Debunk this orb!

[Jimi H.]

Children will basically do anything their parents tell them to, and the values of the parents are almost invariably very similar with the children. When kids grow up, some will rebel, but core values almost always run in families. If the willingness to deceive others is taught by the parents, the children will do it too. It's the same reason crime runs in families. Some of the best known criminal organizations have been family organizations.

On the other hand, perhaps the parents in question were prepared to deceive their own children, perhaps finding it funny, or wanting to teach them about evil beings, who knows? Getting children scared is terribly easy, and if their parents said it was floating orbs, any flickering light outside their window would later be described with utmost sincerity as being floating orbs.

Thus, the evidence is crucial.

 

[Grifynne]

Children will basically do anything their parents tell them to, and the values of the parents are almost invariably very similar with the children. When kids grow up, some will rebel, but core values almost always run in families. If the willingness to deceive others is taught by the parents, the children will do it too. It's the same reason crime runs in families. Some of the best known criminal organizations have been family organizations.

On the other hand, perhaps the parents in question were prepared to deceive their own children, perhaps finding it funny, or wanting to teach them about evil beings, who knows? Getting children scared is terribly easy, and if their parents said it was floating orbs, any flickering light outside their window would later be described with utmost sincerity as being floating orbs.

Thus, the evidence is crucial.

Yes, but kids don't always know when they are saying something they shouldn't. They aren't masterminding the hoax and may not understand why they should or shouldn't say something. Plus my guess is that their verbal cue and body language might give something away. That's why it's much harder to get them to collaborate on a hoax. Ya, you can coach them to respond a certain way but that might not stop them from saying "mommy said that's an orb outside my window!" or "daddy showed me that light!" or other more obvious comments that would hint at something behind the scenes going on or something initiated by their parents.

Evidence is crucial but I think a well-rounded approach is important considering how strange and sometimes elusive this stuff can be.

 

[Jimi H.]

..
Evidence is crucial but I think a well-rounded approach is important considering how strange and sometimes elusive this stuff can be.

I'm not sure how to respond to that, if there is evidence available, why the 'but'? You mean, if the evidence is unverifiable? In that case, of course, then the case hasn't been solved.

In the present case, anyone can press 'pause' at a specific time and verify the evidence for themselves, from the film itself. Not only is it clearly a brush, it corresponds exactly to the position in space where it should be in relation to the 'blob', its movement corresponds exactly to the flick of a human wrist, which I sensed before seeing the actual brush. Basically, at that point, that's all that matters to me. I'm not going to treat it in a well-rounded manner at that point.

 

[Elendil]

Hey ppl, I kinda remember seeing this video in color. Some time ago, someone posted it on the forum. I tried to search for it a couple of months ago, found the thread but the YouTube video was unavailable. Has anyone else seen it in color or I am suffering from a bad case of bad memory?

 

[Grifynne]

Hey ppl, I kinda remember seeing this video in color. Some time ago, someone posted it on the forum. I tried to search for it a couple of months ago, found the thread but the YouTube video was unavailable. Has anyone else seen it in color or I am suffering from a bad case of bad memory?

I haven't but if you find it in color, please share.

 

[Grifynne]

I'm not sure how to respond to that, if there is evidence available, why the 'but'? You mean, if the evidence is unverifiable? In that case, of course, then the case hasn't been solved.

As far as I am concerned, the evidence is unverifiable. I am not convinced by the paint brush theory. If you watch the video, the part that - to my understanding - is being called a handle appears to be formed rather than having existed throughout the entire clip. Whatever it is seems to draw back, forming a tendril that loops around to briefly create the shape of a (somewhat thick and cartoonish) brush handle.

The substance doesn't move like I think paint would. It pulls into itself and it's trail seems much too clean. And if you look at the front of the large solid orb portion (before it zooms downward) you have to assume that it must be pressed against something to create the tail tendrils. The problem is that the tail tendrils are much smaller than the width of the alleged brush. The stroke should be much wider. Maybe you could trim the bristles down at an angle, but I think if this was done you would see more bristle patterns along the front and sides or the bulk of the "orb" would be smaller or it would be very awkwardly shaped rather than forming a relatively thick circular pattern. Plus trimmed bristles would likely leave behind messy droplets.

And when it moves, you see it pull back, loop over and head down. If you watch, you can make out an almost solid shape (created by the sudden back and down looping motion of the main mass). Yes, I realize you might see that from paint on a brush (or some other oozing type material) but if you notice, the shape remains even after the bulk of the main mass (what would have to be the bristles) has passed over it. If this was paint for example, that would not have held its shape. It would have been smeared and would leave a smear trail all the way down.

