It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFO's over house, son scared to play in the backyard

page: 22
27
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


So you agree with my analysis? I'm sorry but I was unclear as to the meaning of your first paragraph. Perhaps you could elaborate in layman's terms?

I will also refer the community to this post, which I feel reveals further corroborating inconsistencies in Longhorns account.




posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by BO XIAN

Thanks for your insight. I suppose there is only a very small chance you could get the opportunity see enough pictures outlined in your reply given that TLH may or not be around.


I think that's highly likely.

However, IF

he takes me up on email . . .

and IF

he allows me to, I'll report back to this thread whaever other interesting info I come up with.

But some of us gave him homework that would take a busy dad 1-3 months to complete, imho. So I don't know what timeline is realistic. I suppose if I haven't heard from him in 1-3 weeks, it's highly likely I never will.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vikturtle

I believe because I have been around little kids and seen their artwork, I saw nothing unchildlike in the drawing and some of the debunking was rather ridiculous.

Although I cannot prove it and have no documentation to soothe worried and jaded minds, I, as a 5 year old, moved into a old house and was terrified to walk into one room. Many years later, I discovered a woman fought a long and painful battle with cancer in that room and died there. Later in the weeks before my own sister died I was terrified to let her out of my sight. No, I can't prove this, but it happened.

Kids know stuff and dogs are sensitive and Texas Longhorn sounded sincere. The reason I do not post here often is because I have seen this attack dog behavior over and again on these threads.

I agree with Springer, I don't think there are hoards of people attempting to make jokes of you folks. And my thanks to Bo Xian and others for trying.


I agree about children having extra sensitivities that are often enough more tuned in to 'other' sorts of realities than most adults are attuned to.

I think part of such sensitivities for many children are in the "spiritual" dimension, realm. Death would certainly have to do with that realm. So, evidently do ET's.

Yeah, the attack dog behavior has been horrid on many, many threads and on this one just really ended up pushing my buttons. It seemed clear that the mods were going to do nothing about it given their own behavior on the thread so that was out. What was left but to be intensely & relentlessly articulate the other direction--given the relentless behavior of the attack dogs. Sigh.

Thanks for your kind words.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
reply to post by ExquisitExamplE
 


EE, good point about the straight lines. I went back to look at the pictures again and I wondered about that, too. Another thing when I looked at the pictures again just now, I felt that there was ALOT of anger in those pictures. I'm wondering if the OP drew those pictures himself?

Another thing: when people began to ask him questions of any depth, and/or became rough with him, he answered with very little emotion. It was as if he switched off his feelings and went into "story-telling" mode. THe normal response would be to either be defensive, become hostile, provide whatever evidence there was, or be angry at being called a liar. I didn't sense any of that in his last posts.


Welll, dear heart, some quibble . . .

I don't know that the straight lines are conclusive of anything but straight lines. Perhaps they are conclusive of a drawing on a computer. Perhaps they are conclusive of an idiosyncratic use of a straight edge when drawing such. We do NOT have sufficient info to bet the farm on it either way, imho.

I believe the dad DID express or at least reveal some anger toward the end.

But I do not believe his reluctance or hesitation or absence of anger theretofore is necessarily conclusive about anything either.

He is, after all, in Canada. He MUST have had to learn that British/Canadians are loathe to publically express anger--somewhat as the Chinese--except in very scripted culturally permitted ways--otherwise anger is a sign of low breeding, being uncouth etc.

I still think we simply do NOT have sufficient info to get on our high horses about anything very conclusively.

Supposedly very durable Castles have been built on toothpics in this case. I find that silly and even arrogant, at some point.

Yet again . . . a long list of INCONSISTENCIES have been offered as

PROOF POSITIVE that it's a hoax.

And the one postulating such functionally makes him/herself out to be a better shrink than you and I are.

Sorry, I'm just not buying that one very far, at all.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
He is, after all, in Canada. He MUST have had to learn that British/Canadians are loathe to publically express anger--somewhat as the Chinese--except in very scripted culturally permitted ways--otherwise anger is a sign of low breeding, being uncouth etc.


Agreed - actually, I would venture to guess that public expression of anger is considered uncivil on most of the planet - it's called self-control and appreciation for others emotions or ways of thinking.

To a previous poster who seemed to imply that 'Howdy' is proprietary to Texans -I am also from Canada I hear this pretty often. I hope TLH comes back and tells us what's up.

regards (and no, not only the Brits say regards....)

