CGI Videos in Social Media Passed Off as Real

This is a funny topic, and not in a ha-ha sense. It’s downright strange and I hope to get lots of talk in the comments section on why they are doing this (from real posters, preferably).

Let’s start with this video that has been all over social media lately and reported by CNN. Note that it’s 47 seconds long.


For those that didn’t catch it, he’s standing in front of a green screen and punching a CGI kangaroo. Maybe my September Clues days have sharpened me up, but I saw it immediately. I’d also like someone to tell me what video camera they were using to record this when every smartphone in the world takes high quality footage. Below is the screenshot from the Youtube search, how did they get such a high quality shot from such a poor video?


So what’s the psyop here? Conflict between humans and animals? Humans acting like animals? Animals acting like humans? Gender conflict with a muscular kangaroo holding a bitch (dog) in a headlock?

If you read the comments on Facebook on a viral video there will almost always be a debate or argument in the comments. The highest voted comment (usually with fake upvotes) will sound something like “To all of those saying he shouldn’t have punched the kangaroo, you obviously have no idea……blah blah…”. The goal is to create divide on every issue. Every time I click on the comments, I always regret it as I get a tinge of frustration.

The other point is that the comments automatically accept the legitimacy of the video. Nobody is questioning if it is real, they just accept the notion that it is. Now you see part of the goal of the recent “fake news” scandal. If it’s fake, they will expose it because the media is the 5th estate and you can trust the big guys.

Then there is this video from a few months ago of a panda pooping on another panda.


You can tell from the choppy movements and the zooming of the camera that this is fake too. I’m not sure if it’s CGI or if they just edited in one real pooping panda into a shot of another sleeping panda, all I know is that it’s not real. If you haven’t been following pop culture the last 1-2 years, panda has been used very often in music videos (“Panda” being a top rap single this summer) and in clothing and set design. The panda represents black and white and the racial divide. Every time you see a panda, it is a subconscious reminder of our differences and our conflicts. From that point of view you can understand the symbolism of one panda pooping on another panda.

Around the time of the Orlando shooting hoax we had the story of the two year old boy being eaten by an alligator in Florida. Shortly before or after the story, this video appeared and was trumpeted by the mainstream media:


Another CGI creation, even the narration sounds fake and done in a studio. Obvious in my opinion, but still treated as real by most of the public and given legitimacy by CNN. But it’s not CNN alone that gives this video credit, websites like Snopes and other “fact checkers” say that it is real.

Of course Snopes would tell the truth if it was fake, right?

The veil is getting very, very thin.

41 thoughts on “CGI Videos in Social Media Passed Off as Real

  1. I trust that people can see with their own eyes that something is off in the videos. For those that don’t, keep an eye on how the animals or people seem out of place with the background. The texture and lighting feels off, and it feels rendered.

    The kangaroo in the video looks like a video game character in that way he moves. The man’s behavior also does not feel realistic, and not just the punch but in that way he squares up the kangaroo. That is the way you square up to another man, not a strong animal who attacks using it’s dangerous feet.


  2. I’m more of a behaviorist than forensics analyst but I would think that “Roo would have leaned back on its tail and shoved both feet through that oaf before he could clench his fist, breaking his ribs and puncturing both lungs- And how stupid is that dog? Was it his first day in the outback? I always go after the scriptwriters first, but I’m glad some folks can see the stitches and glue on these things- Good one, Straight..


    1. Thanks Tyrone,
      The panda video looks like it was shot by Paul Greengrass. Was someone sitting around waiting for it and had to adjust his camera three times to get the money shot?


  3. I have seen alligators. They are dangerous but do not walk across landscape like John Wayne. They do not dissolve. This is all weird.

    Here is a photo from a FB friend:


    As I looked I could only think that it took a lot more effort to fool us in 1964 than 2016. There is nothing going on in the lower photo. People are standing around. It could be Birmingham or Anchorage, a bonfire event. Standing Rock was a hoax, I know it. I just don’t think I have the energy to dig into it.

    Nice work, Straight.


    1. You are a disinformation outlet! I was at Standing Rock. It is real, and the water cannon event happened. You may choose to live in a fact-free unreality zone, but it is obvious you are working for somebody to deflect attention to certain issues.

      Look at this video, I was present when it was taken, and provided support to those who were abused and injured.


