does your son know how to use photoshop too, because that image you posted is digital

Im not buying this..lol

Originally posted by Tuning Spork


EDIT: Then again, would it need to go through PhotoShop in order to convert it to a JPEG?

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Tuning Spork]

You could do that with PS, but I'm pretty sure the scanner would generate the JPEG by default. I'm gonna take a closer look at the pic and compare it with drawings of my own that I have scanned. Andy

Originally posted by Tuning Spork

Plenty of people, after seeing Psycho, were afraid of taking a shower. Plenty more, after seeing JAWS were afraid of swimming at the beach.

They feared showers and beaches and psychos and sharks, Bo Xian, not movie screens.
[edit on 20-8-2007 by Tuning Spork]

1. There's no evidence, so far, of ANY aversion to watching any particular type of TV show . . . none, no evidence at all.

2. There's no evidence that the son is averse, fearful of going in the back yards of any of his friends or relatives. The fear is reported as very location specific. VERY location specific.

3. The dog is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% UNLIKELY to be influenced by TV shows about back yards.

4. The dog is HIGHLY LIKELY to be influenced by REAL . . . entities and phenomena . . . in . . .

!!!THE!!! son's . . . . BACK YARD.

5. There is significant evidence over many centuries of animals being sensitive to . . . other dimensional creatures.

6. Father didn't see the craft flying rapidly over the . . . TV. He saw the craft flying rapidly over . . . . THE BACK YARD!

Skepticism has it's place . . . there's an abundance of hoaxes and disinformation and skull duggery of every type in our era.

But . . . gads . . . what is so durn difficult about taking the boy's . . . and the father's story . . . at face value for a few micro seconds of thoughtful pondering? Sheesh.

Originally posted by Realtruth
Here is what I find odd about the story. Being in construction for many years I have never seen one residential home with a 10 foot fence and rarely do people have 6 foot fences in their yard, unless privacy is a concern.

10 and 12 foot fences, concrete, block walls, actually, are VERY common in Taipei . . . Hong Kong . . .

I don't know about his region of Canada.

I compared this with some of the drawings I've done and scanned into PhotoShop. First of all, regarding the straight lines on the "red-man", when drawing with a mouse its not unusual to get those. In fact, its kind of annoying when you're trying to draw a curve and the mouse gives you a straightened out portion. When you look at the red dude, there are straight lines in places, but on the black saucer, there are none. Its edges are all random pixels in black and some grey, and white. This is interesting, because the background has no white in it...its all mottled colors. Also, the red guy doesn't show any white around its edges.
I thought at first the background coloration was just the result of scanning some kind of lightly colored paper, but the coloring is much lighter toward the bottom of the image, which makes that seem unlikely. If the paper was mottled, you'd think it would be uniform over the entire surface, and there would be no white around the edge of the saucer.
Need to hear back from the OP with some more info on this, I think. Andy

Originally posted by justyctry getting any 7 year old you know to draw a picture of a person (in whatever medium the OP claims the picture was drawn/painted in) and then scan it. once you zoom in on it you will see the vast difference between cgi and real. try getting them to draw a straight line. try getting them to colour in an outlined shape as perfectly as is done in this particular picture. try getting them to mix colours as delicately as the background colouring is. this picture is just an obvious fake.

1. Y'all are the pic experts, not me.

2. I also tend to have a very strong bias toward taking people at face value UNTIL proven otherwise conclusively.

3. I still go with the people cues on this story, for the present. Still sounds like a father's story about his son.

Just get the name/number of the professional who referred to ATS,
he can send it to springer for privacy reasons if he's worried about that.
He can call up and do a check.
Unwillingness to comply = hoax.
Unless he wants to have someone or himself answer the phone pretending to be a psychologist 24/7 for the next few weeks, i'd say it's a safe bet.