Fakker



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hikix
 


I agree, this thread needs to be closed.
Some people my not see the significance in him lying about a little drawing but it is hugely significant because as most people know, if you find even one lie in a story then chances are his entire story is untrue.
Whats funny is that if he wouldve actually just said in the beginning that his son used ms paint to make the image then his story may have gone on much longer and believed by more.
I would advise that people hold their tounges a little longer on these types of stories because the longer he goes on the more chances he has at tripping up.
When you bring these things to his attention, right away, it tends to put the hoaxer on guard sooner and they shutdown or leave all together.

Also, something I and others have mentioned. This guy never seemed to elaborate to much on what I would consider to be the most exciting part of the story. The part where he went outside and caught site of the "flying shields" his self.



[edit on 8/22/2007 by Kr0n0s]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Some people my not see the significance in him lying about a little drawing but it is hugely significant because as most people know, if you find even one lie in a story then chances are his entire story is untrue.


I remain unconvinced that he lied about anything. If I recall correctly, a very convincing member posted long ago up thread an analysis and logic which, to my satisfaction, more or less neutralized the whole hyper-analysis of the drawing tack. And that person worked for a decade or two full time in the profession that left him very familiar with such software and doings. I don't recall which poster that was.

In any case, to me, the hyper analysis of the drawing is just that--hyper. I still do not think we have sufficient evidence to go building castles on such flimsy "evidence" and mostly conjecture.

The debunking explanations may well be quite plausible. I don't find them air tight.

It may be my biases operating but no more so than those of the debunkers.




Also, something I and others have mentioned. This guy never seemed to elaborate to much on what I would consider to be the most exciting part of the story. The part where he went outside and caught site of the "flying shields" his self.

[edit on 8/22/2007 by Kr0n0s]


My take on that is that there wasn't much for him to pontificate about, so he didn't. He saw, evidently, something quite similar to what his son reported seeing--fleetingly because of speed etc. Didn't get any photos of it and couldn't get into a lot of detail about it so didn't.

Also, almost everyone on the debunker's side seems to be absolutely totally convinced that the dad is absolutely 100% constrained, obligated, forced by ?virtue? of being human

to EITHER

A) BEHAVE AS THEY WOULD HAVE

OR

B) AUTOMATICALLY BE A LIAR.

What ARROGANCE!

Personalities are quite complex and there are a host of reasons why folks do any given thing--often several reasons for a given action, much more so a sequence of actions/inactions.

My supervisors praised me for getting further with clients in 3 months than they typically would in 9 or 12. Just to note that I'm not exactly the worlds worst shrink.

Yet, I have hardly even remotely good guesses as to why he may have done this or that; or not done this or that.

I realize a long line-up of debunkers are 100% convinced that they are infinitely better psychologists than I or forestlady are.

However, given the shrill blindness of the perspectives therefrom pontificated . . . please excuse me if I don't jump on their band wagon on that score.

The fact simply is that human beings are very, very complex. Even with a full battery of tests and extensive interviews, most in my profession are loathe to say very emphatically at all why a person did or didn't do a given complex obscure thing.

We can make generalized statements and talk about a person fitting within a short-hand label or description of a constellation of dynamics and typical behaviors that go with said dynamics. But to say that daddy slapped Suzie in the face on the 12th of August 2007 because the lower 30% of Suzzie's grin for 1.23 microseconds reminded him of his witchy mother . . .

that sort of statement is grandiose and silly . . . virtually always at least partially wrong if not wholesale wrong.

Yet, in this case, we have a dozen or more lay psychologists absolutely convinced--without any testing; without any interviewing; with tiny bits of slightely connected and at least a bit complex and mysterious puzzle pieces

that they have the dad's motives, goals, strategies, habits, flaws, sins, evil habits etc. all elaborated and pinned down to the nth degree--and that absolutely 100% perfectly or durn near so.

Excuse me but where's the barf bag. That just does not fly.

And then such lay psychologists get all huffy and indignant as well as abusive toward those of us with degrees and tons of such professional experience when we protest such instantaneous blackwashing of the dad on the basis of such quick and flimsy evidence.

I dare say, if they were in court and began to be convicted on the basis of the same quality of evidence they rushed to judgment, conviction and sentencing of the dad on . . .

they'd be screaming a LOT LOUDER.

# # # # # #
edit to add:

I personally think that the thread should be left open . . . I think it needs it as an object lesson, if nothing else.

But, also, even if only on the outside chance that the OP MIGHT return some weeks hence.


[edit on 22/8/2007 by BO XIAN]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Bunch
Is there a way that we can put together all the post of TLH in a post here or just have a link to all his posts?.


You can see all the contributions of any member within a thread just by clicking on the [thread] link just below their post.


well I'll be darn



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   
What if this guy was simply concerned about his kid? What if this guy has a friend a work, perhaps a smoking buddy or a lunch partner who also happens to be a psychologist? What if he mentioned his UFO concerns and the guy, also an inquistive guy, sent him here, group therapy with other UFO folks.

