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

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE

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?

Hand drawn face shapes. Scanned and then shown at 72 dpi at 300% zoom with no re-sampling.

Any time two pixels are less than 50% out of line with each other they will combine to form a straight edge perpendicular with the edges of the document. If you get a few pixels less than 50% out of line in a row you get longer straight edges perpendicular with the edges of the document. It does not matter if it is a scan of a drawing or photo or a line drawn in Photoshop. Pixels are squares and if you zoom in far enough all images eventually become visibly pixelated. A straight edge only means that you have zoomed in far enough to show pixelation. It does not reveal how the image was created.

The OP's document, whether done by his child or not, clearly shows a pattern one could reasonably expect when taking a picture of a drawing done a with water based medium on an inexpensive absorbent paper. These papers are often used with watercolors or water based markers which are in effect watercolors in a pen. It is therefore consistent with his story but does not prove who did the original drawing.

I'm not agreeing with anything other than the original document was not made on a computer but rather scanned from the original. I do not believe the original was drawn on a computer with a mouse, tablet or any other device.

The bleeding of color is even more proof of the above. Water based mediums always bleed. The mottling is even more aggressive proof this was not drawn on a computer. If this was a pattern fill there would be a clearly repeating pattern visible. There is no such thing visible here.

The image below demonstrates how fill patterns repeat visibly. Even complex fills end up with repeating patterns. This is another reason I believe the part about this being a scan of a watercolor drawing.

Originally posted by pjslug
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.

One of my early posts was about something I saw here in Anchorage. I did not get attacked but it was ignored. The sighting was and is genuine. Nobody was interested so I started ignoring the UFO Forum for the most part. Lately I've gotten interested again. I figured nobody here really cares about sightings that are not reported on phony sites like C2C. I would never in a million years report a genuine sighting to something like C2C. They are way to willing to report obvious frauds and just plain silly crapolla. I still watch for what I saw here to appear again. If I do see it, I doubt I'll mention it here.

I keep a camera under my desk just in case and I know how to use it. I won't be taking any photo's of birds or Lenticular Clouds.

reply to post by Blaine91555


I see. Very elucidating, thanks for your time and expertise. I will yield to your opinion as you clearly have much more experience in the field than I.

Alas, I think that unless Longhorn comes back we have reached the end of the road here. Cheers friends!

to me this is all a moot point until we see a video of the dog freaking out near the back door.

Originally posted by darkheartrising
to me this is all a moot point until we see a video of the dog freaking out near the back door.

Dude, it takes forever for Rent-a-Bengal-Tiger to return your calls and they're usually booked solid in August.

Give it time. I have a feeling he'll be back. Though I'm not a big ET believer there may have been something to his story.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by Badge01]

You know whats funny about this thread? Because of my opinion and i suppose the way i presented it, I went from having 0 foes to two foes.
Necro Pyro and Bo Xian seem to have problems with some or all of my posts on here

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE

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?

Hand drawn face shapes. Scanned and then shown at 72 dpi at 300% zoom with no re-sampling.

Any time two pixels are less than 50% out of line with each other they will combine to form a straight edge perpendicular with the edges of the document....

The OP's document, whether done by his child or not, clearly shows a pattern one could reasonably expect when taking a picture of a drawing done a with water based medium on an inexpensive absorbent paper....

I'm not agreeing with anything other than the original document was not made on a computer but rather scanned from the original. I do not believe the original was drawn on a computer with a mouse, tablet or any other device.

The bleeding of color is even more proof of the above....

I cut down the quote a bit so I don't get yelled at.

I agree 100% with you and I'd like to thank you for going the extra yard to present an example. I was drowned out earlier during the ruckus, but, did post that I scan lots of stuff my daughter paints and I draw. When you scan anything into MY computer, you do it through PhotoSuite 2, a similar product to PhotoShop. It get scanned in as a HUGE Bitmap image and reducing it from 5 megs to 900k is a must. If you do this it will soften the image some. It'll join all those pixels that are closer than 50% out of line just by reducing the image. I also usually save the image as a .jpg so it'll open in PS2 instead of Paint. Converting it to a .jpg also softens the image edges to conditions described above.

What it all comes to in MY mind is there is no evidence that the picture provides any smoking gun to a hoax.
Do I know that his kid painted it? No. Do I know that his kid DIDN'T paint it? Heavens no. I'd love to ask the OP more, but...you know.

