I found this video - What should I do with it?

reply to post by Heike


No problem my friend. I was hoping for more as well.

My biggest disappointment is the citizens of Denver are going to vote on an $86,000 yearly Initiative and never know what they are voting on!

Now all we need is some savvy peeps to rip the video down frame by frame and enhance the contrast or whatever to get more detail. If I am not mistaken at one point for a second in the aliens right eye the pupil glowed like any other humanoid or animals would. That to me is quite realistic and adds to the authenticity.

Yes, I have to say it.

It bothers me when someone threatens you by email, requests something, and won't give a physical address where you respond in writing.

Yes, this is about the Stan Romanek/Jeff Peckman Denver taxpayer/dog in a window hoax.

You see, last I checked, no one can deny, withhold, or disallow you information on a ballot issue. And the government can't sign away the voters rights to view any information that would assist the voter in making an informed decision.

This video fails the copyright test since it is directly related to a political issue. And even if the government does not have it in it's possession, it has knowledge of the location, and has used it to place an issue on the ballot. Not to mention, it was placed in the public arena through Mr. Romanek voluntarily to place an issue on the ballot.

Under the Colorado Open Records Act, I'm considering a letter to the City of Denver asking that that video be released publicly, as it relates directly to the ballot issue which could cost Denver taxpayers $86,000 a year.

It is worth noting a form of voter obstruction/voter tampering, or some voting irregularity is being conducted in withholding pertinent information in an effort to scam the voters with what is described as an alien in a window, but denies the voters the ability to decide for themselves.

Is it wrong to ask, that that information be made public so that it can be independently analyzed by the voter?

In this case, the public's right to know outweighs any copyright infringement since the matter has become a public issue. And it appears under the Equal Time Act, this information must available for examination with regard to any possibility of refuting the statements that put this measure on the ballot. Otherwise, there is no debate on the issue, just a one sided means of extorting money from the public.

What I'm saying is the voters have the right to weigh any and all evidence for themselves to make their decisions about it's validity before they go to the polls. The circumstances here are no different than whether Obama gives birthday presents, or Hillary Clinton adopted an alien baby, or (fill in the blank with any other investigation regarding public figures/public policy.)

In this case, the tyranny of the majority rules even where it harms Mr. Romanek's private interest since one can't place information in a public arena as it pertains to the ballot and then scream copyright infringement when the opponents attempt to use it against the measure proposed.

The voter must have the information used to get the measure on the ballot to be able to make an informed decision.

There is a lack of courage evident when one sends an email making demands.

I'm thinking a letter to the mayor of Denver and City Council is an appropriate measure pointing out these very obvious irregularities and improprieties.

/rant

Gary..I'm sorry you're having issues with these guys..but you do live in the land of the instant lawsuit..so I would be more careful..

All this is beside the point I want to make and that is this snippet of video is the real deal and it is definitely no DOG!!!

A couple of points to make..the window is 8-9 feet off the ground..either we have a levitating dog or one with his own 'acme-kitted' extendable legs

There's a patch of dark pixels, due to artifacting in video compression, located just on the edge of the window sill around the mouth part of the being's face..making it appear as if it's a dog's nose..this is inconsistent with the head movement as when the creature looks left or right or up and down the positioning of this dark patch isn't relative.

At about 7 seconds the creature turns it's head and looks to our left..and you can clearly see the bulbous head outline and the creatures eyelid mounds and where you would expect to see the snout in profile ...there is none

Also where are the ears??


I'm not sure people are properly analysing this video..there's lot more to it

I'm willing to take a much closer look at the picture itself, even if these people are causing me problems. So:

Look at the size of the window.

The mistake is made because everyone is willing to accept the statement that that window is 8 foot off the floor.

It is not.

That window is a 3 foot wide by 6 foot tall.
So if it is 8 foot off the ground, that room has to be 16 foot tall!

Not likely.

Now, if you measure any room in your house you'll find it comes out to about 8 foot. Some older houses may have 10 foot ceilings but even then a 6 foot tall window can't be placed 8 foot off the floor without sticking through the roof.

