'Non-Human' Caught on Film

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

This dates back to 2004 - has this been previously discussed? I haven't heard anything about this before, so am assuming it didn't make that much of a splash in paranormal circles. Your thoughts?

http: //ww w.rense. com/general53 /chile. htm (spaces added)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's Rense, so it must be ridiculous.

Okay, now let me take a look ...

It's a baby out for a stroll.

~~ Paul

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

It's a baby out for a stroll.

It looks like Stretch Armstrong's baby out for a stroll!

Seriously though; photoshopped? Model? To what end?

[CLD]

By Crikey I think you got something there. If you look close there's a second small creature next to the other horseman.
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1102/cap0029ja1.jpg
Oh, no. Wait a minute. I think I added that one in Photoshop.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

By Crikey I think you got something there. If you look close there's a second small creature next to the other horseman.

Fast work by the way - and good quality! So I think it's fairly safe to say it's likely to be a photoshop job... :D

But to what end? Did this guy make any money from this, or achieve any kind of notoriety/fame? If it had been bigfoot or Nessie or Ogopogo, then I could understand it, but I've never heard of a 'Dover Devil'. Has anyone else?

[CLD]

Might not have to be Photoshop. Could be any number of things; a branch blowing across the trail, a squirrel turned just so, a bird, etc. Paredolia does the rest as the brain is hardwired to see human shapes. Once you "see" the little man walking, it's tough for you to see anything else.

[Ginarley]

They covered this on some discovery channel series - the one where they try and replicate paranormal things and get believers to judge the results (can't remember what its called) - so it must be fairly well known.

[Solus]

I think should add my own picture of a "non-human" caught on camera.

Monster! (http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t264/photos983/monster.jpg)

This one is better than that guy because I didn't need to photoshop it. I just had to add the red circle because otherwise people couldn't see what the heck I was referring to. It's actually a trashcan though. trashcan (http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t264/photos983/03.jpg)

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Might not have to be Photoshop. Could be any number of things; a branch blowing across the trail, a squirrel turned just so, a bird, etc. Paredolia does the rest as the brain is hardwired to see human shapes. Once you "see" the little man walking, it's tough for you to see anything else.

I'm inclined to say photoshop - paredolia aside, if you look at the close-up shots, whatever it is is definately humanoid shaped, and is intended to be seen as such, I think.

They covered this on some discovery channel series - the one where they try and replicate paranormal things and get believers to judge the results (can't remember what its called) - so it must be fairly well known.

Similar to 'Mythbusters', I take it? Can you remember the result?

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I think should add my own picture of a "non-human" caught on camera.

Monster! (http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t264/photos983/monster.jpg)

This one is better than that guy because I didn't need to photoshop it. I just had to add the red circle because otherwise people couldn't see what the heck I was referring to. It's actually a trashcan though. trashcan (http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t264/photos983/03.jpg)

It's certainly the most 'non-human' trashcan I have EVER seen! :D

[Ginarley]

Similar to 'Mythbusters', I take it? Can you remember the result?

They tried 3 different methods: a stick, a 2D cutout and a sophisticated 3D model and all looked viable although, because you knew what they were, it was easier to spot them. And of course the believers were committed to their cause!.

It was bugging me so I hunted it down, and I think it was these guys:

http://www.discoverychannel.com.au/paranormal/xtesters/index.shtml

And I think it was episode 4 according to their official website:

http://www.xtesters.com/html/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=18&Itemid=37

Not quite sure bout that though.

[Stellafane]

Looks a lot like the Dover Demon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_Demon

Little guy sure gets around...

[Hitch]

This dates back to 2004 - has this been previously discussed? I haven't heard anything about this before, so am assuming it didn't make that much of a splash in paranormal circles. Your thoughts?

http: //www.rense.com/general53/chile.htm (spaces added)

I've seen that before. There was quite a bit of discussion about it. I know this will sound extraordinary, and many people will not believe me, but when the original picture was found without the blurring and the "non-human" figure was in better focus, you could see that is was in fact a non-human dog. It doesn't look much like a dog in that picture, but that's what it is.