I am so discouraged by the behavior I saw here and by the insistance by many members to keep tearing this guy's story apart. Why was he angry? Well if I relayed a simple story and got ripped apart by hundreds of supposed "experts" I'd be pretty pissed as well. This ain't rocket science, folks come here to share, not to get ripped apart. Damn.

Thanks again to Springer for trying to reason with you guys, you all need to relax, what the hell, talk about anger. Texas Longhorn may be angry now, but you guys were angry long before he got here.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   
It almost seems like so many people on ATS have told stories of their own personal UFO encounters before and have been ripped to shreds over it. People have probably called them crazy and delusional and told them that their story was a hoax or a fabrication. Perhaps they have been "programmed" by other skeptics calling their bluff, and now they do the same thing to others as a first line of defense. If their own story wasn't believed at one point in time, why should they believe anyone elses or even give them a shot to explain? I think this takes place subconsciously without the person even being aware of the way they are acting. I'm not so sure now that ATS would be the first place I would want to post my story if I were to ever have a UFO encounter, even though I love the service this forum offers to its users. Just my 2 cents.

[edit on 8/22/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Guys....Take the picture....put it into Paint...zoom in around the edges of the "Shield". It's not drawn. Anyone with eyes can see that. I don't mean to be one of those guys who just jumps in and gives an opinion and jumps out....it's jsut a little obvious. That's all.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   
now that things have calmed down some i am going to add some of my evidence of why i think it is a fake photo by dealing just with the background.

< br />
i have highlighted several inconsistant areas of the background which i find suspicious if this is a watercolour.

using a small program called irfanview you can zoom into the picture and see what i am talking about. these areas do not appear natural.

using photoshop, you can select some of the areas where i have highlighted the straight lines appearing in the background. if you take the eyedropper tool and click in sequence pixel by pixel you will notice that there is little or NO variation in colour on the 'color' tab next to swatches. this is important because every single colour in a picture has a numerical Red Green or Blue (RGB) value.

if you look at the plain white background of blaine's faces picture normally it looks white until you zoom into it. you then notice that even the plain, untouched white background is actually made up of very differing coloured pixels sat next to each other. check the RGB values anywhere in both pictures and you will soon see there are highly suspicious areas of straight lines on the background where the colour is identical numerically, and that is not normal.

the pixelation around the ufo is not normal. the top blends into the background but not on the sides. i would like an explanation of whether the background was painted before or after the ufo (not going to say why at this point)

take particular notice of the box i drew across the bottom of the page. in the right and in between the feet is a very, very suspicious pattern in the background which appears totally straight all the way along but it does not appear on the left hand side of the page from the left foot. no way on earth is this effect a natural brushstroke!

ExquisitExamplE, blaine is right about the straight lines - they HAVE to be parallel to the edges or they wouldn't be straight! however, the amount of straight lines is suspicious (especially the hidden ones in the background) and even blaine could not reproduce drawn straight lines to the extent that they appear in this picture which is supposedly drawn by a 7 year old. i also see no evidence of brush strokes in the op's picture which can be seen in blaines red face. any artist/spray painter will tell you that red is the colour which most difficult to get an even finish on.

there are a lot of questions i would like to ask the op which would confirm/deny certain aspects of this picture's authenticity. i'm not going to mention them because i don't think he's coming back.

sorry, but the more i look at this picture the more it looks computer generated. that is my opinion and you are welcome to yours. i present evidence not based on any gut feeling but on inconsistencies i observe. i'd be quite happy for the op to come back here, answer some of my questions and convince me he is telling a truthful story. i'm not holding my breath though

[edit on 23-8-2007 by justyc]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I have no idea how this got to 22 pages so quickly,
with just a fairly common story which could have been thought up in a few minutes and no real evidence of anything whatsoever.

Nothing new is brought to the table here. It's a nice story, but is there really much need to analyse this so much??

You might say 'so it doesn't spread further'
But trust me, something like this won't spread.
All the attention the op will get is right here in ats.
And you're all giving it to him.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   
It is odd that it is 22 pages long, I agree.

Since I learned a new trick, I thought I would put all of the Texan's posts together
www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=Texas_Longhorn

While reading the first post I found it believable because it was so simple and matter of fact.

I too then questioned the therapist suggesting this site.

It was the last post however that was odd, a sorta in your face Captian America?
Also the way he stayed cool and calm like he really didn't care,



On a final note, here is the picture my son wanted to draw to share with you guys.


My son wanted to draw? Why not my son drew?

I have seen UFO's so I am a believer.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by justyc
 


The dad said he got a pad of thick paper for his water coloring son because otherwise the colors would bleed through . . . I guess making a mess or some such.