And, if this was just light reflecting off of something intentionally, then wouldn't the brush handle that you insist is very clearly visible also be reflected and appear as part of the mass? The middle should reflect as well if it is solid, so we should see a big white arm for at least part of the clip while the brush is preparing to make its descent. Instead the middle is black, as if it is hollow (meaning there is no handle there).

Finally, the object moves like a single mass pulling itself together. You get the sense that it is some what solid but still made of a set amount of mass because it literally pulls itself back down. Paint doesn't really collect itself. It might shrink and thin out and smear, but I think that this substance is not messy enough and a little too orderly to be something on a brush.

And, as was mentioned, there is the issue of no visible arm, string or other support that would be needed to hold and guide the brush (which would be a tricky task if one end was weighted down with wet paint or some other thick liquid).

I could be wrong and I'm not 100% convinced there isn't a hoax behind this yet. This is just my uneducated opinion but it is for these reasons that I am reluctant to jump on the bandwagon made of paintbrushes.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

In this case, it wasn't just a family that had problems at that locale.

A Colorado State Senator named Duke also went to the house to investigate and took several photos. He reported that he initially saw nothing but that several strange lights appeared once he had the film developed. Other investigators have been to the house and reported "strange" happenings. Steve Lee has reportedly spent more than $70K on equipment in order to investigate whatever was going on at this house.

Considering all of these facts, my conclusions are:

1. A hoax is somewhat unlikely, though not impossible. It does raise doubts that so many various people, including a state politician, would perpetuate a hoax. It also seems doubtful a man would (allegedly) spend such a fortune on equipment when it's almost impossible he would regain that money from telling his story.
2. We don't have enough information to determine if this is something unusual or something that's perfectly normal, even if it looks odd to the untrained eye.
3. I honestly don't know what to think.

Criticizing people for not seeing a paintbrush in one frame of one image is akin to criticizing someone who doesn't see a face in the clouds. Our minds are conditioned to "see" things we recognize, even when those things are nothing more than illusions. Seeing a face in the clouds doesn't mean there's truly a face in the clouds, nor does it mean someone has tampered with a photo or video when we are certain we see a face in the clouds. Scientifically-minded people know this. We'll also look at all the evidence and are willing to admit there are times when the evidence is conclusive of absolutely nothing.

Any person who thinks we should each suspend critical thought, ignore the entire story and focus on one interpretation of one frame of one image isn't scientifically-minded and certainly isn't a skeptic. A true skeptic is willing to admit that there isn't enough information to draw solid conclusions. A troll will insist this means we're assuming something is paranormal, even when we clearly state otherwise. Only a very pathetic man would set up straw men to win arguments against invisible foes.

 

[Jimi H.]

..

I could be wrong and I'm not 100% convinced there isn't a hoax behind this yet. This is just my uneducated opinion but it is for these reasons that I am reluctant to jump on the bandwagon made of paintbrushes.

Verifying it further won't hurt, and I'd be happy to hear what you find. Personally, I'm satisfied it's a hoax.

The paint-tail was a bit odd, but the brush sucks up the paint that is trailing, making it look like the trailing paint is fading. And just as the tail is sucked up, the hoaxer flicks the wrist. Consider that the scale of objects in the image is much smaller than the hoax suggests, we're not looking at gallons of paint, more like a single dip of the brush, so the brush can suck it up. That's how I see it anyways.

..Only a very pathetic man would set up straw men to win arguments against invisible foes.

Only an irrational woman with would write something like this. Are we done with this level of stupidity and immaturity now? I know I'd prefer it if we were?

 

[Randall]

That's fine if you feel the need to verify it further, I just honestly don't care at this point. There are so many other things I'd rather spend my time on, things that are not easily disproven.

Only an irrational and emotional woman with would write something like this. Are we done with this level of stupidity and immaturity now?

Now now Jimi ... she was just taking you seriously and she made a serious point ... maybe a bit abrasively ... but not actually stupid or immature. And BTW ... I don't think you're "pathetic" either. You and RL are both capable of some really great posts so let's not let this degenerate into something nasty.

 

[Jimi H.]

but not actually stupid or immature.

Believe me, it's not the wording I would normally choose, but the final statement by RL was sufficiently immature that I felt like matching it.
You know, both RL and Polterwurst think they know what I think better than I do myself. They read all sorts of motives into my simple observation of a video, and thus bring in all sorts of issues which, coincidentally, are completely irrelevant to the video in question. And call me the strawman!? I call it a very obvious case of projecting one's own emotions unto others, and I call it manipulation.

According to RL, my seeing that paintbrush is akin to watching a face in the cloud. I take offense to that statement on several levels, least of all the personal level. It's an offense to reason.

