Creepy Entity Video
Of all the weird videos posted in various places, this one, apparently from Poland on May 20th keeps replaying itself in my mind. Unfortunately, the full video is now nowhere to be found. Here’s the description from the UFO Entity Reports site:
On this date a group of young people, three men and one woman were grilling near their cottage in a wooded area close to Wloclawek. The cottage is fenced and the fence touched the forest in its northern section. The forest separates the cottage from the Vistula River. The area is surrounded by other cottages and gardens. One of the men was lying on a blanket on the grass at about 5meters from the others, at the same time the young woman was filming the event with the video camera in her mobile phone. In one brief instance the image of her friend lying on the blanket appeared on the video, which lasted about 1.5 sec. Minutes later while reviewing the video something bizarre caught her eye. Next to the body of the man on the blanket something seemed to suddenly materialize, it seemed to be a humanoid figure about 70 to 80cm in height which seemed to bend down and touched the man with a sort of wand or rod. No one knows what happened later since the frame moved towards the right and away from the scene. After a while a dog that had been with them and had acted normally went to the location where the man was lying and acted nervously. It growled in the direction where the strange figure had appeared from. At that moment the others present did not connect the dog’s behavior with the strange figure on the video. The woman filming and the others had not seen anything out of the ordinary. Several days later three red spots appeared on the man’s knee, they were placed in the shape of a triangle. According to the man it seemed to hurt like a snake bite. However he stated that he had not felt anything at the time.
The youtube version linked above is only about 10% of the full video, and is enlarged from the original. The strange figure appears to blur out consistently with the magnification. The debate on whether it’s real or not is not really interesting, at least to me. It’s like a memorable scene from a particularly good sci-fi or horror film. The Blair Witch people could have a field day with this one.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, December 27th, 2007 at 9:06 pm and is filed under Wake Up Down There, Strange Creatures, UFOlogy, Videos. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Ma.gnolia Technorati Help
- Related News Stories:
- Artificial Creatures »
- An Alien On Film? »
- Presenting…The UFO Horse! »
- Pretty Funny (And Good) UFO “Drone” Video »
- UFO? Balloon? »
|
Dec 27 2007 
December 27th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
That is a crazy video. How could the person not have noticed it though? Such crappy video quality though. Still, cool video.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:37 am
The full video is still up at the link you posted, very small though.
Cell phone videos can do some strange things that’s for sure, though the last frame in the youtube version looks so like a real person.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:51 am
If the accompanying narrative is truthful, it’s creepy indeed. Taken on its own though, it looks more like either an intentional hoax, or ‘normal’ scene, distorted by weird bad-cell-phone-camera artifacts. There’s something about the triangle mark on the leg bit that makes me think it’s a hoax.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
In case you did not get it, the FULL video is at http://www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid2007.shtml
1) The creature did not appear out of nowhere, but rather from the upper right part of the background forest
2) The creature looks phasic, which could explain why the photographer did not notice it. The camera would be unaffected by phasing since the camera does not have any tremor as they human eye does. See Whitley Streiber’s description of the Grays in his book by the same name.
3) The creature moves extremely fast. Again, just like Whitley’s description of the Grays.
Too bad there is not anything more to this story than the video.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Ben,
I was thinking…what about tulpas created by dreams? Could that be one explanation?
December 28th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
randlet,
The computer I used to post the story apparently didn’t show the video on the Entity Report site. It used to link to a better version.
The figure sure is strange. I love it.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Richelle,
See my reply to Ben(dover) above.
If it’s a hoax, it makes no difference to me. I’d just treat it as a good example of someone’s well-done idea of a scary scenario. If I was a movie producer, that person would be in my office next week.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Sage,
See reply to “randlet” above.
By “phasic” I assume you mean something that works by exploiting the persistence of vision, or conversely, the weakness of the eye in detecting things that move very fast (like a rocket that lanches so quickly that it “disappears.”) Some animals can do this, so it’s not outside of he abilities of flesh-and-blood beings.
If it’s a hoax, perhaps the perpetrator read Strieber’s books!
The rest of the story is on the Entity Reports site (even though it’s not much more than the video shows.)
Interesting analysis!
