HUGE fan of the show, but I don't collect any props from the show, so whatever the answer is (to the bolded question above), won't make me any never-mind.

And AGAIN, cool prop. It will look fantastic in an X-Files display.

 

[JOATRASH FX]

Isn't ^THAT^ the only question REALLY being posed?

I suggested that very thing a couple pages back but was met with a wall of text that essentially boiled down to "It's more complicated than that". He has so far refused to answer with a yes or a no. No one is asking him for any technical details or secrets, only what actual features his replica has.

I'll be honest and say that part of why I've been continuing has been out of curiosity to see how far he would go to not give a simple and direct answer, because (and I'm putting on my Amateur Internet Psychologist hat here) carrying on like he has been isn't what I would consider rational behavior. But I'm starting to think that there might be no end to it, so it's probably best if I step off, because I don't think it will go anywhere good by continuing.

And I do concur that it is a great looking piece.

 

[Terrasolo]

God I can't read all of this. Drago, you made a brilliant replica there and your design skills should be appreciated. The RPF was designed to share or show off, you are well within your rights to be proud of your work and show it off. I don't see why any justification of that is needed. This will be my only post on the matter because frankly these sorts of thread aways derail like this and I just can't be bothered to take part in that.