Black Eyed Kid Caught on Video!

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Iconic

If he wants to prove them, he should release the audio for it.

Will he be directly responsible if someone were to get hurt testing it out? No of course not. They made their choice to use it.

Furthermore, there's nothing stopping anyone from grabbing the same audio from any of the videos he's researching and got it from anyway.

If it's a simple tone, then as long as I know the frequency, I should be able to make it synthetically.

I agree that he wouldn't be directly responsible, but we wouldn't be able to control whether or not he would -feel- responsible. However, I do think that its not a foolproof way of getting an encounter. Methinks that you would have to play the bait very near a "nesting spot" or an area where these events have happened, or the BEKs to be lured already are around..

Hmm... Why would he get in his car and start looking for "it" before looking at the footage recorded?
How does he know there was even an "it" to look for without that confirmation, coulda been anything but he seems to already know the culprit kinda like its all set up...

a reply to: TOMFROMOZ

That's a good point. I watched the video on my phone and am at work currently so can't recheck, but I thought he said he heard a person walking around

a reply to: Iconic

Yes, definitely not a fool proof way, if the video is legitimate, but we could suspect that we would see a rise in 'confirmed encounters' if people were attempting this if it was legitimate

a reply to: TOMFROMOZ

I don't think he mentioned that he didn't review the tape before getting into the car. before the cut to the car video, he says, "Now there aren't alot of ways up to my house, so I immediately got into my car and started looking for it"

It, obviously referring to the BEK.

This could imply two things.

a. After a quick look at the footage on the laptop upon returning inside, he sees a face, and entity on the porch that apparently leaves as he wakes up to the noise of someone walking around on his wrap-around porch
b. The noise of the walking on his porch that woke him, and subsequent inertia of him dealing with the motion triggered light once more (Coupled with the sound) drove him to immediately try and cut off whoever was on his property. [Footsteps on a wooden porch do not sound anywhere comparable to that of an animal]

Both are pretty legitimate. I'm not saying he's the most intelligent dude when it comes to playing this as smart, or safe as possible... but he's definitely driven to get some kind of answer.

I've learned from just around here even, that it is nearly impossible to make people happy trying to prove something. If it is just a short clip of something they complain why not more? If it a step by step clip to show how one arrived at whatever proof they are trying to claim, well that falls pretty quickly under hoax and clicks.

If I myself were in this guys shoes I probably would have presented it the same way. Step by step to show others all the steps I took trying to gather the proof. That too me would be the logical thing to do.

I know sometimes you don't think of things until after the fact, but I'm kind of surprised he didn't take a flashlight with him when he went outside originally to look for the person he thought he heard. Perhaps he will keep one by the door now, who knows... just seems to me he lives a bit into the woods so it would make sense to have one. I know, not a major point, but a curious one too me.

I agree with another poster that it was strange they stood there for an hour. I think I would like to see that hour, speed up of course a little bit to see what else that kid, person, did in that time. Might be a clue there to something, anything. Wouldn't know unless you saw it.

Intriguing non the less. Good post OP.

originally posted by: onehuman
I've learned from just around here even, that it is nearly impossible to make people happy trying to prove something. If it is just a short clip of something they complain why not more? If it a step by step clip to show how one arrived at whatever proof they are trying to claim, well that falls pretty quickly under hoax and clicks.

Great point. I agree whole-heartedly.

No matter the footage, and no matter the way its put together, there'll always be a handful of complaints about it.

iconic-

i was watching a history channel show about the jersey devil. in it, some old lady was on there lying. you can tell when someone lies, they use lots of 'umms' and looking around trying to figure out where to tell the story next.

she was an old lady, and i remember thinking, why would an old lady want to make up a story to be on tv?

thats it. this youtuber with his fancy productions just wants some youtube followers. if you click hot chicks on instagram, you see them near naked for the same reason, people like followers.

it was for sure an amusing and entertaining 'production.'

again, how did he have the lighting perfect on the face? lmfao.

if he posts more video 'productions' with longer footage, then maybe i would watch.

i believe in crazy stuff, but some videos look legit, some look like entertainment, some look fake.

a reply to: dantanna

As we had discussed earlier in the post, not everyone will be pleased by evidence, no matter what state it is in.

Just because evidence is brought forward by a person with a youtube channel (who already has 9k subs which is not a small channel) what makes it so we shouldn't take it on the same level as something brought forward by you, or I?

and also, as discussed previously, more footage is on its way. He has gotten a hold of trail cameras and more equipment that he's setting up today, to try and come up with better quality evidence.

Thanks for sharing. As this seems more truthful and revealing than other videos and stories I've explored in the past. Standing there for an hour, must be sending a message. Maybe BEKs found that the researcher is getting to close to figuring this out. Interesting to see an update on this, if found to be an actual trespasser on his property and doing that or not.

a reply to: dreamingawake

A commenter had stated that it almost appeared to be moving its lips... Which is really creepy. He does a test with his wife standing outside in generally the same area, and talking...You can almost see her teeth in the controlled, but at the same time, the jawline and chin have the same look in the pixelization at that distance... So its hard to tell.

More videos coming from him soon!

"Entertaining."

5 second jump intervals. Prolly won't watch the vid a second time.

originally posted by: Snarl
"Entertaining."

5 second jump intervals. Prolly won't watch the vid a second time.

What do you mean by 5 second jump intervals?

It's completely fake. Sorry if you think this is actually real footage of something. Just goes to show how gullible or how bad people want something to be real, they are willing to accept fake information as real just as an excuse to say it is. cmon people let's not be so naive.

a reply to: jidnum

Care to explain, Columbo?

a reply to: Iconic

explain what?

There is nothing to explain.

originally posted by: Iconic

originally posted by: Snarl
"Entertaining."

5 second jump intervals. Prolly won't watch the vid a second time.

What do you mean by 5 second jump intervals?

Your video was 9 minutes long. I skipped forward every 5 seconds to see if there was anything going on.

I'm not watching it a second time, because it looked like 'a drama' to me.

originally posted by: jidnum
a reply to: Iconic

explain what?

There is nothing to explain.

Well, if you care to call everyone gullible, then explain your reasoning. If not, you're just kind of being a contrarian with no backing or purpose other than phooey

originally posted by: Snarl

Your video was 9 minutes long. I skipped forward every 5 seconds to see if there was anything going on.
I'm not watching it a second time, because it looked like 'a drama' to me.

Ah, I see.

Well I can't argue interest. If you don't have it, you don't have it! And I can't give it to ya.

originally posted by: Iconic

originally posted by: Snarl

Your video was 9 minutes long. I skipped forward every 5 seconds to see if there was anything going on.
I'm not watching it a second time, because it looked like 'a drama' to me.

Ah, I see.

Well I can't argue interest. If you don't have it, you don't have it! And I can't give it to ya.

I can only tell you what I saw and the way I saw it. It's important to announce the method I used so others can judge my post's value in the thread. I'm not here to knock you or your OP.