      1. Whatever. Why aren’t you still there? Do you have any idea how many gays claim to have been at the Pulse nightclub fake shooting? LOL


      2. The water cannot appears not to affect people much, doesn’t knock them down, force them to move. That whole film, shot from helicopter?, has a CGI feel about it. I did not say the event did not happen, only that people are just standing around, unaffected by it. It is not a big deal.

        I operate in the premise that all news is fake until shown to be true. So far, standing Rock looks to me to be a made-for-TV event.


        1. Also, even if the event did “happen,” there may be a bunch of Intel types or even just paid actors. March around, get sprayed with water, get a few hundred bucks a day. No big whoop. I also have a friend in the area who proudly posted on facebook that he drove by there and handed out food and supplies, etc. HE may even be Intel for all I know. But just as likely, there IS a real event there with real people and it’s just real enough that there are even people willing to take the supplies. Heck, some minority of them may even be true believers! But at it’s core, this is a media event. There’s almost no population up there. This is for the cameras.


          1. On the other hand….why are you guys even bothering to post about kangaroo and alligator videos? Yes, video fakery is easy and widespread. And you do have a point that the media latched right on to these two examples. But a lot of this kind of stuff is all over youtube every day with no “Intelligence” purpose–the tech is widely available to all. And focusing roos and gators probably isn’t going to “wake up” anyone or hasten a better world! Shouldn’t you stay just a liitle bit closer to the bulls eye?


            1. What is everybody’s attachment to POM “focusing on the big stuff”? Nobody stops you from blogging yourself.

              In my opinion, this IS big stuff. Subconcscious psyops pushing “big” stuff like gender conflict, breakup of the family, racial conflict, etc. Stuff that affects every single one of us on a daily basis, unlike pizzagate or even the presidential election.

              Look, I’m sorry we don’t focus on the conspiracy paths you want us to focus on to make your job easier, but if you can’t handle us going all over the place then ask your superior to reassign you to Reddit posting or something, it’s only going to get worse from here.

              Liked by 1 person

          2. Exactly. Just like here in Baltimore there was some truth to the rioting 2 years ago. You bring in a few agitators (including Geraldo Rivera) and then add about 100 or more crisis actors and of course some of the ghetto folk will jump right in the fray!


          3. For the cameras, indeed- All you have to say is “Native American sacred ground” and a certain segment of the population will smother themselves in white guilt- It would never occur to them that some Injuns back in the day were in the cavalry’s back pocket or more than willing to cede ground for a longer life span than the brutal country life could offer- Just like the Pharisees in Judea were all paid agents of Rome- Or was it the Sadducees? Can never keep them straight-
            Yes, there were unforgivable abuses by the army towards the natives, I’m sure, but when has an army ever been composed strictly of gentlemen? Volunteering is still the best way out of a prison sentence, I’ll wager-


      3. I believe there are likely real people really there doing things they really think are really good. The water cannons are obviously not meant to physically push people away or something like that. They appear to be aimed at making people soaking wet in the freeezing cold as a tactic to get them to disburse. And I admire you all for standing your ground and persevering. However, I agree with Miles’s argument that there is something manufactured (hyped) about the whole DAPL protests. And I will share here something I wrote to him after he published his comments on current events (

        “I tend to agree with you that the DAPL is a psyop. I’m not sure whether it’s hoaxed through and through, but I agree the whole thing smells manufactured. One of the things that really hammered this home for me was the realization that there appear to be strong financial incentives for the failure of the pipeline. I saw this in this video here:

        “Let’s ignore for now who this woman is and overlook that it’s a Young Turks video and assume for the moment that what she’s saying in the video is accurate. She says basically that in 2014 when the price of Oil was much higher than it is now, Oil shipping companies signed contracts for delivery of oil through the DAPL. Those contracts expire at the end of 2016 if not met. But it seems that the Bakken field is not as prodigious as initially thought and is not capable of producing more oil per day than is already produced (at least in the next few years). Meanwhile all the oil that is currently being produced is already being shipped through another pipeline and by other means. So the DAPL is not needed. Not only that, it is in the best interests of the people who signed contracts to pay for delivery of the oil to let the contracts expire so they can be re-negotiated at current prices or canceled altogether. So although the companies that built or invested in the pipeline may lose money, there are plenty of companies that will see a huge benefit if the DAPL doesn’t go through. It would be interesting to know more about those companies and who they’re connected to. But to put it simply, there appear to be huge financial interests that stand to gain by the pipeline’s failure. I would also not be surprised if the investors in DAPL have something to gain. Perhaps if the pipeline fails they will be able to get insurance money or tax writeoffs that allow them to earn more (or lose less) than whatever they would get with an unnecessary pipeline. It would not surprise me in the least.