And, No, I'm not going to find the page debunking it for you. I'm too lazy, and don't care if you don't believe me.

[CLD]

Yup. It's a foreshortened (http://en.pediax.org/Linear_perspective#Foreshortening) dog. The creature's "arm" is actually the dog's tail.

[Cuddles]

To be fair, it clearly isn't a human, so the claim is entirely true.

[Xtester]

Hi. Clark from the X-Testers show here. OK, you got my attention.

You guys are naturally on the right track. When we did that segment, it was demanded by the photographer that we not call it an "alien", but a "non-human". It was amazing we got to cover the subject at all, as he was not very cooperative. We were ultimately allowed to show his picture, but he wouldn't allow an interview. (Major red flag)

The Photoshop version above looks real nice and is a plausible explanation. For the sake of our show, however, we ignored the photoshop solution (most every subject we covered could be explained that way). Instead, we tried to create it in-camera as Ginarley described above. In a pre-show experiment, I set my camera to the 10ms exposure claimed by the photographer, and shot some dogs playing in a park. I posted an example below.

An interesting point for you Photoshop geeks out there, you can use the Replace Color tool and compare pixel colors. The "non-human" has the exact same pixel colors as the surrounding trees. Seems to indicate either a branch or Photoshop Rubber Stamp tool.

In the end, I still am not positive about what it was, but I figure either a dog, a branch, or some simple Photoshop fun. Oh, and yes, he does make money licensing the full resolution version.

Regards.

[ReligionStudent]

Here is a non-grayscale
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case380.htm

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.rense.com/general53/chile.htm

Just for everyone's convenience, even though CLD posted the main image, and Religion posted a mirror site.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yup. It's a foreshortened (http://en.pediax.org/Linear_perspective#Foreshortening) dog. The creature's "arm" is actually the dog's tail.
I don't see how you get a dog out of it unless you are talking about the second image in the right that you say you added.

[CLD]

I don't see how you get a dog out of it unless you are talking about the second image in the right that you say you added.

There's some "pinching" of the image as seen in Xtesters dog picture post. Dog, branch, or Photoshop, it really doesn't matter to me.

[Xtester]

Here's a close-up.

[Marc L]

I think should add my own picture of a "non-human" caught on camera.

Monster! (http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t264/photos983/monster.jpg)

This one is better than that guy because I didn't need to photoshop it. I just had to add the red circle because otherwise people couldn't see what the heck I was referring to. It's actually a trashcan though. trashcan (http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t264/photos983/03.jpg)

No offense, but it looks like a street sign and stuff around it, in both pictures.

It's odd, for a long time, I couldn't afford glasses, and was used to seeing things in a haze. Because of this, it's very hard for me to "see" things in a hazy photo that people think I ought to see. I'm already used to identifying hazy things as what they ought to be.

Marc

[Marc L]

it was in fact a non-human dog.

As opposed to a human dog? :D

Marc

[CLD]

Here's a close-up.

I got it. It's Winston Churchill walking.

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/2265/thumb17lf4.jpg

[ReligionStudent]

There's some "pinching" of the image as seen in Xtesters dog picture post. Dog, branch, or Photoshop, it really doesn't matter to me.

I remember when this first came out seeing it in UFO or Fortean Times or somthing. I think the photographer claimed not to have seen it when taking the picture, this always makes me wonder about the reality of it. If there were a small being walking by, how did he miss it. it's much more likely a branch that looked fine then but weird in a blury picture, or an outright fake.

[Hokulele]

I first saw the "non-human" as a dog with its back-end facing the camera, its head looking back over its shoulder towards the camera, and its tail swinging off to the right, almost like it was reaching back to scratch the root of its tail with its teeth. Like one of the previous posters, I am very near-sighted, and am somewhat used to interpreting blurry images as "real" objects.

[warren sinden]

The dead give away is the horses.
If there was something there those horses would have gone berserk.

[Xtester]

Not necessarily. Police horses are pretty tolerant of dogs. Now if it was an alien, they might have reacted.