That said, it is also my impression that RL is an intelligent woman, so I don't think she is stupid, but I think her remarks about the evidence at hand are not reasonable.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Believe me, it's not the wording I would normally choose, but the final statement by RL was sufficiently immature that I felt like matching it.
You know, both RL and Polterwurst think they know what I think better than I do myself. They read all sorts of motives into my simple observation of a video, and thus bring in all sorts of issues which, coincidentally, are completely irrelevant to the video in question. And call me the strawman!? I call it a very obvious case of projecting one's own emotions unto others, and I call it manipulation.

According to RL, my seeing that paintbrush is akin to watching a face in the cloud. I take offense to that statement on several levels, least of all the personal level. It's an offense to reason.

That said, it is also my impression that RL is an intelligent woman, so I don't think she is stupid, but I think her remarks about the evidence at hand are not reasonable.

It is akin to seeing a face in the clouds. So far, we have:

1. A Hollywood special effects agent who said that the film would have been difficult to hoax (using the technology that was available at that time), but you insist you know better and we should all agree with you - based on one image in one frame.
2. A state senator who also reported strange things appearing on the film of his own camera, but you insist you know better and we should all agree with you - based on one image on one frame.
3. Several investigators who have come to the scene and reported strange occurrences, but you insist you know better and we should all agree with you - based on one image on one frame.
4. The man in question has (allegedly) spent $70K on camera equipment, leaving me with the impression that this is a lot of money to spend on perpetuating a hoax when it will clearly not give anything close to a return on his investment. You still insist you know better and we should all agree with you - based on one image on one frame.
5. A man, his entire family, several locals, a state senator, and scores of investigators have all reported these lights. Rather than think that maybe there's a chance they're actually seeing lights, you find it easier to believe that it's a mass-perpetuated hoax - based on one image in one frame.

You have repeatedly been extraordinarily vile to several people simply because some of us want to look at the entire story before forming any conclusions. We may doubt you know more than someone who professionally does special effects in Hollywood. We may also consider that it would be difficult to get so many people from so many different areas who have so much to risk to become part of a hoax when they would get absolutely nothing in return.

This whole tiff got started because I had the audacity to say, "I honestly don't know what to think." You took that personally. You took umbrage that some of us are willing to look at all the known facts in a case and say that maybe, just maybe, there isn't enough evidence to determine anything conclusively. We dared consider more evidence than you are willing to consider, therefore forming different - if ambiguous - conclusions.

If someone said, based on the film footage alone, "We clearly know there is something paranormal going on," you would have reason to assume that person is not being sensible. The film footage alone isn't enough to conclusively determine anything. Even when combined with the other facts of this case, we can say that there's a fair chance something is going on, though this doesn't mean that "something" is paranormal in anyway. Remember, we all "knew" lightning sprites were fakes and hoaxes at one time, even ridiculing if not punishing pilots who saw them, until scientists at a university were able to conclude that these things truly existed. It's entirely possible whatever is happening in the Black Forest may also have such a mundane explanation. We simply don't know enough to conclude anything.

 

[Polterwurst]

Hey ppl, I kinda remember seeing this video in color. Some time ago, someone posted it on the forum. I tried to search for it a couple of months ago, found the thread but the YouTube video was unavailable. Has anyone else seen it in color or I am suffering from a bad case of bad memory?

It's security camera footage. I don't think there is a color version, at least I've never seen any.

It is akin to seeing a face in the clouds..

LOL Who would have thought I would ever see the pareidolia argument used on a debunker.

This whole tiff got started because I had the audacity to say, "I honestly don't know what to think." You took that personally. You took umbrage that some of us are willing to look at all the known facts in a case and say that maybe, just maybe, there isn't enough evidence to determine anything conclusively. We dared consider more evidence than you are willing to consider, therefore forming different - if ambiguous - conclusions.

I don't have an issue with his explanation for the vid nor with the fact that he defends it. What I got angry about was the way he chose to do that, using capital letters, exlamation and question marks galore, implying that anyone who doesn't agree with his god-like debunking feat has to be stupid or a true believer. That and the obvious lack of any knowledge about the case, which this footage is only a part of.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

I don't have an issue with his explanation for the vid nor with the fact that he defends it. What I got angry about was the way he chose to do that,using capital letters and exlamation and question marks galore, implying that anyone who doesn't agre with his god-like debunking feat has to be stupid or a true believer. That and the obvious lack of any knowledge about the case, which this footage is only a part of.

Bingo.

Disagreement makes for a healthy discourse. Ridiculing those who look at the entire subject rather than one small section is a surefire way to end all discourse, resulting only in bickering.

 

[Jimi H.]

It is akin to seeing a face in the clouds. So far, we have ..based on one image in one frame."

