Debunk this orb!

[Jimi H.]

That was a joke, in case you didn't notice.

I did, but some jokes have a function (sometimes a subconscious function) besides being haha-funny.

It's either a very elaborate, well thought out and executed hoax or it's really something anomalous.

It's not elaborate at all, it's basics. I'm surprised if people haven't ever played with, or considered playing with light efx on cam, when they have an interest in UFOs and such. When I was a kid I wanted to make great 'paintings' in the sky by tying lamps to my steerable kite, because I had noticed the effect many times, from night pictures. If the kite itself wasn't lit, it wouldn't be seen. Likewise, the trick of dressing in dark clothes and keeping contrast up is like the oldest and simplest trick in the book.

BUT, I still see the outline of the arm sweeping the paintbrush in the video, in fact, I thought it was so obvious it didn't need mentioning.

FYI: The guys who are running the show at Hessdalen actually think we're dealing with a natural non-sentient phenomenon, akin to 'Earthquake lights'.

 

[Polterwurst]

FYI: The guys who are running the show at Hessdalen actually think we're dealing with a natural non-sentient phenomenon, akin to 'Earthquake lights'.

Some researchers do, but not "the guys who are runnig the show". Erling Strand who started the scientific study of the phenomenon back in the 80s, has said the lights seem to react intelligently and actively try to avoid being documented on camera.

BUT, I still see the outline of the arm sweeping the paintbrush in the video, in fact, I thought it was so obvious it didn't need mentioning.

I don't see any outline of an arm. And AFAIK no one else did. And experts have examined the original footage, not some compressed version on Youtube. All I see is that you are arguing from your own worldview which doesn't allow for genuinely (as yet) unexplainable phenomena.

It's not elaborate at all, it's basics. I'm surprised if people haven't ever played with, or considered playing with light efx on cam, when they have an interest in UFOs and such. When I was a kid I wanted to make great 'paintings' in the sky by tying lamps to my steerable kite, because I had noticed the effect many times, from night pictures. If the kite itself wasn't lit, it wouldn't be seen. Likewise, the trick of dressing in dark clothes and keeping contrast up is like the oldest and simplest trick in the book.When I was a kid I wanted to make great 'paintings' in the sky by tying lamps to my steerable kite, because I had noticed the effect many times, from night pictures. If the kite itself wasn't lit, it wouldn't be seen. Likewise, the trick of dressing in dark clothes and keeping contrast up is like the oldest and simplest trick in the book.

In the first few seconds you see the unenlarged "orbs" flying around, with the background partly visible. Maybe that effect can be hoaxed by the means Burnt State proposed, but I can't see anything that screams "hoax" there, no one in dark clothes, no arm, no wire. If I remember right, David Biedny was impressed by the footage because the orbs seemed to be moving behind the trees. There isn't much to see of that in this vid, so either there has to be more material or he saw a better version of the video (in the first part there is a moment when the orb seems to disappear behind something that is only visible as a blurry shadow in this Youtube vid). If you have listened to the earlier shows with him, you might have noticed that he tends to examine alleged proof on fotos and videos very closely and won't allow a hoaxer to get away easily.

The enlarged "manoeuver" of the orb is definitely suspicious, and there might be a paintbrush, but with the quality of the image I find that impossible to tell. Maybe, if I saw the original, that would help. Obviously the original has been looked at by experts, but I've heard of none who then pronounced it a hoax.

As I said, having myself experienced things that are being either ignored by mainstream science or declared to be hoaxes or mental problems, and having been suspected to be dishonest about them or making them up, I'm not calling anybody a liar and hoaxer because of a short compressed video. Although I know there is lots of people out there who would probably deserve it.

Thus, if I see UFO I see a UFO, no matter who I'm talking to.

Are you sure about that? Have you ever seen something that you couldn't explain?

 

[Randall]

There's always the Hessdalen lights.

There does seem to be something genuinely mysterious going on there, and in the SLV where Chris is working on setting up his camera project. These seem to be sort of hotspots for strange phenomena.

