34 replies to this topic

[grc]

Realm, on 29 October 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

Looks just like a little green man to me.

Me too. I was thinking Master Yoda but it's just lens flare.

[scowl]

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.

[coldethyl]

She has a fab camera and she takes ****e pics.

Loser.

[TheLastLazyGun]

scowl, on 29 October 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

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 by TheLastLazyGun, 01 November 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[zenfahr]

Chrlzs, on 27 October 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

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 by zenfahr, 01 November 2012 - 03:22 PM.

[scowl]

TheLastLazyGun, on 01 November 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

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:

Quote

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.

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

Ninhursag, on 28 October 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

Just because he was a policeman and a pilot for 20 years, doesn't mean he's not insane now.

LMAO

[Mnemonix]

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 by Mnemonix, 11 November 2012 - 09:30 AM.

[Chrlzs]

zenfahr, on 01 November 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

So you claim its a hoax.

Yes.  Taking bets?

Quote

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..

Quote

.. 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...

[freetoroam]

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.

[DancingCorpse]

Compelling...ly ridiculous piece of evidence.

[Xedajio]

Lens flare, or for the people that disbelieve the lens flare thing, a glow stick.

[JGirl]

QuiteContrary, on 28 October 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

I'm just confused by the use of  the word "spooky" in the description.

i'm confused by the word 'capture' in the title of this thread.
i was expecting a little green man in a cage or something. kids poking sticks at it - that sort of thing.

[scowl]

The title of the article used the word "captured" but sadly wrote "on camera" after it. I guess the verb "photograph" isn't popular any more, even in Britain.

[coldethyl]

JGirl, on 13 November 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

i'm confused by the word 'capture' in the title of this thread.
i was expecting a little green man in a cage or something. kids poking sticks at it - that sort of thing.

Now THAT I'd pay to see.

Not a lot, but I'd pay something.