The Hunt For Skinwalker - Twin Towers Footage Analysis.

Any chance it was an insect landing on the lens?

err - to be blunt - i am unsure wether to applaud , or pity you

thats a lot of well thought out effort on this thread - but my opinion is - origional media or FU

i has not watched the film - and has no intention of paying for it [ if " someone " is daft enough to buy me the licence - i will watch and honestly review it ]

but - mt corbells - assertion that " its genuine " - is so flimsy it hurts

was he there in 2004 ??? - no - so he is simply taking the testiomony of a 3rd party - who tells him its genuine as true

that doesnt sound as convincing - does it ?

is any usefull provenance offered for this ????????????????

thats enough effort for this topic

like i say - if " they " wont give the origional media - then i CBA to expend any reall effort

I've been taking things with a grain of salt- and I've seen enough hoaxes to want to be very, very careful.

I'm still studying footage against the coordinates for the security camera.

a reply to: wylekat

all if this is too long. maybe i really need to sit and read all these.but i really dont ubderstand.

a reply to: ctj83

Isn't pareiodolia an option? To me it just looks like a mist. Why assume Twin Towers? I don't even think the energy needs to be spent on "genuine or not?" because there are several things that could be. It seems to me that people are saying "Twin Towers" because they want to see something intriguing.

I'm currently in a 20 round match, fighting Google Maps as it acts stupid while I try to pan in '3d mode'. Ugh.

After some hard staring, and looking at the footage, and wishing I had a 3rd monitor- something's striking me as odd. If the security camera's location is 'there' ish- I'm not going to holler about the exactness of the location you gave me- There is what I presume to be a river/ creek/ waterway bordering the hills out front of the ranch. The security footage shows flat land, and the slope to a hill. I am guessing the security boxes kinda help mark off the land they have.

The footage doesn't help much in the line of exactness of where the camera is- but I have a question. Where's the riverbed? Granted, I'm using Google, which is still like 1000 feet off the ground for what you get image wise, But I cannot get a match of slope of hill without that river *somewhere*. That thing seems to wind completely past the entire mountain range.

I'd still love a nice picture of that exact area. My inner skeptic is throwing a tantrum.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Dust devil or whatever you guys call them?

a reply to: KansasGirl

I don’t think they are towers, just the name they were given. I’ve no idea what they are and they aren’t present as structures on the ranch.

If you think it looks like mist could well be mist.

a reply to: wylekat

Maybe the brush covers up the river bed at that angle. I’m not sure.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I agree. I don’t see anyone being given a magnetic tape any time soon and you can’t ever trust a digital copy is original.

I hate to disagee with such a good analysis. One thing I will say about those type of camera's is at low light they do tend to have some energy noise making the images seem to shimmer.

I had a burglar in my neighborhood that was coming into my garage and doing things that I was using these camera's to prove who it was and was disappointed that the edge of the field was doing something like this. This burglar stayed at the edge of the field and didn't get back in the garage after we installed them. Eventually the cable was disabled and I had an incident. We moved.

Make ATS great again with posts like this!

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: wylekat

Maybe the brush covers up the river bed at that angle. I’m not sure.

How would you go about pinpointing the location of the camera, using google maps (crummy, but it's all we got) satellite imagery? Like I said- 3d view is an absolute pain, and will take off across the countryside at a random tangent, but if you get it to behave- lining up something plausible isn't easy at all. Especially in that immediate area.

Looks to smooth and cartoonish to me.. looks like a overlay effect added the original footage frame by frame.
Perhaps made for a show.. but not used because it looks so fake, therefor the only copy is a copy of a copy.

a reply to: wylekat

Use Google Earth but as I've indicated, it looks like at the timecode shown on the camera, it should be pitch black...

a reply to: ctj83

I'm 50/ 50 on that, TBH. I have seen infrared/ night vision footage that'll make it look like it's a cloudy day out, if the moon is high/ full enough.

Say- using the time code, if it has the date... where would the moon be, AND what phase would it be in?

originally posted by: wylekat
a reply to: ctj83

I'm 50/ 50 on that, TBH. I have seen infrared/ night vision footage that'll make it look like it's a cloudy day out, if the moon is high/ full enough.

Say- using the time code, if it has the date... where would the moon be, AND what phase would it be in?

Yep, my exact feelings. While i find this story fascinating we need better pics. Like Fox Mulder's sign behind his desk in " The X Files", I want to believe. I think that was saying "but we don't have enough yet". If I read between the lines correctly.

I managed to actually find moon info for that date and time.


Here's the info- tho it DOES look like the moon was bright at the time this footage was taken.

www.timeanddate.com...

originally posted by: wylekat
I managed to actually find moon info for that date and time.


Here's the info- tho it DOES look like the moon was bright at the time this footage was taken.

www.timeanddate.com...

And that seems to support the low light scenario.

I agree with MM -- it looks just like a mirage. Whether or not it is, is another thing