 

[Wade]

Stupid Question regarding the source of the light. If the substance is especially luminescent and the camera was intended for low light situations could the optics be overridden and maybe ignore or not pick up any darker images in the background that could be more easily edited out?

 

[Jimi H.]

..
I don't see any outline of an arm. And AFAIK no one else did....

Ok, I'm beginning to get a better feel for what the majority of this community is about, that's fine. But do you see a paintbrush in the second part of the video, yes or no?

I am not talking about anything else, the topic is about debunking the specific video in question, do you see a paint-brush, or not?

 

[Jimi H.]

I've been trying to find this for a while now and I have eventually. This is the piece that Biedny said was totally legit and I thought that too. It's also staggering evidence IMO for something weird happening.

What do you think?

Goggs, you're the one asked if anyone could debunk it, do you see the paintbrush in the still I took? Do you also see it in the video now that we know what to look for?

 

[Polterwurst]

But do you see a paintbrush in the second part of the video, yes or no?

As I said several posts ago, no I don't. I see a streak of light extending upwards from a blob of light. With the quality of the video, I can't tell if that's a paintbrush at all. But it might well be. That's why I'd like to see the original uncompressed video.

Ok, I'm beginning to get a better feel for what the majority of this community is about, that's fine.

You proposed a possible explanation, which is what goggs asked for in the thread title. That's fine, too. But your reaction to people who don't accept it as the one and only indisputable truth straight away absolutely isn't, at least with me.
And sorry if you thought this forum was for debunkers only.

Btw:: I asked you a question in my last post, which you totally ignored. But I'm afraid you would explain anything away, even if it happened to you.

 

[Grifynne]

Goggs, you're the one asked if anyone could debunk it, do you see the paintbrush in the still I took? Do you also see it in the video now that we know what to look for?

Ideas are wonderful but man, you are kinda coming across as taking an attack stance against anyone who doesn't immediately fall in line with your theory. Believe it or not there are going to be those who are certain and the fence sitters. And that's a good thing because you could be wrong. I think your confidence isn't a bad thing either, but you really need to back off shoving people's faces in it when they don't agree with you. IS IT OR ISN'T IT A PAINT BRUSH!!?!?!? I'm curious, does it anger you so that people aren't agreeing or are you searching for confirmation from others because you want to be sure yourself?

Either way, just take a deep breath and maybe a listen:

Share your thoughts, your ideas and your opinions but keep in mind no one else is required to agree. And that's ok.

And I am a fence sitter on this one. I can sort of see the paintbrush but it just doesn't move like I think a paintbrush would. And I see no arm, no strings, nothing. Wouldn't throw out the possibility that it is a hoax (or a brush) but I'm not willing to cast my ballot on this one yet. As I stated before, I would love to see additional footage, maybe different perspectives and learn more about the background.

 

[Wade]

I suppose if I had ever seen similiar phenomena such as the Marfa lights or the brown mountain lights or the Hassdelan lights I would be less suspicious, but are uaps known for leaving a tail...like streaking meteor...?I thought they.were a singular ball of light with a defined border.

 

[Jimi H.]

..I'm curious, does it anger you so that people aren't agreeing or are you searching for confirmation from others because you want to be sure yourself?...

Upon seeing the screenshot I took, doesn't that sound just a taaaaaaaad bit ironic? And rather condescending?

I was only being condescending towards the hoaxer until, much to my surprise, I found out people don't acknowledge the evidence, I'm frankly flabbergasted!

Mind you, it's not about what ideas I have, it's about the evidence. Agree? Or ... not?

..
Share your thoughts, your ideas and your opinions but keep in mind no one else is required to agree. And that's ok....

 

[Jimi H.]

..
And sorry if you thought this forum was for debunkers only.

Give me a break. I didn't think this was only for converts who'd seemingly rather fool themselves than have a good laugh about some stupid hoax. I don't get the mentality, sorry, I really don't get it. I thought people would have a good laugh, with me, I didn't know this was like finding the Dead Sea Scrolls or something, I'm really surprised. But I can see that the evidence bothers you, doesn't it?

..
Btw:: I asked you a question in my last post, which you totally ignored. But I'm afraid you would explain anything away, even if it happened to you.