Blaine. Good post.

Cuhail

Originally posted by Areal51
If the child was afraid of the flying black shield, why did the child also draw the red being?

I read your whole post. When I was done, I glanced at your signature. I noticed the word "demon." Then I got to thinking, what if the kid was drawing what he believed was a demon? In modern society, people usually portray demons or satan as being reddish in color. Perhaps the kid goes to bible school and is being brainwashed? Maybe he didn't see anything in his backyard at all. And the three fingers? Perhaps they are representative of the devil's pitchfork, or a trident. Who knows, really.

And DarkHeartRising,
I'm not sure why you think a video of the dog is so important to this puzzle. Anyone could film their dog barking from inside their backdoor. That certainly doesn't mean that the backyard is being invaded by flying shields or demons.

reply to post by pjslug


i'm sure it could be faked but it would at least give us one thing of his story that turned to be true. am the only one here that wishes some of these claims one day turns out to be true???

Good analysis and workup.

What some people thought was strange about the picture:

1. very few people will paint the background before doing the painting, though it's common with oil painting by adults;
2. very, very few people will paint the background with a spray painted intermittent fog pattern;
3. the eyes and mouth on drawings by kids is often not placed right inside the face. Here they are placed right;
4. most kids paintings have a clearly defined ground and sky and usually has the sun in the morning and the moon or stars at night...iow a background with horizontal divisions;
5. the detail of the hands is often not done well by children, and they usually do no fingers or a mitten shape or they do three fingers on one hand and four on the other (or something like that);
6. children usually do not get all the fill inside the lines. Here there are only one or two;
7. children usually do an outline first and then fill it in, again, leaving a fair amount of white space. (see the Captain America drawing for this);
8. children usually do not use that many colors and I think it's unusual for the eyes to have both blue and black in them.

None of these things, by themselves, is enough to cause doubt, though taken together might indicate an adult drawing an image as they think a child would.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by Badge01]

I just want to add..I looked at the two scanned drawings made by the"KID". The first painting of the red man looks very childish, with long arms and all the details already mentioned. The crayon drawing of Captain America has a very dynamic feel to the drawing, from the dynamics of the upper body to the pointy hands and feet.it has a Frazzeta like stance to the picture.It seems to good to be true.Even though it is a muddy sketch, The Kids skills jumped 10 years between drawings. I do not think a child could move a scribble drawing so well. I see this drawing has the flow of an adult drawing it. I do not think the kid could even copy it from a comic book so well.





[edit on 23-8-2007 by dntwastetime]

I certainly respect your opinion, but I'd have to politely disagree.

The second drawing is certainly made by a kid of about 7, though it does have some symmetry about it that seems to show some skill.

I don't think that someone challenged to produce a child's drawing would try to pawn off a second work also done by him - try as he might he'd likely screw that up, exposing the work. (Why he changed the type of paper, I don't know but I raised my eyebrow at that.)

The lack of detail - no fingers, no two-color eyes, and scribbling outside lines and leaving white space in the fill indicates to me, a child's method.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just offering another POV.


[edit on 23-8-2007 by Badge01]

I want to see the Alien come out of the ship and get tackled by the dog lol. Now thats must see TV.

This thread has shown me a few things about our little community here on ATS. First, we do not take kindly to someone trying to get their kicks by possibly fabricating a story and seeing how worked up we all get over it. Second, some people seem to spend more time responding to other people disagreeing with them and then micro-analyzing every word of their post, rather than discussing the matter at hand.

Is this what we have become? Come on guys, this is by far the premier speculative theory forum in the world. I don't understand how something like this gets over 400 responses to it, at least 95% are member posts, without any real definitive inquiry by the OP. You guys are the best of the best, whether it be with photoshop knowledge, professional experience, etc... It just seems that more and more people are looking at this community as a bunch of "conspiracy wackos" and trying to make a joke out of our respones to these threads.

Instead of the Spanish Inquisition raining down on the parade, why don't we just take a break from this thread and see if the OP comes back. If not, then so be it. Our collective minds can be at work discussing other trying matters of the day.

Just my 2 cents. I'm getting tired of these long threads that basically end up in petty squabling amongst ourselves.

-Droops

[edit on 23-8-2007 by DrOOpieS]

reply to post by Badge01


I disagree. The original picture was watercolors on mottled paper. It was also done with a kid's paintbrush. The second picture was crayon on notebook paper. A MUCH smoother faced paper. A much more solid and sharp stylus than a kid's paintbrush.