Who puts a window 8 foot off the floor anyway?
You couldn't see out.

It's a dog/wolf/canine.

I'm open to discussing it.


[edit on 7/30/2008 by garyo1954]

[edit on 7/30/2008 by garyo1954]

Ok, for the sake of discussion let's not contest the point that the window is 8 feet off the ground.

Then .. what is the alien standing on? A quick search did not bring up any reports of flying, levitating, or floating greys. (Judging from the shape of the head and eyes, this is clearly supposed be a "grey." )

If the window is that high off the ground, the video makes no more or less sense if it is an alien than if it is a canine. Neither has the ability to fly that we know of, and I see no sign of a ship or anything like that behind the figure.

How about if I also apply simple logic? A dog looking in a window to watch its family makes perfect sense. Mine do it, I've seen other dogs do it.

But why would a grey be "peeping" into a window? If he doesn't want to be seen, that's a risky position to take (especially 8 feet off the ground). If he does want to be seen, I wouldn't think peeping into a girl's bedroom would be the way to make "first contact."
If the reports can be believed, greys typically enter houses and bedrooms and abduct the occupants, they don't watch them through windows. So this would be very atypical behavior for a grey. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense any way I try to look at it.

reply to post by Heike


But geez, Heike, I didn't get to my further argument of the reflections which also prove the window can't be 8 foot off the ground.

Still, I agree with you. If I leave my lab outside he'll sit on lay right at that door until I let him in.

The point you make about the greys is exact. Paolo Harris told me yesterday she has seen film in Stan's house of two different greys. And greys was term she used.

One of those is what brought about Bryan Baxter's alien in the kitchen video which was the creature peaking around the corner seen on Larry King.

If you can find a old copy of the opening or closing credits of (a certain television program), you can see that creature. It is something you won't see from Peckman or Romanek because if you did, you'd say:

BUSTED!



[edit on 7/30/2008 by garyo1954]

Originally posted by garyo1954
The mistake is made because everyone is willing to accept the statement that that window is 8 foot off the floor.

The window is 8 foot off the ground OUTSIDE the room not the internal floor ..ie the house is built on a slope or has some room/space under the house etc..

Also there are many abduction reports of these beings levitating or walking right through walls etc ..or even of 8 foot tall grays as reported by Streiber and other experiencers.. ..there's even a current NASA 8ft tall ET thread...

It's beside conjecture what these things look like and are capable of..because simply no one has all the facts at the moment.

I just would like these images analyzed apart from the really petty politics that usually surrounds these claims..

Springer!?

I have edited a gif sequence of the head turn..but have no more member upload space left ..so lookin for an alternative


Ok here it is..notice as the head turns the rounded bulbous shape of it..no shoulders above and beyond the head..in fact as the head turns to our extreme left..you just see the neck and a hint of a shoulder below the head..no ears..a flat face..no snout ..etc;

You'll start seeing it soon..and when you do ..don't be scared lol!

www.esnips.com...



[edit on 30-7-2008 by OEAOHOO]

reply to post by OEAOHOO


I would like nothing better than to have this footage professionally analyzed. In fact, I would very much like to have it be proven to be an alien rather than a canine. I just don't see it that way at the moment. It is not my intent to be either argumentative, political or close-minded. I am merely applying basic logic and what it looks like to me.

If you do not have access to photobucket, imageshack, or a similar image hosting site, I invite you to email the .gif to me and I will upload it to my photobucket account and post it for you. U2U me for my email address.

Originally posted by OEAOHOO

The window is 8 foot off the ground OUTSIDE the room not the internal floor ..ie the house is built on a slope or has some room/space under the house etc..

So....

How do you explain the bush in the lower right corner of the window?

Any basement would be underground which means it wouldn't count to the height of the window.

And if there was a room below this one, we're talking second floor which means that floor is ten foot off the ground, the dog and the bush are about 14 foot tall!

Why claim alien if you have a 14 foot dog?

(I'm trying to add a little laughter.)

A dog?

Please show me a dog that has a bulbous, furless head with no ears and no snout. Dead(decomposed) and mutilated ones don't count.