Easy.

if you don't mind texas longhorn, i have a few questions to add.
how many times have you seen these shields, roughly?
how did they behave during your sightings?
has your brother moved from texas to canada aswell? if so it seems strange for both of you to move so far to end up so close together, if not it seems strange that you got the dog from him.
has your wife seen anything? whats her take on the situation?

Originally posted by BO XIAN
1. There's no evidence, so far, of ANY aversion to watching any particular type of TV show . . . none, no evidence at all.

There are no statements as the whether he has or has not watched TV.

2. There's no evidence that the son is averse, fearful of going in the back yards of any of his friends or relatives. The fear is reported as very location specific. VERY location specific.

There are no statements as the whether he has or has not feared other yards.

3. The dog is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% UNLIKELY to be influenced by TV shows about back yards.

The dog could be affected by people, not TV.

5. There is significant evidence over many centuries of animals being sensitive to . . . other dimensional creatures.

What evidence is there that other dimensional creatures actually exist.

Who's being shortsighted here?

Originally posted by more_serotonin_pls


OK - a referral to ATS from a health professtional is a little odd, I guess.
But the drawing, I dunno whether you're over analysing it a bit...

I'm a very qualified Sports/Remedial massage therapist, and i'd refer to ATS : )

Ugh, I had a chill myself just reading that. It seems like an M. Night Shyamalan film.

But I believe you are sincere, I think it'd be best to put a camera out in the backyard. But I'd personally have panicked and moved out of the house in your situation.

I swear I keep looking over my shoulder now, it creeped me that bad.

I live in North York in a high-rise condo, on the 25th floor.
I am facing south west and can see downtown, and along 401 until Yorkdale. Major intersection is Yonge and 401.

I don't stay up late every night scanning for UFO's, and most the objects I've seen at night are planes. There are 2 airports around us, Downsview and Pearson.

Just adding to the topic.

For those that wonder why some here say hoax so quickly it's not because we don't want to give the BOTD, it's that we've been here for awhile and have seen so many stories that we learn to spot potential hoaxes quite quickly.

If it's worth BOTD then we will most assuredly give it. This story however has a few tells right off the bat.

Many of you will realize that after a year or so you will see right thru these stories with little effort. I'm not blowing my own horn but I have yet to be wrong but I will definitely apologize if I ever am.

Trust the dog. I'm telling you from experience, Trust The Dog.

1. My terrier sleeps in his bed which is next to my bed every night.
2. I take heavy duty sleeping pills each night to sleep.

My list could continue for a few inches, so it wouldn't matter... but one thing is for certain: Trust The Dog...

The child may or may not be afraid of something, whether ETs or something else.

I question why a 'recent event' (per original posts) has a supporting image dated in March 2007. Do many people consider four and one half months later recent.

Originally posted by jbondo
For those that wonder why some here say hoax so quickly it's not because we don't want to give the BOTD, it's that we've been here for awhile and have seen so many stories that we learn to spot potential hoaxes quite quickly.

I have some respect for that.

I tend to be quite biased the other direction, as I've said. I don't know that I'd say I was wholesale gullible . . . shrinks MUST learn to see through many layers of stories for many reasons and meanings.

But I will certainly TEND to take someone at face value for at least some minutes, if not some hours until very conclusive evidence persists otherwise.

I just cringe at the ruthless, instantaneous full frontal attack that everyone must endure who dares to brave coming on here with a sensitive emotional story, situation that they earnestly want help with.

What a pack of wolves determined to one-up one another proving FIRST that EVERY last shred of every story IS A HOAX! HOAX I TELL YOU, A HOAX!

It's almost like packs of folks froth at the mouth gleefully out-doing one another proving hoax.

And real people with real situations and emotional sensitivities would be super brave or idiots to submit themselves to such willingly. Just saddens me.

I realize ATS is assaulted with one relentless hoax after another. That's the other side.

Part of me wonders if threads such as this should have two columns . . . one taking it at face value with kindness and supportivness and one with all the assaults on a possible hoax. And if the OP wanted to avoid the assaults on a possible hoax column, they could.