posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:56 PM
Wow its amazing how many people do not listen to the original source, or cannot be bothered to read things.
The video has not been released to the public, any video you may see, is a fake.
This guy caught something he thought was looking in the window out of the corner of his eye. Before he set up a camera, he went outside and tried to
catch the person but found nothing. This window was 8 feet from the ground.
He also recorded bright flashes of light, prior to the actual sighting of whatever it was.
I also heard (Second hand) of burn marks found on his siding? I have no source for this, maybe someone else does?
Does this look like a grey from the single still we have seen? It sure as hell looks more accurate than all the hollywood versions that plague the
media. Abductees, and original sources have frequently reported 2 types of greys. A round headed one, with smaller eyes, smaller frame, childlike
face, smooth waxy skin. Speculated to be biomechanical/drone like, of course theres no evidence of that. The other type, is the more traditional
elongated head, larger cranium, larger eyes and taller. This type is speculated to have more command control, an actual fully blown entity with
biomechanical augmentation. This second type is reported to also be in the video, in another _ Both types (Unless im mistaken) to have 4
fingers, no thumb, with pads on the finger tips.
I don't really see how anyone can speculate on their motivations, and use this as evidence of a fake. I could hazard a couple guesses. One, its fake
and theres a guy with a puppet, or two its real and perhaps they had their reasons for not just materializing right in the room such as; Preservation
of Energy, Policy Reasons, "Insert random extraterrestrial motivation incomprehensible to human beings here."
The fake videos prove nothing. The Pseudo-Skeptic seen on Larry King who created the one video actually proved how the real footage could be more
credible. He claims he did it for under 100$, yes and he used digital effects to create the blinking, which any photographic/digital analyst worth a
lick can easily detect. While the Film Instructor did NOT detect any digital effects on the original footage making the idea of a hoax less credible
as it would have cost far far more than 100$ to create an animatronic puppet capable of blinking/moving with the realism he reports (If there are
indeed 2 separate types within the video, we would have to double the cost)
In our capitalistic society, making money off anything is not a sign of anything and is redundant. How many of you, if you had caught what you
believed to be a real EBE on video, would try to make some money off it? I sure as hell would. Money keeps me in food, shelter, pepsi and
I really wish to see the footage, we have been tricked before of course, but I will reserve judgement until I have both seen the video, and have read
analysts reports on what they found with his ENTIRE case.
[edit on 3-6-2008 by Cybereality]