No. You're making me repeat myself:
Anyone can press 'pause' at a specific time and verify the evidence for themselves, from the film itself. Not only is it clearly a brush (see the moment of the screenshot), it corresponds exactly to the position in space where it should be in relation to the 'blob', its movement corresponds exactly to the movement of the paint, the lifting of the brush corresponds exactly to the blob becoming very thinly spread and fragmented, and finally, the movement downwards looks exactly like the flick of a human wrist, when someone is painting. Thus I conclude that that part of the video is hoaxed.

Why it has never been discovered before, or even suggested, well, that is something to think about, indeed. Or perhaps it has already been identified many times, but didn't get 'picked up'? That has happened before. Because, you must admit, it does look an awful lot like a paintbrush painting a sheet of glass, doesn't it?

If it's not clear enough for you to conclude anything at this point, ok, but with your knowledge of the area, and the case, I'm sure you could find the original much easier than I could. If you find it, please post the clip as uncompressed as possible. Actually, there's one more thing that would rekindle my interest: Your sending the Hollywood efx guy the screenshot of the brush, and your enclosing the verbatim explanation I just gave in the beginning of this post. I'm sure he'd have a laugh, not expecting simple analog tools. Sometimes you don't see the forest for the trees.

Finally, the way I go about it, if the isolated part of the video is a hoax, I'd still look at the remainder, but mostly to behold the spectacle and play Angry Birds with the remainder of the identifiable trix. That's not debunkery, that's an honest and passionate disdain for the hoaxers, and the gnawing little worms they try to release upon people.

 

[Jimi H.]

..What I got angry about was the way he chose to do that, using capital letters, exlamation and question marks galore, implying that anyone who doesn't agree with his god-like debunking feat has to be stupid or a true believer....

I imagine you unignored me then? Or is this how it works?

 

[Jimi H.]

..Ridiculing those who look at the entire subject rather than one small section is a surefire way to end all discourse, resulting only in bickering.

Ok, this must be a misunderstanding. Over and over I've stated it's about this video-clip only, as is the thread. I've even asked you only to consider the part where the hoax is completely obvious.

Second, I thought we could laugh together, about the hoaxer. I see that such is not laughing matter to a few posters. But perhaps you should direct more of the insults towards the hoaxer in the future?

Anyways, 'fun' talking to ya RL, let me know when you've got the original clip in good quality.

 

[Randall]

... That said, it is also my impression that RL is an intelligent woman, so I don't think she is stupid, but I think her remarks about the evidence at hand are not reasonable.

I've mentioned before that RL and I have not always seen entirely eye to eye either. And I'll admit it can sting a bit sometimes. But at the same time, it's also been my experience that if she thinks you are right she'll just as quickly turn around and defend you with the same vigor. She's just passionate about her writing, and if you can count to 100 before reacting it will help temper your perspective, and you'll see she does indeed have reasons, and usually well considered ones. That's not to say I'm suggesting that you don't have any reasons, nor am I taking sides. I see both points of view, as well as the camera double exposure theory, and of course there's my stupid firefly theory. If it weren't for having to presume it's a hoax without any definitive evidence for it, I would concede that the better theory is the double exposure video FX theory, but I don't like to just presume people are lying all the time.

If it's any consolation, in the frame grab, I can see what could be interpreted as a forearm and brush like shape. However it seems to me that when the video is in motion, those shapes are the result of a sort of after-imaging that traces out that shape in a coincidental manner rather than anything that is consistent throughout the clip ( forgive my lack of familiarity with the verbiage of videography ... maybe someone else can explain that better if they know what I'm getting at ).

 

[pixelsmith]

Why not invite all involved in the video to the forum or a podcast? Invite the investigators, the senator, the family and the person who owned the camera that took the video. If they can't be bothered to come here to the forums on occasion or do a podcast and tell us what they know then we can assume it is fake or they have a movie or book deal in the works.

 

[pixelsmith]

It's the Stan Lee case from the Black Forest area of CO about 1o miles north of COSpgs. This surveillance camera footage was originally aired on the TV show Sightings.
Its a head-scratcher of a case, I still don't know what to make of it. It featured all sorts of weird, disconnected haunted-style phenomena, UFOs and apparent interest by spooky types including the late Gordon Novell whom Lee found climbing up the power pole outside of his property at the height of the weirdness. Go figure.

Edit by Goggs
It's Steve I think Chris, Steve Lee. Looks like a rabble extra from Southpark!

Yes, it is Steve Lee.

 

[pixelsmith]

Steve Lee thinks it is the government doing biological and laser testing on his property because it would easily go unnoticed. He sees flying dead dogs, ghost like military men with assault rifles and smells foul things. This is a fairly old case (1993) and I do not find anything very recent on it.