December 29th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Greg–I understand; I feel the same way about the dreadful Mexican flying witch video. Doesn’t matter if it’s ‘real’–I *saw* it and it’s a creepshow. Strange what affects/strikes one person profoundly and not another.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Greg:
Phasic refers to the an object that is synchronized to another, in this case, to the eyes of a person. Our eyes are only capable of seeing moving objects, not stationary ones, so in order to see, our eyes are constantly moving in tiny little jerky movements. Eye jitter is such a problem that it has caused trouble in implementing heads-up displays, as described here: itc.ktu.lt/itc30/Miniot30.pdf. A phasic object would be invisible or nearly invisible to a human, but unaffected by a camera. Whitley Streiber claims Grays can appear phasic (not his word) to three people at a time, at most. Of course, in order to be phasic, a Gray would have to either read a person’s mind and synchronize to eye muscle commands, or (more likely) force the eyes of people nearby to synchronize to the movement of the Gray.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:28 am
So, in theory, we could somehow find a technique to compensate for our eye movements in certain situations, if necessary, (I’m not sure what that would be..maybe head movements mixed with a motion of the eyes..?) to cancel out ‘blind spots’? Aside from the gray scenario, I wonder if any existing meditation/shamanistic/ancient/new age-y/mediumistic practices have somehow incorporated this idea in an effort to see the etheric, the previously invisible? or, if some people have naturally alternative vision issues that may explain some natural talents for seeing into the otherworld?
December 30th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Richelle,
It would be pointless for something that is already invisible to the naked eye to also become phasic. I suppose etheric entities could materialize from the etheric plane into the physical plane and then become phasic, but what would be the point of materializing in the first place be then?
December 30th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
My assumption was that some etheric things could be ethereic/invisible, preceisely because they are phasic. Phasic=invisibility/etheric. In my question/ruminatin.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Etheric things are assumed to not be present on our physical plane of existence, so as long as they remain fully in the etheric plane, there would be no need for them to be phasic, since you cannot see them anyway. Phasing only makes physical objects invisible or almost invisible (except to cameras). Phasing would have no effect on things that are already invisible.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:03 am
But must there be an ‘explanation’ for the etheric plane itself? What if the whole mythos built up around ‘other plans of existence’ is just a construct, and the dynamics inherent in ‘phasing’ have to do at some level with the reason the planes are kept physically separate? Often, it’s said that there are different levels of ‘vibration’ and whatnot separating different planes/dimensions. I’m not suggesting that the dynamic within phasing that you’re describing–a purposeful, consciously intentional ‘disguise’ is at play, but maybe a there’s natural one of movement, whatever, that keeps the perception of another dimension at bay–that maybe ‘phasing’ can be used to understand an idea about how another physical dimension could exist within our plane, without being perceived, and then how easily that border of perception may be altered or approached, to see the previously invisible.
I understand that the concept of phasing that you’ve provided–that of a purposeful disguise for physical objects of this plane, whether it be monitor displays, or ‘aliens’–does not fit with my idea, but like I said, I am just ruminating on the extended possibilities. If phasing depends on individuals’ eye movements, then the type of phasing I’m relying on in my idea would have to be a hyper-phasing–something that lies mostly out of human perception in general–like certain light frequencies. But, it is said that some people have the ability to detect the ultraviolet and so forth.
You said “phasing would have no effect on things that are already invisible.” I suppose it’s just hard for me to accept things can be inexplicably or inherently invisible, and it is my proposal that that some relative component of phasing may be responsible for the invisibility itself.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:40 am
Phasing merely creates an illusion of invisibility, it does not actually make anything invisible. The illusion of invisibility created by phasing takes advantage of a flaw in the human eye. A phasic entity cannot pass through walls or fly through the air like etheric entities can. Phasic and etheric are incompatible concepts.
“It’s said that there are different levels of ‘vibration’ and whatnot separating different planes/dimensions”
Has anyone ever told you what is ‘vibrating’? Me neither. That is simply New Age Speak. Let us talk about planes of existence…
By definition, if something is in another plane of existence, it cannot interact or influence any other plane. Objects in other planes cannot even materialize into other planes. If there is any interaction or influence, then that would be a clue that it is not another plane of existence but another dimension. Let us talk about dimensions…
This universe is composed of at least six dimensions and maybe even twelve, but all we see are four. Why is that? Because our survival does not depend on what happens in other dimensions, therefore we never developed the eyesight to see these other dimensions. Could there be objects in the other dimensions? Yes, but note that they would still be in our plane of existence therefore they would be physically real, even if we could not physically detect them and they could interact or influence things in our world and vice versa.
If we pretend that what we call etheric entities exist in these other dimensions around us, we would know of their existence by their influence on objects within our dimensions, i.e. — dark matter. They could not be phasic because they do not exist in our dimensions where we can ever directly see them, so there is nothing for them to phase to that would have any effect on our flawed eyesight.