Dude, it's completely irrelevant and off-topic, why is that relevant to this video? What do you want to know about me that would change anything?

Is that screenshot a screenshot of a paintbrush lifted from the glassplate, or not? If you can't see it in the video, maybe the screenshot helps?

 

[Polterwurst]

I was only being condescending towards the hoaxer until, much to my surprise, I found out people don't acknowledge the evidence, I'm frankly flabbergasted!

I noticed.

If Mr. Lee, his wife and (I think) 2 children were fabricating the whole story they told about a haunting in their home, they would have deserved no better than being called hoaxers. But how can you conclude from a single blurry still taken from a single video of bad quality that they hoaxed it?

If that's an arm you are seeing, it seems to me that it's be cut off at the upper end. Holy guacamole! It's the severed arm of a GHOST!!! Don't you see?!?! What, no one believes me? Are you all blind or what?!

Or maybe it's an artifact caused by the bad quality of the film.

You didn't even know the man'sname, nor that these alleged orbs were never thought of as UFO related but belonged to an alleged haunting case. Lots of pictures with smoke-like and orb-like things. Ghostly "faces" in mirrors, that kind of stuff.

Sure it's all about the evidence. So take a look at it. If you don't consider it compelling, welcome to the club.

 

[Jimi H.]

EDIT: I thought he agreed to the paint brush before he edited the above, I wrote that was good, - but I misunderstood, he didn't agree, I had changed the order of my previous post, sorry.

PS: this is becoming fucking ridiculous, sorry.

 

[Polterwurst]

I wrote that before you edited your post. This was the sentence I agreed with:

Mind you, it's not about what ideas I have, it's about the evidence. Agree?

Is that screenshot a screenshot of a paintbrush lifted from the glassplate, or not? If you can't see it in the video, maybe the screenshot helps?

For the third or fourth time, no it isn't. It's a compression-artefact riddled screenshot of a blurry blob with something extending upwards. And the screenshot doesn't help.

Welcome to my Ignore list, btw., I'm not going to have any more of your immature behaviour.

 

[Jimi H.]

Ignoring and 'no-hear-no-see' is certainly one way of dealing with reality, problem solved. Good for him, keeping the faith!

The misunderstanding was an honest mistake though.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I noticed.

If Mr. Lee, his wife and (I think) 2 children were fabricating the whole story they told about a haunting in their home, they would have deserved no better than being called hoaxers. But how can you conclude from a single blurry still taken from a single video of bad quality that they hoaxed it?

If that's an arm you are seeing, it seems to me that it's be cut off at the upper end. Holy guacamole! It's the severed arm of a GHOST!!! Don't you see?!?! What, no one believes me? Are you all blind or what?!

Or maybe it's an artifact caused by the bad quality of the film.

You didn't even know the man'sname, nor that these alleged orbs were never thought of as UFO related but belonged to an alleged haunting case. Lots of pictures with smoke-like and orb-like things. Ghostly "faces" in mirrors, that kind of stuff.

Sure it's all about the evidence. So take a look at it. If you don't consider it compelling, welcome to the club.

It's not uncommon for a whole family to hoax - look at Amityville.

 

[Grifynne]

It's not uncommon for a whole family to hoax - look at Amityville.

Is it not uncommon or not unheard of? I'm not saying I disagree, I'm genuinely asking: how often do entire families get involved in hoaxes and, when they do, how often is it that they are able to pull it off for any length of time? I imagine that the more people involved the greater the chance of being found out.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Is it not uncommon or not unheard of? I'm not saying I disagree, I'm genuinely asking: how often do entire families get involved in hoaxes and, when they do, how often is it that they are able to pull it off for any length of time? I imagine that the more people involved the greater the chance of being found out.

You're right, unheard of is a better word to use.