I have a pack of such paper around some where and many, if not all, the lighter colored pages such as white and light yellow, light blue, light green etc. are MOTTLED, SPLOTCHY, VARIGATED INHERENTLY color-wise--the paper itself is NOT all one color.

and, if I remember correctly, some of the fibers are bigger than usual for paper. I don't recall if the bigger fibers go in really straight lines for several what would be pixels worth of distance but I have it faintly in mind that they do.

I don't know that the above means anything or might alter your analysis, or not. But it's what I immediately thought of when dad said he got a pack of that paper for the boy.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777


My son wanted to draw? Why not my son drew?



What do you mean with this question? It's quite straightforward to me.

The statement implies that the father was discussing the fact that he was telling others about this supposed event and the son wanted to draw more pictures to show to people.

To just say that he 'drew' it has no such connotations of a willingness or desire to share.

It's really rather plain, I would suggest.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by more_serotonin_pls]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I understand, it just struck me as odd.

Honestly I don't know if the guys for real or not, he could very well be, but where is he?

[edit on 23-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


More than likely ran as fast as he could 180 deg. from here into the waiting arms of people who are at minimum willing to listen to him for more than a days worth of posting before tossing him of the cliff OR realized that his hoax skillz sorely need honing before trying junk like that out here - we will never know.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ExquisitExamplE
 


I'd just like to add to your observations ExquisiteExamplE.

If the child was afraid of the flying black shield, why did the child also draw the red being? If the red being and the flying black shield appeared together, or even one before the other, the flying black shield would go virtually unnoticed, or perhaps be quickly forgotten, temporarily or permanently, by the child. The red being is the most obvious and more immediate threat. Red is more noticeable than any other color, and so the red being would be the thing that the child would be more likely to report as being the object of his fear. In my opinion, the flying black shield would be the last thing on that child's mind, and least likely to remember. Seeing that red being, which appears to be approaching the observer in the picture, would be a traumatic experience for anybody, adult or child.

About the red being: The red being appears to be looking at the observer at eye level. That could mean that the observer made eye contact with the red being, and noticed that it was threatening to the observer. Also when combined with the expression of anger that has already been discussed in this thread, the tears in the red being's eyes expresses guilt, in my opinion. Why would this red being be carrying an expression of anger and guilt towards the observer?

Another compelling thing about the red being is that it has three fingers on each hand. That's an important detail because in order to know that the red being only had three fingers on each hand the observer needed to be focused on the being's hands. Or a choice was made to use three fingers. Cartoons from fifties and sixties generally featured characters that had only four fingers. The Flintstones, Woody Woodpecker, and Mickey Mouse are all examples of this. So the child notices that the red being has three fingers on each hand, yet, he does not notice how many fingers Captain America has? According to TLH, the child is familiar with Captain America comics. Captain America's depiction is always anatomically correct in Marvel Comics, i.e. he has five fingers on each hand. His hands are featured prominently because of the use of his shield, and his proneness to get into fist fights. Captain America wears gloves, not mittens. The drawing of the red being shows action, the drawing of Captain America does not, and that is also odd.

About the flying black shield: TLH stated that his son observed the flying shield in the daytime. TLH also stated that he, himself, tried for several nights to catch a sighting of the flying shield. TLH's son depicted the flying shield as having a black color. TLH had a nighttime sighting of a flying shield. Was TLH's flying shield also black? Or was it a different color? Did it have lights? Or some other source of illumination that would make it visible to in dark of night? TLH's son did not depict the flying shield as having any lights or illumination. To say the least, it would have been difficult, though not impossible, for TLH to notice in the nighttime sky a flying black object that wasn't somehow illuminated to make it easily visible. As another has pointed out, it is odd that TLH looked for the flying shield at night when his son's sighting occured during the day.

Did the red being originate from the flying black shield? Are the two images unrelated to one another apart from there being an association of terror with the two events?

TLH's story lacks cohesion and consistency in many areas. Some questions could have easy and plausible answers, but there are some unsettling elements that I can't avoid noticing, regardless of whether the story is true or not.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Guys, wow.. I love the debate as to the validity of this story, but it was clear to me and anyone who looked closely at that picture that it was done with a computer, not a human hand. The lines were obviously too straight and upon closer inspection turned out to be computer generated. So, why not attach [HOAX] to this thread and just let it die. His main source of evidence was debunked in such a way as to make the rest of his story meaningless. I hate to perpetuate this lengthy discussion, but lets just let it die. He seemed like a nice guy and all, but the picture is a fake therefore his story is mostly likely fake as well. Let's move along, there's nothing left to discuss here.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join