• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Tall Being Photographed

Free episodes:

Forums New posts
skunkape said:
This is an interesting series of shots of a possible UFO and beings, one nearly 20 foot tall!, near a crop circle.

UFO`s and Tall beings at Marinsell Hill 2009

I couldn't help but think of the Flatwoods monster.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Click to expand...

This is 2009? I'd like to believe the story, but I have serious doubts about their authenticity...

Look at all the pictures with the tall "beings" in them. They're terrible. They're 1MP and more blurry and shaky than the photos my 90-year-old grandma takes at Christmas.

Then scroll down. Perfect, crisp, sharp, 2+MP images of him with the barn to show scale. Conveniently he learns how to use a camera the moment the "beings" are gone.

Why would he show degraded, pixelated, out of focus shots for the actual images and then have HQ images of the barn? He has nothing he's trying to obscure in the barn. Maybe he can't help the blurriness but to lower the resolution on only the images important to identifying the "beings" in mighty suspicious.
 
Awfully hard to tell what exactly was photographed. The "craft" looked like a camouflaged CH-46 Helicopter to me. The "alien" seemed like an amorphous blob for the most part.

I'm not discounting what it "may" have been, nor will I speculate upon the veracity and authenticity of the photos, I can only say that I have NO IDEA what it was.
 
When I said "interesting," I didn't mean that I actually believe it is a photo of what it claims to be. I just meant interesting. There are many angles from which to dissect it.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
This is what it reminded me of.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 

Attachments

  • Flatwoods Monster Front Cover (B).jpg
    Flatwoods Monster Front Cover (B).jpg
    48.1 KB · Views: 72
LOL that actually looks a lot like them.

The pictures are so blobby they could be square bails of hay with a big balloon tied to the top.
 
ZombieOctopus said:
Why would he show degraded, pixelated, out of focus shots for the actual images and then have HQ images of the barn? He has nothing he's trying to obscure in the barn. Maybe he can't help the blurriness but to lower the resolution on only the images important to identifying the "beings" in mighty suspicious.
Click to expand...

The reason the images are pixellated is because they are zooms. He has obviously taken every photo from the same location as the first clear photo he has of the barn. Then each subsequent photo is from that same spot.

He makes a mistake in not including a single un-zoomed image of the alleged "being and craft" (gimme a bread).

Not saying I buy a word of it, but I dont think you can claim he obfuscated the images on purpose.
 
The so-called being looks like a large, inflatable figure. As for the 'craft' - could be anything from garbage to a tree-house. Some people see what they want to see, and this could well be an example of self-deception, if not a deliberate hoax.
 
Gareth said:
The reason the images are pixellated is because they are zooms. He has obviously taken every photo from the same location as the first clear photo he has of the barn. Then each subsequent photo is from that same spot.

He makes a mistake in not including a single un-zoomed image of the alleged "being and craft" (gimme a bread).

Not saying I buy a word of it, but I dont think you can claim he obfuscated the images on purpose.
Click to expand...

I know those are zooms. I'm speaking of the initial panorama and one above it which are still 1MP full frame. I'd suspect he zoomed in on pictures of the same quality since I can't imagine someone flipping through quality settings between shots of the same scene.

I mean sure, it's possible he flashes the firmware between shots for all we know but like so many other UFO/paranormal images, there's always something that just doesn't add up.
 
ZombieOctopus said:
This is 2009? I'd like to believe the story, but I have serious doubts about their authenticity...

Look at all the pictures with the tall "beings" in them. They're terrible. They're 1MP and more blurry and shaky than the photos my 90-year-old grandma takes at Christmas.

Then scroll down. Perfect, crisp, sharp, 2+MP images of him with the barn to show scale. Conveniently he learns how to use a camera the moment the "beings" are gone.

Why would he show degraded, pixelated, out of focus shots for the actual images and then have HQ images of the barn? He has nothing he's trying to obscure in the barn. Maybe he can't help the blurriness but to lower the resolution on only the images important to identifying the "beings" in mighty suspicious.
Click to expand...

not that I entirely disagree with you, but it could be that he was shaking his hands when taking the pictures due to nervousness or excitement, and he could be taking the pictures of the barn with a tripod because he was prepared to take pictures at that time, whereas as before he was rushing to get pictures due to not knowing how long the phenomenon would be around. Just a thought.

I know if I were taking a picture of 20' tall aliens and a space craft I'd be shaking like a leaf, and with me shitty camera, well, we woulda had another fine example of a blobsquatch, even if it truly was a 20' alien.
 
methshin said:
not that I entirely disagree with you, but it could be that he was shaking his hands when taking the pictures due to nervousness or excitement, and he could be taking the pictures of the barn with a tripod because he was prepared to take pictures at that time, whereas as before he was rushing to get pictures due to not knowing how long the phenomenon would be around. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
The camera was set to automatically snap a rapid series of shots, this may have caused the camera by default to switch to a lower resolution. I don't think the guy actually saw the "being", just a flash of light.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
skunkape said:
The camera was set to automatically snap a rapid series of shots, this may have caused the camera by default to switch to a lower resolution. I don't think the guy actually saw the "being", just a flash of light.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Click to expand...

I don't think that he actually saw a being there, I was just putting forth a possible explanation to the graininess of the photos.
 
If you're standing in a field, taking photos of static crop formations, you're going to use the best possible settings. He's not though, the photos that are decent are the ones of the outside of the barn and of the orbs where nothing is happening, demonstrating his camera is capable of taking such photos when he wants.

The first couple photos are not done in bursts, it's just scenery he was shooting which was why he increased the frame size.

Even better, the fact that he has a burst setting on his camera shows it's not a budget, pocket camera. So why is he even trying to pass off these crappy photos if he can give us so much better?

If he didn't actually see the beings there, I can't even fathom why he would use burst on an empty field knowing that the pictures would all be terrible.

There's always a convenient story to fill in all the problems. To me, if the photos can't stand on their own without numerous people interjecting their reasoning into all the problems, they're fake, easy as that.
 
ZombieOctopus;72177To me said:
Replace "they are" with "they are likely" or "they may be" and I'll go with you.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top