Is the thing in the video a real alien? I wouldn't know. I've never seen one. If it's a hoax, it looks like a pretty expensive one. Animatronic puppets aren't cheap to make or buy. What I do know is that it sure as hell doesn't look like any species of dog on this planet.

I'm looking forward to what the experts have to say. Hope the indoor footage gets leaked online as well.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by d2che]

reply to post by Heike


To do a solid evaluation you have to have all the footage. We don't. And if what we have is the best he has to offer, then we have a dog looking in a window.

But I agree. This needs to be carefully analyzed which, BTW, was the reason he didn't want to release it to the public.

That didn't stop him from displaying to Denver city officials in an attempt to get 86,000 Denver taxpayer dollars to produce his doodoomentary.

They don't want an independent evaluation because they know it will fail just as it failed the previous evaluation.

reply to post by d2che


What indoor footage are you talking about?

If you take the picture into Photoshop you can even see the triangle shape of the nose.

Wait a minute Gary, I see his point and I have to agree that it's possible. I myself have a house that's built on a slope, and my back windows are about 7 feet off the ground from the outside (i. e. too high to look in) although my front windows are only 2 or 3 feet off the ground. This is because the foundation of the house was built up on the low side of the hill so that the floor would be level, leaving a crawl space underneath that varies in height according to the slope of the hilside.

It sure would be nice to see a picture of the house .. and the window .. from the outside!

Ok..you're not seeing it ..or you're stuck on the dog..lol..that's ok ..admittedly the footage is awful and needs to be cleaned up.

I won't go into the political fracas surrounding the case, everybody's got some take on it..it's well documented.

I'm thankful to Gary for even this much of the original video, and look forward to seeing the rest some time.

reply to post by garyo1954


If you've been following this case you would've known that apart from the peek-a-boo alien footage, Romanek also has footage of an ET in his house. A totally different ET than the one seen in the footage we're discussing.

Sorry, but I just don't understand how you can convince yourself that it's a dog in the window when there is no elongated snout profile to be seen when the subject turns its head.

I guess we're just gonna have to wait and see til a hi-res video comes online.

P.S: It would be cool if you could get the indoor footage too.
[edit on 30-7-2008 by d2che]

[edit on 30-7-2008 by d2che]

reply to post by OEAOHOO


It is me who should thank you for raising these questions!

This is an interesting piece of footage that I would like to have in it's entirety so that an evaluation can be done offering proof either way.

This thread has evolved passed the first one where everyone was screaming 'man in a T-shirt!'

No hard feelings here. I hope the same is true on your end.

reply to post by d2che


Don't make assumptions without checking a few other threads. You might be surprised how much investigation I've put into this.

Okay. So you're talking about the kitchen footage which I referenced in a post above. Bryan Baxter made a spoof of it as well. I know the one you're talking about.

As I stated in that post, that 'alien' footage was used in the opening and closing credits of a 'certain television program.'


[edit on 7/31/2008 by garyo1954]

reply to post by garyo1954


My mistake. Should've known better than to make assumptions.

Do you happen to know where I could see this footage you're referring to? Which show was it? I take it that you've seen the actual Romanek footage of the alien in his house?

I should've said this in my first post here but thanks for sharing this footage. If I gave you the impression that I'm trying to bust your balls, I can assure you that is not my intention.

Cheers.

Let's not lose sight of reality, here, people.

Aliens do not exist until proven that they do.

Every time I happen upon a thread that purports to have evidence, that evidence is so easily, ridiculously, disputed.

If it's not because of the credibility of the film crew, it's because the video itself proves nothing.

If it's not because the video itself proves nothing, it's because there is actually more footage that we just haven't seen yet.

If it's not because the conclusive footage hasn't been shown yet, it's because the actual high-ranking, government official types who can validate said footage aren't available for comment.

If it's not because said high-ranking, government official types aren't available for comment, it's because same government officials can't exactly be shown to have worked for the government.

Should I really go on?

Someone out there....please....anyone....have something that actually gives hope to this cause.