“It is said that some people have the ability to detect the ultraviolet”
It has been said that pigs can fly too. The human eye has chemicals that can only respond to the visible light spectrum and nothing outside of that. They are experimentally repeatable and accurate measurements made of those chemicals in a laboratory so there is no doubt that they can only respond to visible light (hence the reason it is called visible light). The ability to talk with the dead or see the etheric is wishful thinking.
January 1st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
It’s difficult to take both of your arguments together. One one hand, you seem to have bought into a scientifically unverified, belief-based idea of the ‘12 planes of existences’ common in ‘new age’ (I’m aware this is also proposed within older systems) theories and examples, yet you dismiss the new agey idea of ‘vibration,’ which should not necessarily be discarded, as it ties in with string theory (along with the 12 planes idea.) So yes, the vibration thing has been expounded upon as you (rhetorically) asked.
There have been studies about that ‘detecting ultraviolet’ thing I mentioned, and I just read it somewhere, so I will see if I can find it again. I don’t know if the study was about ’seeing’ anything, it was about detecting. your ‘pigs can fly’ analogy is not relevant and misses the mark. Science and especially the understanding of human anatomy is not a fixed system. The tools used in that understanding and measurements and such also change, as do the inquiries.
I was never promoting a belief anyway. I was merely musing about a possibility about extending this apparently ‘real’ and tangbile, measureable phenomenon–this ‘phasing’–into established belief systems we have constructed about other dimensions. What could be seen as a ‘flaw’ could be some kind of purposeful mutation or adaptation– in symbiosis with another species. I made the mistake of using the word ‘etheric’ originally. I should have just said invisible.
I feel like I have expressed several times that I understand what the traditional meaning of ‘phasing’ means, and that I am merely ruminating on its dynamics and applying ideas based on phasing to approach the (supposedly) invisible realm/world/entities, etc. I am not proposing a theory or belief system, and it is difficult to maintain an argument like this, since I admittedly did not have a stance or belief to begin with–just questions and ideas. Also, I feel like we are arguing 2 different points.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
There are possibly 12 dimensions to our plane of existence. This is according to standard String theory, not any New Age nonsense. You are reading things between the lines that are simply not there.
You are confusing phasic, a scientific concept, with the New Age version of vibration, which is incorrect. Your eyes never sit still but are constantly in motion, performing erratic movements in order for them to work properly, but these are motions, not vibrations. A phasic object does not vibrate but synchronizies to your eyes.
Something that is phasic is not invisible, although it can give the ILLUSION that it is invisible. There are conditions under which being phasic completely fails to provide the illusion of invisibility, i.e. — animals that have eyes that do not jitter, cameras, etc.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
So never mind that the 12 dimensions & the idea of vibration have been around in various forms since far before any notion of quantum physics/string theory? That various spiritual/occult lore & narratives actually predate much, if not all scientific discoveries is to be dismissed because it now exists within a title ‘new age’ that is unpalatable? I am not a new age ‘believer’ and I’m not confusing anything. Just because something has been described as ‘vibration’ (as in the new age ideas) means just that–it’s a description, a word, a fallible signifyer for a concept, that could possibly serve to describe another phenomenon, such as phasing. I was exploring two ideas that have similarities. (Note to self: do not have ideas around the Sage.)
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
“So never mind that the 12 dimensions & the idea of vibration have been around in various forms since far before any notion of quantum physics/string theory?”
Exactly. Those are only two of the many millions of ideas that were hanging around before science came along and caused the vast majority them go extinct because randomly thought up ideas, while they can accidentally hit the jackpot every once in awhile, is not at all reliable or consistent as science has been in coming up with ideas, ideas like automobiles, cell phones, desktop computers, running water, central heating and air conditioning, man on the moon, bullet proof plastics, and so on — all withing a short span of 100 years! And what has New Age done for us recently?
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I really could not tell you, since I am not necessarily a proponent of ‘new age,’ as I have stated. However, I’m wondering from where you believe the ideas for science come. Every single thing you named was first brought to the table by some form of myth or fiction. Also, almost every scientific theory or discovery has its predececent parallel in other, non-scientific forms. “Science” is not a thinking, autonomous entitity–the people behind it are, and those people are rooted in myth and mysteries just as believers of the new age are. There are many stories within science that are inseparable from what you may term as ‘randomly thought up ideas.’ francis crick and the dna revelation is a classic example.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
“Every single thing you named was first brought to the table by some form of myth or fiction”
Just because you say so? I think not.
“‘Science’ is not a thinking, autonomous entitity–the people behind it are”
Science is never about people who call themselves scientists, it is only about methodologies — people (with their silly beliefs and illogical ideas) are irrelevant to science.