        “So, it would appear that this whole controversy was ginned up because the fate of DAPL was never really in question. What a perfect opportunity then to mount a psyop. Make the people feel like there was a real victory. Or, if one wanted to be charitable and give some credence to their actions, one could say that the protesters were used to allow some moneyed interests to prevail over other moneyed interests (assuming there is any conflict of financial incentives here). But I’m pretty sure they’re just being used for appearances. (Assuming there are real people out there in standing rock at all.) It could of course be that none of what she says in the video is true.

        “One more thing: guess where the Dakota Access Pipeline starts? Stanley, ND.,_North_Dakota

        “Under “notable people” is listed one person who was “killed” in 9/11 attacks.”

        [For those who don’t understand why Stanley raises a red flag, it’s because MM has shown that Stanley is the name of a family that has been deeply involved in intelligence, see for example the post here on John Lennon or MM’s paper on Lennon and on Obama.]


  4. This is the Pulitzer Prize winning photo from the Kent State hoax of 1970- The students seem to be the last to know as they stroll to class- But then that dummy seems to have been placed there a couple of hours earlier so what’s to get excited about?


    1. The Kent State event surely deserves a thorough examination.
      Here’s an interesting shot taken just seconds prior to the above Pulitzer Prize photo.
      We see “Mary Ann Vecchio” entering the scene, stage right, ready for her iconic moment.

      A couple of observations:
      “Vecchio” means “old” in Italian. Mary Ann was supposed to be 14(!) years old in that photo. The woman screaming in the iconic photo looks much older than 14 to me.
      The guy in tight jeans guy is in both shots, but seems disinterested in one. In the other, he looks like he is directing people.
      In the earlier shot, there is a heavy-set guy in the foreground, as well as a white shirted woman screaming. They are absent, just seconds later, replaced by the guy with the tasseled jacket.
      The other people milling about seem unaffected/unaware that anything has happened. Perhaps it happened so quickly, most people hadn’t noticed?
      Well, consider the blood on the ground. It had already ran what appears to be about ten feet away, in a nice little stream. How long would it take for that to happen? Certainly more than a couple of seconds, it seems.
      Another observation that catches my eye. What is the hazy, white, horizontal line that runs across the background of the photo? Could it be the indication of some sort of barrier, or temporary fence that is keeping the staging area free from people not in the scene?
      Also, in general, the background looks substantially less populated in the iconic shot, than the one taken just seconds earlier.
      Now, a bonus photo, seemingly taken earlier in the day.
      The shot is focused on Terry Norman (guy in gasmask), who was supposedly a student at Kent State, but also was alleged to be taking pictures for the FBI that day.
      In the background, is our friend Mary Ann Vecchio, standing next to a bearded guy. She appears to be about to put on the white scarf that she is wearing in the iconic shot.


      1. What she’s doing is termed “propping up”- A featured actor in a scene will don a hat or wrist watch or, in this case, a scarf in preperation for the scene about to be staged- The guys with the mask and scarf over the mouth are already propped up, just waiting for their cue-


      2. Almost everything they do has a deeper meaning. Notice the scarf she is wearing in the iconic photo is shaped like a white ribbon. Like a pink ribbon meaning breast cancer awareness, a white ribbon symbolized motherhood and anti-violence against women.

        An older looking female student wearing a white ribbon representing motherhood, crying out over a young dead male rings very similar to mothers crying out over the deaths of their soldier sons overseas. It adds a stronger touch of emotion, double the bang for the buck. That strong emotion is what keeps us from asking the questions you are asking. Like a magician misdirecting you while hiding the card under the table. Her being 14 years old adds an odd you know what angle to it.


        1. Supposedly, Mary Ann Vecchio was a runaway teen, that just happened to be at the protest that day, not a student at all.
          She also was said to have befriended two of the people who were shot at the “massacre,” having met them just hours earlier.