 

[Polterwurst]

A few years ago, we had a guy here in Germany who said he was experiencing a haunting with his wife and two kids in his apartment. I already found it interesting that he first thing he obviously did was to go to a TV station. When they sent an interviewer and camera team, the kids were with them in the room at first, but suddenly the husband went something like "we have to spare the children the pain of remembering this" and sent them out of the room. Totally mindful and selfless of him. It was painfully obvious that what he was really fearing was that the kids would give away the hoax (which by then I was quite convinced of because he was obviously trying to lead the interviewer and putting on a very "mystic" air). Of course, he wrote a book about their "haunting" afterwards but I doubt he sold many volumes. No one in their right mind believed him. He didn't have photographic or filmed "evidence" though, as far as I remember, just stories about furniture moving on its own, books falling from shelves etc. I bet, if he had tried a few years later, there would be lots of orb fotos.

In the Steve Lee case, I only got to see a fragment of the "Sightings" TV show, which they sent their material to (that being the main reason why I got suspicious). There is a short scene in which the kids tell of shadows and voices in their bedroom. They seem to be honest and it seems to me that the parents didn't have any second thoughts about them being on camera. But for all I know, they might have had some old hag going on which the the parents then turned into a haunting. Or maybe I'm doing them wrong. It's just that the shere scale of the haunting-type phenomena (at least 20 "spirits" alleged by one psychic and a "vortex" or "portal" alleged by another) seems like something from a "Poltergeist" movie script. If it was a hoax it was much more elaborate than the german one.

Having written all that, there is a scientist here in Germany, Dr Walter von Lucadou who says that some hauntings are genuine, as yet unexplained phenomena. He is really the antithesis of a charlatan, absolutely honest and a real scientist (physics and psychology doctorate) and if he says there is something to this, I tend towards believing him.

 

[Grifynne]

A few years ago, we had a guy here in Germany who said he was experiencing a haunting with his wife and two kids in his apartment. I already found it interesting that he first thing he obviously did was to go to a TV station. When they sent an interviewer and camera team, the kids were with them in the room at first, but suddenly the husband went something like "we have to spare the children the pain of remembering this" and sent them out of the room. Totally mindful and selfless of him. It was painfully obvious that what he was really fearing was that the kids would give away the hoax (which by then I was quite convinced of because he was obviously trying to lead the interviewer and putting on a very "mystic" air). Of course, he wrote a book about their "haunting" afterwards but I doubt he sold many volumes. No one in their right mind believed him. He didn't have photographic or filmed "evidence" though, as far as I remember, just stories about furniture moving on its own, books falling from shelves etc. I bet, if he had tried a few years later, there would be lots of orb fotos.

In the Steve Lee case, I only got to see a fragment of the "Sightings" TV show, which they sent their material to (that being the main reason why I got suspicious). There is a short scene in which the kids tell of shadows and voices in their bedroom. They seem to be honest and it seems to me that the parents didn't have any second thoughts about them being on camera. But for all I know, they might have had some old hag going on which the the parents then turned into a haunting. Or maybe I'm doing them wrong. It's just that the shere scale of the haunting-type phenomena (at least 20 "spirits" alleged by one psychic and a "vortex" or "portel alleged by another) seems like something from a "Poltergeist" movie script. If it was a hoax it was much more elaborate than the beformentioned one.

Having written all that, there is a scientist here in Germany, Dr Walter von Lucadou who says that some hauntings are genuine phenomena. He is really the antithesis of a charlatan, a real scientists (physics and psychology doctor) and if he says there is something to this, I tend towards believing him.

I imagine that children would be the weakest link in a hoax. Not that it's impossible, but I think that should be taken into consideration when young family members are interviewed after strange incidents (especially if the interviews are conducted without the parents in the room or in view - if they even do it that way).

It's also possible that something could go on and someone, who maybe likes the attention or thinks they can earn a buck, might 'further' the strangeness by fabricating supplemental evidence/stories. But, based on the little I know, it sounds like there are many curious elements that should be considered in this situation (I mean beyond the fact that the faint shape of a paint brush may or may not be noticed in one very brief clip).

It is suspect that they sent the video to the TV show rather than looking for help elsewhere first. On the other hand, I don't know the Lee's background and whether or not they would know where they could go for help. Maybe they saw the show and it seemed like the only promising option (since you frequently hear about police and other authorities ridiculing people who report UFO/paranormal events). Some people are naive.