Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

did anyone ever debunk the mothman pic

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


it's not a gargoyle because it doesnt seem to have water pouring from its mouth so technically it's a grotesque!




posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
I don't really see that much of a difference, except that it sticks out to the side. 3 mothmen?



That's what I originally thought as well, but if you check out the second picture where the "Mothman" is in flight, the object on top of the background bridge post is gone.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Neysa
 


Did they have those wing suit back when the bridge collapse? I'm not sure of the year but wasn't it in the late 80s? I could be wrong, but if they did not have those suits then it is probably something else. Maybe not a mothman, but I don't think its a wing suit either.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by leelo
reply to post by Neysa
 


Did they have those wing suit back when the bridge collapse? I'm not sure of the year but wasn't it in the late 80s? I could be wrong, but if they did not have those suits then it is probably something else. Maybe not a mothman, but I don't think its a wing suit either.
If its a person,whatever they're doing,why would they be filmed/photographed from so far away? If i was filming my friend jumping off of a bridge,i certainly would'nt be standing far off,i'd be much closer to him...



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
I remember seeing that pic several years ago. I have no idea what others have said about it, but to me it looks like an insect was crawling on the lens when the first shot was taken; then you see it flying off...


A bug on the lens would be much, much blurrier, and larger.


Originally posted by isyeye
I can't find the overall height of the bridge, but the navigational clearance of the bridge is 73.2 Feet (22.3 Meters), so I'm guessing that bridge is about 125 feet or so to the very top. I've climbed about 40 feet up a tree that sat on top of a 65 foot cliff and dove out head first, so yeah....I'd do it...


You're talking about jumping from something that is at least twice as tall as the cliff you jumped from. Sure, you might have done it, but you'd have broken your neck.


Originally posted by thewesticle
I have to interject really quickly on the "wing-suit" theory:

While wing-suits have been around for 80-some years, the kind of suit you're showcasing here really didn't exist prior to the early 70's, which would be a few years after the bridge collapsed.


You're right, but the timestamp on the pictures is 2003. Clearly these pictures are not of the actual Point Pleasant bridge and mothman.

If this is a picture of a person in a wingsuit, then the camera captured the moments just before they did a belly-flop into the water from 125+ feet, which would probably kill them. Of course, it's still possible that this is what the picture represents, but unlikely. Nobody who knows what they're doing with a wingsuit climbs up to the top of a frickin bridge with it.

Anyway thanks for posting, I'd never seen the second picture before.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I think that mothman came from deep underground and that bizarre flying entity may have gained access to our surface world via the numerous abandoned deep mines in the area where it was first seen and encountered...
edit on 21-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by pause4thought
I remember seeing that pic several years ago. I have no idea what others have said about it, but to me it looks like an insect was crawling on the lens when the first shot was taken; then you see it flying off...


A bug on the lens would be much, much blurrier, and larger.

Maybe it was a really small insect?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I doubt if the Mothman would let him be photographed.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
Maybe it was a really small insect?


Anything right up on the lens will be blurred and smeared out over the image. A really small thing on the lens might not even be noticeable. Consider that any given camera lens is flaked with all sorts of dust, hair, smudges (especially on camera phones)... you don't see these things pop up in pictures, because they're so blurred they cover most of the image & have become largely transparent.
edit on 2-5-2012 by wirehead because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by blackmetalmist
 


How come no one is seeing a similarity between that supposed mothman and the object on the other peak of the bridge??? Looks like someone clipped the object and pasted on the side.




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by blackmetalmist
 


How come no one is seeing a similarity between that supposed mothman and the object on the other peak of the bridge??? Looks like someone clipped the object and pasted on the side.





I just realized its the same thing. Probably got a bit too excited to even notice ! Darn.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
To the best of my knowledge, those photos have never been debunked. Never proven, either, but no fraud proof. That said, they are most interesting! I have a copy of the original Mothman Prophecies, and it's very interesting. Yes, also very different from the movie in many respects (though the movie is good). Worth a read, if you can locate a copy. Far better for serious research than the more recent "reports" from that area. I suspect most of those are for publicity, to boost tourism. In any case, the original stuff was compelling, though very weird!

These pictures......definitely odd. The suit thing, I could see someone jumping in, from that height (they work like a chute, sort of, right?), BUT, the shape seems off for that. Really, the shape looks more like the pterosaurs in JP3, with the folded wings. Yeah, yeah, I know, but it does LOOK like that! There are reports, too, of such things. I have personally seem something flying that was odd, one night many years back with my brother. He's seen it since, at least once. It's no bird, can tell you that! Very scary, too. The story is available in a book now (no, not mine). The ropen of PNG is also reported widely, and interestingly enough, witnesses claim it is quite frightening, too. What we saw was BAD. Not like any animal I have ever seen. I have seen a lot, too, being an avid zoo goer, and having lived in Florida for a time, with a LOT of water birds. I know what they look like flying. Heck, i even have very recent video of a heron. This wasn't one. So, I can't say this thing in the pictures couldn't be something weird. Mothman, pterosaur, gargoyle, something. We were making Dracula jokes (sort of like whistling through the graveyard) about the thing we saw. I will say this; I don't want to see one again unarmed. If I DO see one, planning to bring it down. What we saw was no one in any suit, either, as it was flying back and forth above some utility lines. No suit does that. No noise, either.

So don't write off the possibilities. We may know a lot, but we don't know everything.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Although I can see your point, that is clearly not the same thing. And it is for that reason why no1 has probably mentioned it.

It also does not explain the 3rd photo when it 'flys' away.






top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join