Badge. Earlier you listed 8 things that people thought strange. Where did you get these at? What people. Where did you get all the info on "Most people do this" and "most kids do it this way"? I'm not sure any of that is true. Every single kid has their own style. I can hardly think that these statistics are even researchable by any means. So you can hardly say the two pictures are anywhere near "Comparable to the norm."

None of these things, by themselves, is enough to cause doubt, though taken together might indicate an adult drawing an image as they think a child would.

That's only if your statistics are accurate, which I can't imagine so.

My $.02
Cuhail

If you look closely at the original 'painting' you'll see that the spraypainted background fog effect is not due to the mottling of the paper. It's actually sprayed on, and outlines the foreground images a bit.

Of course that's open to interpretation.

I'll be happy to amend the '8 things...' to things -I- thought odd, though I did have some U2U messages which outlined some of them, so they're not all my own theories. I just agree with them.

Thanks for your input.

Edit: I'm not sure -why- kids paint the way they do. One thing might be the influence of coloring books. Generally those have a picture with ground, grass, sky and foreground. When kids free form this might influence them. Certainly there are lots of styles that kids use, but some styles are considered 'advanced' and are rarely seen. That would include use of 'perspective' before a certain age, and the use of fine details, such as drawing hands and facial features.


[edit on 23-8-2007 by Badge01]

reply to post by Blaine91555


THANKS TONS AND TONS. BLESS YOU. And another star for you.

Any time two pixels are less than 50% out of line with each other they will combine to form a straight edge perpendicular with the edges of the document. If you get a few pixels less than 50% out of line in a row you get longer straight edges perpendicular with the edges of the document. It does not matter if it is a scan of a drawing or photo or a line drawn in Photoshop. Pixels are squares and if you zoom in far enough all images eventually become visibly pixelated. A straight edge only means that you have zoomed in far enough to show pixelation. It does not reveal how the image was created.

So, now,

we have at least

THREE POSSIBLE

affirmations that he was telling the truth about the pic with water colors on absorbitant paper.

1. The kid could have an irregular odd fascination with using a straight edge parallel to pic paper's edge.

2. The kid could have an uncanny natural ability to draw straight lines.

3. Your excellent presentation above.

I think your excellent points are likely the raw truth.

Your logic is solid. Your skills with the medium/technology is clearly above reproach.

You lack the arrogance of the shoot-from-the-hip-on-faint-wisps-of-evidence-and-ask-questions-later crowd . . . .

Your analysis matches my own sense of the man from all my interviewing and listening training and experiences.

Much appreciated.

All those who BAR-B-Q'd him instantaneously might just want to get a wet wipe and at least wipe the BAR-B-Q sauce from their fangs.

Perhaps more importantly . . . they might hesitate a LOT longer before bringing out the spit, BAR-B-Q and sauce to begin with next time.

We really do NOT need to eat our own around here.

reply to post by Badge01

1. very few people will paint the background before doing the painting, though it's common with oil painting by adults;
2. very, very few people will paint the background with a spray painted intermittent fog pattern;

Perhaps you haven't read or believed my post . . .

The instant I saw the background and particularly when I heard he'd bought such a pack of paper . . . I remembered the paper I probably still have some around here of somewhere.

THE PAPER--particularly the light colors--white, light yellow, light blue--WERE ALLLLLL MOTTLED, VARIGATED etc. precisely as his photos show.

THE PAPER WAS BOUGHT THAT WAY.

I do not know how to say it any more plainly.

Why is that so hard to accept???

Mystefying.

reply to post by Badge01

r. It's actually sprayed on, and outlines the foreground images a bit.

You could easily have more expertise in ferreting that out than I.

But the paper looks identical to the paper I have.

Whatever other spraying etc. may have been added, I don't know.

I confess I'm skeptical about such things unless I see them myself and yet in this case . . . a bit part of me just doesn't want to bother.

But I respect your skills and perspective.

Two little girls talk about UFO in their yard as parents film it.

Probably too young to fear.

They just don't see much to fuss about the star in the sky.

Well the parents do make a fuss, perhaps fear of radiation.

I might remind you the we live in aether (part of the gas we live in),
electricity for you home is generated from activated aether, any star
light or UFO light is from aether activation.

Simple as that.
Einstein even has activation constants, check any modern undergrad
physics book.