Big Bad Voodoo Posted October 27, 2012 #1 Share Posted October 27, 2012 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mystery-as-scots-couple-capture-spooky-1393284 He said: “It looks like a little green man running. It just disperses into the surface of the road. “If you look closely, you can see a head. It’s very surreal. I was a policeman and a pilot for 20 years and have never seen anything like this before.” “I have no idea what it was. We have used the same setting, taken photos in the same location and in different locations and nothing has appeared again. “We have experienced a lot of strange things since we took over the place two years ago so the staff think something spooky had followed me home that night.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted October 27, 2012 #2 Share Posted October 27, 2012 It looks *exactly* like a lens flare to me - it appears to be an internal reflection of the bright light at top right - I'll lay a bet that shape of that light is similar to the flare, and I'd also suspect that it is a fluorescent (I'll give reasons later). I challenge the claimants to show us a daylight shot of that same scene, but including the light, and another identical shot taken from the same spot (same exposure settings, and importantly, same *zoom* setting... I note that this a new camera to them, yet they dismiss lens flare without reason. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangepeaceful79 Posted October 27, 2012 #3 Share Posted October 27, 2012 It looks *exactly* like a lens flare to me - it appears to be an internal reflection of the bright light at top right - I'll lay a bet that shape of that light is similar to the flare, and I'd also suspect that it is a fluorescent (I'll give reasons later). I challenge the claimants to show us a daylight shot of that same scene, but including the light, and another identical shot taken from the same spot (same exposure settings, and importantly, same *zoom* setting... I note that this a new camera to them, yet they dismiss lens flare without reason. My experience with cameras and photography would lead me to the same explanation. Lens flare. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColoradoParanormal Posted October 28, 2012 #4 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Agreed. Lens flare. Even an un-educated individual would be able to surmise this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Topp Posted October 28, 2012 #5 Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Agreed. Lens flare. Even an un-educated individual would be able to surmise this. You haven't gone out much. I have witnessed people pointing at a Goodyear blimp and telling every one that it's a UFO. Edited October 28, 2012 by Brian Topp 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColoradoParanormal Posted October 28, 2012 #6 Share Posted October 28, 2012 You haven't gone out much. I have witnessed people pointing at a Goodyear blimp and telling every one that it's a UFO. lol. This is true. However, being this community, I figured everyone here surely would see this as what it is. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-C Posted October 28, 2012 #7 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I'm just confused by the use of the word "spooky" in the description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_444 Posted October 28, 2012 #8 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I don't see a head. Or legs that make it appear to be "running" either. It looks like a glow stick. Or a lightsaber. Or just boring old lens flare... I'm wondering if it was initially made a by light from one of the camera's settings. Could that be possible? I have a Sony Alpha, but it's an older one and not working properly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted October 28, 2012 #9 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Are there any UK papers that don't print such silliness? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninhursag Posted October 28, 2012 #10 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Just because he was a policeman and a pilot for 20 years, doesn't mean he's not insane now. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastLazyGun Posted October 28, 2012 #11 Share Posted October 28, 2012 You haven't gone out much. I have witnessed people pointing at a Goodyear blimp and telling every one that it's a UFO. If they didn't know what it was then it was, without doubt, a UFO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastLazyGun Posted October 28, 2012 #12 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Are there any UK papers that don't print such silliness? Just because other countries' newspapers print nothing but economic doom and gloom, wars and politics doesn't mean that British newspapers should. Sometimes it's good reading a lighter story for a change. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasina Posted October 28, 2012 #13 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I don't see a head. Or legs that make it appear to be "running" either. It looks like a glow stick. Or a lightsaber. Or just boring old lens flare... I'm wondering if it was initially made a by light from one of the camera's settings. Could that be possible? I have a Sony Alpha, but it's an older one and not working properly. It's the ghost of Luke Skywalker! He is from a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redefining Success Posted October 29, 2012 #14 Share Posted October 29, 2012 To much Buckfast leads to silly assumptions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiloh17 Posted October 29, 2012 #15 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Looks just like a little green man to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grc Posted October 29, 2012 #16 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Looks just like a little green man to me. Me too. I was thinking Master Yoda but it's just lens flare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted October 29, 2012 #17 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Note how the light on the building was cropped out? That's so we wouldn't see it's a vertical light that matches the lens flare it caused. The witness says it looks like "a little green man running"? It's a vertical line! Use your eyes, not your imagination. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldethyl Posted October 30, 2012 #18 Share Posted October 30, 2012 She has a fab camera and she takes ****e pics. Loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastLazyGun Posted November 1, 2012 #19 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) Note how the light on the building was cropped out? That's so we wouldn't see it's a vertical light that matches the lens flare it caused. The witness says it looks like "a little green man running"? It's a vertical line! Use your eyes, not your imagination. It only looks like a vertical line on the photo. But that doesn't necessarily mean that what they actually saw was a vertical green line. Edited November 1, 2012 by TheLastLazyGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenfahr Posted November 1, 2012 #20 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) It looks *exactly* like a lens flare to me - it appears to be an internal reflection of the bright light at top right - I'll lay a bet that shape of that light is similar to the flare, and I'd also suspect that it is a fluorescent (I'll give reasons later). I challenge the claimants to show us a daylight shot of that same scene, but including the light, and another identical shot taken from the same spot (same exposure settings, and importantly, same *zoom* setting... I note that this a new camera to them, yet they dismiss lens flare without reason. So you claim its a hoax. Only problem with your statement ubove, if we take the word of the claiments, is that they saw it first and then took a picture of it. It was not the other way around. Meaning, that like others have in the past, they did not find it later when looking through their pictures. edit for spelling Edited November 1, 2012 by zenfahr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted November 1, 2012 #21 Share Posted November 1, 2012 It only looks like a vertical line on the photo. But that doesn't necessarily mean that what they actually saw was a vertical green line. Please read the article. The witnesses are describing the green line in the photo, not what they were seeing when they took the photo: He said: “It looks like a little green man running. It just disperses into the surface of the road."“If you look closely, you can see a head. It’s very surreal. I was a policeman and a pilot for 20 years and have never seen anything like this before.” The witness is telling us that if we look closely, we can see a head in the photo. No, we see a green line and nothing looks like a head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaperS_ParadoX Posted November 10, 2012 #22 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Just because he was a policeman and a pilot for 20 years, doesn't mean he's not insane now. LMAO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mnemonix Posted November 11, 2012 #23 Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) I don't know what it is, but I'm positive that it can be explained. I don't believe it's a ghost, either. Edited November 11, 2012 by Mnemonix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted November 11, 2012 #24 Share Posted November 11, 2012 So you claim its a hoax. Yes. Taking bets? Only problem with your statement ubove, if we take the word of the claiments Well, there's your problem... Why should we take the word of the claimants, especially after it was simply being re-reported by a website? And even if we do, the human brain is absolutely marvelous at tying stuff together - they see something vague at night, lit by their greenish fluoro light. They then examine the photos they took and hey presto, a lens reflection sorta fits - it won't take more than few minutes 're-remembering' for it to fit *perfectly*. "No wait, yeah, it was skinnier and greener than I first thought, uh-huh... it was just exactly like this thing I captured.." Add that to the fact that they are local publicans - I'm sure an increase in the tourist trade would be a good thing.. Then add that to the fact that there is no follow up story (correct me if I'm wrong..), no willingness to jump onto forums like this, no other pictures of the same scene (despite them claiming to have tried to recreate it..) even though it's their own back yard.. .. that they saw it first and then took a picture of it. It was not the other way around. I'm sorry, but that is not correct. Read the report again, carefully. It is vaguely implied, but at no point did they say they saw it and then snapped a shot. They actually said they were experimenting with the camera when they saw the 'thing'. You'll note that the only references to what it looked like were referring to the image! They didn't say a word about where it went, how it moved.. It just doesn't make sense, if they truly saw it. I'm guessing they saw the 'thing' on their camera's LCD screen and then the story was carefully grown around that... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted November 11, 2012 #25 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Not much left to say here, its not a ghost, its a lens flare....now if they can prove it is not a lens flare, then i may be impressed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now