          1. It saves time from actually having to register her as a student and having her go to class and make friends.


        2. The iconic image of Vecchio with arms spread over a dead body, along with the stated age of 14 likely is in reference to the Pietà, the image of Mary holding the dead body of Christ- 14 is the generally agreed on age range for her conception of Jesus-


          1. Right on. You’re exactly right. “Old Mary Ann” is crying over Christ, with the white ribbon tying to mothers crying over their dead sons in Vietnam.


      3. Nice work, Brandon – the missing people in the background for the Famous Photo scene is a big tell – Vecchio was running there in your photo, and is nine or tens hurried steps away from her iconic moment, and in that amount of time maybe thirty people managed to exit the field? I think we are looking at an earlier or later take.

        And, even in 1970 I am under the impression that emergency personnel were on hand to tend to victims of accidents and in this case, a person suffering a gun shot wound. Even if they think the victim is dead, their code of ethics requires that they perform all humanly possible measures to save the life. Instead, people just stand and watch.

        I would bet she was told to wear the white bandanna around her neck so that the photographers knew to look for her.


        1. Thanks Mark,
          Yes, it defies belief that so many different people would enter/exit the shot in a matter of a few seconds.
          As far as your comments on people responding to try to help/save the victim. Well, I guess it was fortunate for the photographer that the only person who responded was 14 year old, Mary, and he was in position to take a Pulitzer Prize winning photograph, without any good Samaritans or first responders getting in the way!

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Interesting. I’m not on Facebook. I think there are 17 of us over the age of 15. I actually have a category that I call Facebook conspiracy theorists. Now we know why it really exists.

    I’m a bit of an expert on reptiles. For what it’s worth and for the safety of some, alligators are not naturally aggressive like crocodiles. If you hear or see of an alligator attack, it’s in area where people are feeding them. Be very wary of an alligator that appears tame!


  6. After watching the 47 second video you posted, I clicked it in the related videos, and got a version with much better quality which is just under 2 minutes. It shows more of the roo and dog fighting. Looks like it’s from a TV show based on the narration. Would fool me…


    1. Good call, thanks Phil.

      The narration is so fake it boggles my mind people take this at face value. The dog appears real. In my opinion they shot this with a guy in a kangaroo suit and then pasted in a CGI kangaroo.

      Watch the kangaroo’s stomach area to see the weird rendering. It seems off with the background and I can’t get over the weird human-like behavior of the kangaroo and the strange behavior of the man I mentioned earlier that actually turned away from the kangaroo as it was standing there. The punch happens at 33 seconds by the way.


      1. Yeah – I got it now. Watch the guy’s feet as he runs toward the scene, you’ll see a clump of grass dissolve and reappear as he passes through it. The entire scene is a green screen.


  7. I’ve been observing Facebook animal videos closely and I now believe that a majority of them are CGI, including the innocent puppy and kitten videos.

    The obvious question is “why?”. And that is a very good question. I believe the goal is to get our subconscious to start accepting the idea of CGI/slightly robotic animals as pets. Just like they have successfully redirected the mothering instinct of many women from babies to small dogs (that they carry around in their arms, purses, and baby strollers), they want to redirect our pet instincts from real animals to robot animals.

    I believe the purpose is preparing us for fake animals with no empathy (transhumanist agenda) that make us feel lonely in a future world where families, relationships, and intimacy is minimal.



          “The Tamagotchi effect is the development of emotional attachment with machines, robots or software agents. It has been noticed that humans tend to attach emotionally to things which otherwise do not have any emotions. For example, there are instances when people feel emotional about using their car keys, or with virtual pets. It is more visible in fields which reflect some aspects of human behavior, especially levels of artificial intelligence and automated knowledge processing.”


        2. Yeah, I remember the girls in the office I worked in at that time thought it was fun. I could not fathom how such a thing was in the least bit entertaining or interesting. They were supposed to feed it or do certain things at certain times – crazy.


  8. Straight,
    Your robot animal theory reminds me of Phillip K. Dick’s, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
    The emotional attachment to robotic animals was a huge part of the book. Not to mention the social status that came with owning one.
    Interestingly, that entire theme was taken out of the story when it was adapted into the movie Blade Runner.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s