Small humanoid creature photographed at Texas gas plant

page: 7
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Verily, you must be joking. This does not look like anything of note, whatsoever.




posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Osiris1953
 


two things first love the avatar. ghandi would be tittering in his grave, second of all, it's one of three things except the drunk homeless midget theory. 1. lost baby bigfoot with possible mange, 2. an e.t. who has to find some better camouflage(if there is another annoying pop idol popular for no reason this is probably it.) or it's one of michael jackons kids who escaped from the basement



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by predator0187
 


Looks like an Ewok to me.


Des


Looks like Gary Coleman to me. I guess that is a bit redundant.
edit on 8-4-2013 by KaiserSoze because: Misspelled retarded



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Then image of the cops on horse back. I always thought that was legit, but am now swayed with the dog explanation. However I have a theory.

Seeing as the blurred creature in the image with the horses, is evidently the result of a shaky camera. is it possible that some of these paranormal creatures, if they exist at all, can only be seen through certain specific conditions?

the reason I suggest this, is because most cultures have traditions of "little people" and there is speculation that these little people, can go in and out of our reality, so interdimensional in nature.

Therefore I suggest it may only be on occasions where we have a double exposure or some problem with the camera or lighting, where they can be caught. Maybe these creatures exist in a permanent state of flux between two dimensions...maybe a camera has to be set up in such a way to cause a cross eyed effect or such, in order to catch these creatures, if they do exist.

Similar to how infared has been used to capture invisible UFO's.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Looks like its wearing shorts!. Nah but it looks weird idd, doesnt look like a human.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
I think Ken is part of the ADG hoax network, many results for his name mention ADG, so for me, its case closed, fake story added to a photo no one can identify....excellent for stirring debate over nothing.

A person walking through a gasworks, a poor quality photo with a bogus story, its got to be an alien!!!!!!!

Carry on guys, lots of nonsense to chat about now.....someone to flame too



I have to co-sign this.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
What about a short environmentalist with a strange GAS Mask/evidence gatherer. That strange appendage bothers me though, gas collecting may be happening. Goggles, mask, sensor. By the way All of my sad analysis is based on pure conjecture and a wild mind have come up with this stupid idea.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Looks like a pink teddy bear holding up his index finger to me.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Miracula
 


what are you bogarting?



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
Filed a complaint to the mods. OP his flaggers: you'd better stop taking people here for idiots...
edit on 8/4/13 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)


Maybe you don't quite understand the way this site works.

I chose to share a picture that I found interesting. That does not mean I think it's an alien, or anything of the like, I was just simply sharing an interesting photo. I do not ask for stars or flags and if I get them that obviously means the thing I found interesting was interesting to others.

What ruins forums like this is when people just post for stars and flags and you can look at my threads to see a lot have very few...

Pred...



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by predator0187
 


Looks like an Ewok to me.


Des
Ummm...Ewoks and Etalks...But he dont come home at all...

YouSir



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by Miracula
 


what are you bogarting?


Decimal meteors.

I'm keeping all the index decimating meteors for myself.

None for you!



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
It looks like the girl from The Grudge.. Just saying.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdot_thadon
I'm a long time lurker on this site and I felt I can contribute to this discussion. I work in chemical plants, and have for around 8 years now. I don't know for sure what I'm looking at but I can indeed offer an educated estimate on the scale. The scaffolding material in the picture tell me this figure is around 3ft tall give or take a half foot for perspective. Not possible to be a plant worker in protective gear unless there's a dwarf working operations. It's also 99% highly unlikely to be a child, as they are forbidden from entering plants due to hazards present. I could be a little more in depth when I get home to my laptop, as I'm in a plant at work as we speak. Hope this can help the investigation.
edit on 8-4-2013 by sdot_thadon because: (no reason given)


I believe your observations are way off....3ft...really?

The person is a good 40ft in front of the scaffolding in the foreground. Have you ever seen the photos with people holding the Eiffel Tower? Same sort of thing.



I believe most people dont understand perspective hence this is 7 pages long and full of people trying to make a way for the bs story to fit the image.