[warren sinden]

While browsing the Internet my partner found this video of the valentown ghost.
Has anyone heard about it & what do you think about it?
(I can't post links yet but you can google for it.
The best images I got are in the you tube video)

[ReligionStudent]

While browsing the Internet my partner found this video of the valentown ghost.
Has anyone heard about it & what do you think about it?
(I can't post links yet but you can google for it.
The best images I got are in the you tube video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqCa2BIXjs

The top poster had a decent thought

thestigST (1 day ago)
I believe this tape was used in a previous investigation (under similar conditions), the bright-spot/point with the highest signal on the image is the investigator, who here is seen taking notes. When the tape was subsequently re-recordered over the head in the camera responsible for erasing the previous image/data on the tape didn't do a complete enough job. You are therefore left with very low quality composite footage. This would also explain the apparent sweeps or banding on the video

My other thought is that the movement occurs during the point where you have the most traffic in the back left window. Traffic (with headlights) could cause weird light issues, and would also explain how it washed over material items.

[Foolmewunz]

I can't imagine you'd have any reason to make that up, so can I say, a big howdy and welcome, since, ahem(!!!) everyone else seems to have forgotten that when we get the secret handshake and decoder ring we agree to do greeting duties, espcially, dare I say, when the marginally famous show up!

Hope you stay around. I reckon as a magician you'd have at least a moderate affinity for James Randi, and they work you're doing is right along with many of the themes on this forum.

You guys have done some interesting stuff. I particularly enjoy some of the misses and near-misses.

Alas, I'm in Hong Kong and Discovery keeps moving you around, but I've gotten to see a number of episodes, and enjoy the show. It's just a matter of finding you amidst the four hundred airings of Psychic Detectives, A Haunting, and that kind of crap. Discovery's gone waaaay downhill the last couple of years, but your show is one of the few new bright spots.

[Xtester]

And I now have a warm spot in my heart for you. Thanks for the compliment. Glad you like the show. Wish we could make more of them.

[Beady]

Hey, gang, it's a dog. A couple of months after I first saw it in Fortean Times, someone on this very forum put it through a series of filters and brought the image out. It's here, somewhere in the archives, thread title forgotten.

Things like this should really be cataloged.

[ChristineR]

Hey, gang, it's a dog. A couple of months after I first saw it in Fortean Times, someone on this very forum put it through a series of filters and brought the image out. It's here, somewhere in the archives, thread title forgotten.

Things like this should really be cataloged.

Like in this archived thread?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43010

I haven't picked through all the links yet, but I'm not seeing any references to what you mean.

[ReligionStudent]

Like in this archived thread?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43010

I haven't picked through all the links yet, but I'm not seeing any references to what you mean.

try Dredred's post.

[ChristineR]

try Dredred's post.

The archived version had no pictures, and the text doesn't correspond to what Beady said: No one on the JREF site was able to recreate the obvious dog image, and it's not clear what techniques the Dutch site used to create it. Photoshop is not mentioned, and it's not a series of anything, it's a blurry before and a dog after.

That's why I was confused. My apologies.

[ReligionStudent]

The archived version had no pictures, and the text doesn't correspond to what Beady said: No one on the JREF site was able to recreate the obvious dog image, and it's not clear what techniques the Dutch site used to create it. Photoshop is not mentioned, and it's not a series of anything, it's a blurry before and a dog after.

That's why I was confused. My apologies.

No problem, just trying to point it out for you.

Also, after seeing the comparison shots, I can really see it in the origional

[Beady]

Like in this archived thread?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43010

I haven't picked through all the links yet, but I'm not seeing any references to what you mean.

Yup, that was it. My memory was a tad off, sorry 'bout that.

[ChristineR]

Yup, that was it. My memory was a tad off, sorry 'bout that.

No problem...I think we can all agree it looks more like a blurry dog than an alien. ;)

[Beady]

Here's a recap:

http://archives.zinester.com/43520/19162/35181_chilecreature.jpg

From this site (http://www.dossierx.nl/index.php/content/view/167/): It's probably a dog.

http://www.dossierx.nl/images/stories/dwergen/parkwezen.jpg

[Northernskeptic]

easy to see the dog outline now, wow