Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Big Bad Voodoo

Couple capture spooky green figure on camera

35 posts in this topic

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.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Lens flare. Even an un-educated individual would be able to surmise this.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Brian Topp
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :hmm:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any UK papers that don't print such silliness?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :hmm:

It's the ghost of Luke Skywalker! He is from a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To much Buckfast leads to silly assumptions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks just like a little green man to me. :rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks just like a little green man to me. :rolleyes:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

LMAO

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.