“And those people are rooted in myth and mysteries just as believers of the new age are”
Incorrect. Most scientists are atheists and do not believe in myths — New Age or otherwise.
“There are many stories within science that are inseparable from what you may term as ‘randomly thought up ideas’”
They are just that — stories and not facts.
“Francis crick and the dna revelation is a classic example”
That is one story, not many, and the science (not the person) is a very ordinary example of science overridding people’s quirks and lack of logic. See for yourself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
PS –
1) The theory I spoke of is deduced from the mathematics of hypothetical particles called strings — whereas the New Age version is based on making things up out of thin air. One has a semblance of science and one does not.
2) The belief in 12 dimensions is a popular but unaccepted theory due to lack of evidence for it’s existence.
3) Many other proposed theories propose a different number of dimensions, with six dimensions being a very common one.
4) You are still confusing the concept of dimension with the concept of planes of existence. They are not the same thing, therefore the New Age version of 12 planes of existence is not even close to being the same thing as the more scientifically thought out one of 12 dimensions.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
As I stated before, we are arguing 2 different points. I feel you are being purposefully obtuse, but maybe it’s unintentional after all. With every example I give, your reaction is something akin to “that’s just one example…” How many would be appropriate here, to make my point? To read your rebuttals, one would think I was making an argument that dimensions/planes of existence were the same, that I am arguing for a new age belief vs. a scientific one, and so forth.
Perhaps the most mysterious and naive point you make is that science is separate from the realm of myth and the non-scientific. you state “one has a semblance of science and one does not.” so what–does the method outweigh the message? This is precisely where I believe our arguments are divided. You seem to think so, and I do not. Concepts and Ideas that are rooted in truth can be traced back anciently. I would say you have a difficult, if not impossible argument in your proposal that scientists are not rooted in myths and such. One does not have to ‘believe’ in order to be affected by something. It’s like saying I don’t believe in dream interpretation, so I won’t dream about anything that has meaning, or be affected by such. So, everyone alive, including scientists, are affected by the whole of our created myths and whatnot. Science changes and evolves like everything else, and along and in accordance with our other non-scientific cultural ideas. It all goes together–it’s rather unarguable. It’s not just because “I say so.” Perhaps looking past wikipedia as a primary source would be in order.
January 6th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
“As I stated before, we are arguing 2 different points”
No, we are arguing the same point but you just do not seem to get it.
“Perhaps the most mysterious and naive point you make is that science is separate from the realm of myth and the non-scientific”
I asked for some examples of this and you could not give any. Science is only mysterious and mythical to those who have never studied what science is.
“Does the method outweigh the message?”
Always. Messages are all talk and no action but methods are all action and not talk.
“Perhaps looking past wikipedia as a primary source would be in order”
What New Age book would you recommend in its place?
January 7th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Sage, your last question actually proves my point that we are arguing two different points, and that you are, in fact, the one that does not ‘get it.’ I have stated many times I am not a new age proponent, yet you continue to insinuate I am. You’re not listening, so this argument can just go on and on, since there is no agreement of topic.
It’s pointless for me to offer examples, because you have already made up your mind, are not really listening anyway, and your whole point is to shoot down whatever I offer or say. You seem to think I am arguing for a new age belief system over a scientific one. I am not. You are viewing this argument one way, interjecting false assumptions and whatnot, so you may as well continue it on alone.
My entire point was that all science is a product of collective experience, and that scientific inventions, notions, theories can be found previous to their actual, tangible manifestation, in myths, fictions, and alternate belief systems. I was not arguing for their VALUE in these systems one way or another. But, you continue to argue against a point I am not making, so I am finished with this ridiculous conversation with you.
January 7th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
“My entire point was that all science is a product of collective experience, and that scientific inventions, notions, theories can be found previous to their actual, tangible manifestation, in myths, fictions, and alternate belief systems”
You entire point is make believe fiction, not reality. That is where the New Age comparison comes into play.
January 7th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
No, my entire point is what I stated it was. This is why you and I (and I suspect you and everyone) cannot have an intelligent discussion, or fair argument.
You tailor the other side of the argument as a perfect antithesis of yours; you have literally ignored about 5/6 of everything I have said, and replaced it with a completly foreign argument. Weirdo.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I have a problem with this video. The people don’t react to the being! They just sit there. If they saw something they believe materialized, was non human, and was possibly doing something harmful to another human being, wouldn’t they move toward it? Jump up? Yell? Something?
January 11th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
a4r–that is part of the story; the people don;t actually see the entity in real life, not until they play the footage back. Hence the fabulous above conversation re: phasing.