“stick alien” video is compared to previous “Peru alien video”
California and Peru Images of ’sitck aliens’. Image from unknowncountry.comI was catching up on my RSS reads this morning and saw this excellent post on Unknowncountry.com.
A reader from that blog made a very well observed comparison between Fresno California’s video and Peru’s video of the so-called ’stick aliens’.
This excerpt is from unknownCountry:
Because it is no longer possible to definitively conclude that any digital video is authentic, we cannot confirm the authenticity of these videos. However, the extremely bizarre nature of the figures and the way they move are so strange, and so completely unlike anything that has ever been offered before as “alien video,” the suggestion is strong that these are real images of unknown bipedal creatures, whose body morphology is so radically different from what has evolved on earth that the conclusion is almost inescapable that they are aliens. (The relevant image begins 2:49 into the Fresno (first) video. It begins immediately in the Peru video.)
What do you guys think of the comparison?
Written by Javier Ortega - javier@ghosttheory.com
Get GhostTheory updates faster! sign up to our RSS Feeds or
add us on Twitter
As for the Fresno film, it’s hard to comment because of the poor quality and the “cam” version of the video. A video of a video is bad evidence. My gut feeling is it’s probably faked being another in a series of “servailence camera” hoaxes.
The Peru video isn’t fake it’s just missidentified. The “stick” isn’t walking in the background, it’s in the foreground. If you look carefully in the lower right of the screen you can see the rest of the twig as it connects the the bush in that corner. Camera movement and parallax views make it look like it is moving independently.
In other words…meh
Jim,
Excellent eye. I see what you are talking about and it does seem like it is a twig/stick in the foreground.
Wow! this is why I think our readers kick ass!
thanks!
It’s hard to say on this. I can see what Jim is saying about the angles, but the ‘alien’ does seem to originate from behind the guy where if it were in the forground there is a couple of times it would be seen against his shirt (being it in the foreground), and it isn’t (though it could be the crappy camera).
Second point on that is if the ‘alien’ was in the foreground, you would see it pass in front of the foliage it ‘ducks’ behind. if you look at that foliage, it appears to be equidistant with the guy give or take a foot or two. If it were part of the bush, it should pass in front of the foliage.
As for the parallax, watch the end portion in slow motion. The camera hardly moves it’s position and the ‘alien’ is still moving. If it were parallax effect, when the camera pans to the right, the ‘alien’ should actually appear to move backwards, yet it continues forward.
Maybe I’m not seeing it?