The poles at the front running horizontal are 3m lengths, (worked out by taking the diameter of standard scaffolding (50mm) and dividing it into 60 equal lengths across the width.)...this means the pole that braces between the horizontal and vertical are at least 2m in length.

I guestimate the camera being approximately 26m from the person given the dimensions above. That puts the camera at just over 85ft away. Which in turn makes the person about 1.7m - 2m tall.
edit on 8-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
Filed a complaint to the mods. OP his flaggers: you'd better stop taking people here for idiots...
edit on 8/4/13 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)
Ummm...Mommy...those bad people on ats keep commenting in a thread that I dont like....Waaaahhhh. They even gave special golden stars and flags...and...and...I didn't get ANY...Boo...hoo...hoo. I want you to take away their toys and even...sniff...their computor until they give all their special golden stars to me...........Baaaad ats people...Baaaaad.........sniff.

Funny...that's all I seemed to her in my head when I read this post.....weird that. Hmmm?

YouSir



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AmberLeaf
 


First off, I build scaffolds for a living. Secondly I'm guesstimating height by the size in comparison to the vertical components of the scaffold, which are referred to as legs in my industry. No matter what height leg is used the rings (attachment points for horizontal components) are always located at the same elevation. Measurements are approximate though not exact. First ring from the ground would be around 1ft. 2nd=3ft. 3rd=5ft. 4th= 7ft and so forth. If I need to break it down further I can edit the picture to help you understand, but I'm far from uninformed on this particular subject lol.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdot_thadon
reply to post by AmberLeaf
 


First off, I build scaffolds for a living. Secondly I'm guesstimating height by the size in comparison to the vertical components of the scaffold, which are referred to as legs in my industry. No matter what height leg is used the rings (attachment points for horizontal components) are always located at the same elevation. Measurements are approximate though not exact. First ring from the ground would be around 1ft. 2nd=3ft. 3rd=5ft. 4th= 7ft and so forth. If I need to break it down further I can edit the picture to help you understand, but I'm far from uninformed on this particular subject lol.


Ok, so the first ring on the vertical is 1ft above the ground...correct?

I make the horizontals 12ft by that calculation...which means they are 4m lengths on the horizontal, the legs (verticals) are irrelevant as you cannot see them fully.

Please show me an edited image with your calculations on



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Looks like a girl from one of the paranormal activities movies or the grudge.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by wulff
 

There are major flaws within your faulty assumptions.


Let's take a look at it, and see what you've actually got here...

Originally posted by wulff

[color=E84931]#1
According to your questions, yes you do sound like someone that cares!

[color=E84931]#2
Why ask for evidence about what someone is talking about,

[color=E84931]#3
they give you that evidence then you make a smart-a$$ remark?

[color=E84931]#4
If you are going to ask for information, when it's given either use it or shut up or move along!

I have not asked a single question in this thread. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
So that completely shuts down [color=E84931]points #1, #2, & #4.


So what about your [color=E84931]point#3
Even IF I had asked some sort of a question, the person whom I would have asked it to, never replied to me. So "They" gave me nothing, but that's ok because I didn't ask for anything.


So yeah, you failed on 4 out of 4. Good Job!



Since you are likely to be in denial of your undeniable inaccuracies, and still believe that I had previously asked some sort of a question, I'll make it easier for you, by providing links to each of my 3 previous posts in this thread.
my 1st
my 2nd
my 3rd




edit on 4/8/13 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)


Easy there turbo, didn't mean to get your panties in a bunch! You didn't specifically ASK a question but you directed the issue about the validity of the information. When that was presented to you it was met with a narcissistic "statement".
But, I have to give you a B+, it looks like you spent a long time dissecting my reply to you.
I especially like your statement: "denial of your undeniable inaccuracies" Well, said and a lot of thought went into that momentous rebuttal! You sure showed me, I am humbled by your reply!
Cheers



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Looks like a hoax. The face looks like one of those grey alien masks turned sideways when you zoom in. With that said it is a very good hoax. Either that or a bipedal raccoon that had its face messed up.





top topics
 
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join