Vegas Alien Shadow Figure

A

analiennamed

Member
i'm asking specifically about the shadow figure - not the whole event.

the conclusion to the shadow figure in the thread you posted was "boom mic" based on office body cam footage. what police have boom mics? what was pointed out as a boom mic to me looks like a hairy arm from the officer.

also the source video was from the family using cell phone, not a news camera crew, there would have been no boom mics there.
 
analiennamed said:
i'm asking specifically about the shadow figure - not the whole event.

the conclusion to the shadow figure in the thread you posted was "boom mic" based on office body cam footage. what police have boom mics? what was pointed out as a boom mic to me looks like a hairy arm from the officer.

also the source video was from the family using cell phone, not a news camera crew, there would have been no boom mics there.
Click to expand...
What do you think it is ("the shadow person")?
 
its definitely not a boom mic. mick on twitter seemed to indicate it was a lighting issue - but the shadow being in between the fence and the tree to me is puzzling, and doesnt appear to be a lighting issue.
 
Any ideas on what is casting a shadow on the back of the blue shirt? From the shape, it could be the head and right shoulder of a person somewhat behind blue-shirt guy, but is so it would have to be someone much shorter than that guy, or someone of normal height being illuminated by a light higher up and out of shot.
 
analiennamed said:
i'm asking specifically about the shadow figure - not the whole event
Click to expand...
Metabunk analyses claims of evidence. This means a debunkingvthread starts with
• a claim
• evidence to support the claim

"There's a shadow in this video" isn't that, it just is. When you film at night with lights, there are lots of shadows. I'm not sure what you want us to do here.
 
Mendel said:
Metabunk analyses claims of evidence. This means a debunkingvthread starts with
• a claim
• evidence to support the claim

"There's a shadow in this video" isn't that, it just is. When you film at night with lights, there are lots of shadows. I'm not sure what you want us to do here.
Click to expand...

its a shadow, but its not on any visible surface. it is between a wooden fence and the brush of a tree, you can see the tree brush is being obstructed by the shadow - which again has no background onto which it is being projected. its just a floating shadow in mid-air. shadows need surfaces to be projected onto, which is not visible in this video
 
The blurry shadow looks a lot like something I saw frequently watching baseball this summer -- the brim of a baseball cap very close to the camera, sticking just into the image. When the aperture of a camera is open wide, as in low-light situations, anything outside the focal plane gets blurry.

And most, if not all, of the guys in that video are wearing baseball caps, walking near each other as they walk up to the gate. You can see the blurry area moves in from the right edge of the screen -- exactly where the brim of a hat worn by someone walking next to the guy carrying the cellphone would show up -- and not from the top of the fence moving up.

The clip in the video ends there, so we can't see for certain if there was anyone walking next to the person who shot the video before or after walking through the gate.
 
analiennamed said:
its definitely not a boom mic. mick on twitter seemed to indicate it was a lighting issue - but the shadow being in between the fence and the tree to me is puzzling, and doesnt appear to be a lighting issue.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any evidence that shadow beings exist. A lot of people see ghosts as well and have videos or images of them. That doesn't mean they are real though.
Click to expand...
 
analiennamed said:
i'm asking specifically about the shadow figure - not the whole event.

the conclusion to the shadow figure in the thread you posted was "boom mic" based on office body cam footage. what police have boom mics? what was pointed out as a boom mic to me looks like a hairy arm from the officer.

also the source video was from the family using cell phone, not a news camera crew, there would have been no boom mics there.
Click to expand...
actually it wasnt. it was determined the police footage was his beard.

the shadow figure likely does have a boom mic following it though.
analiennamed said:
i'm asking specifically about the shadow figure - not the whole event.
Click to expand...

then why are you bringing up other footage? ie. the whole event.

Either way the conversation about the shadow, as youve acknowledge already is in the other thread.. you should have just continues the convo there.
 
There are definitely shadows in the video.
This isn't surprising as it was shot at night, and there seem to be multiple nearby light sources, some moving, and flat surfaces reflecting diffuse light.
We can't account for all the shadows because we can't see all the light sources involved and we don't know their positions (or in the case of phones, torches the angles at which they are being held), or the positions of people / objects level with or behind the filmmaker.

Quoted in the first video, Scot Roder, a crime scene analyst, says

External Quote:

...and in this case, we can definitively say, with a degree of scientific certainty, that this entity, this thing in the video is there in the physical reality in which the Kenmore family is also there...
(Any errors in transcription are mine).
Mr Roder's claim of "scientific certainty" about a shadow entity (assuming that 'entity' means a thing with independent physical existence different to that of a shadow) does not seem to have made any impression on the scientific community.
Since his YouTube post, and the showing of some parts of it on News Nation, I'm not aware of any university/ industry/ security and defence teams descending on the area for further study.
Not even a low budget stake-out by the news media involved.

Mr Roder continues,

External Quote:
...you can clearly see through the slots in the fence that there is a leg motion moving from the right to the left side of the screen, and, uh, clearly it is behind there so this isn't just like a head floating in space, this is a head, of, uh, that is, uh, somehow, that does not have full opacity ,that the opacity of the head of the shadow is only at about thirty-three percent opacity of a normal shadow which would be at one hundred percent...
(My emphasis).
To put it mildly, I'm not sure Mr Roder does himself any favours.
There is no "...head floating in space..." or anything that a reasonable person might describe in similar terms, there is a shadow.

And most normal shadows do not have one hundred percent opacity. Certainly not in an environment where there is atmospheric light-scattering, and some degree of ambient lighting. It is hard to understand why Mr Roder made this claim:

It is easy to test. Go out after dark in any location where there is a degree of lighting- a suburban street might be ideal- and look at your shadow. Is it 100% opaque? Or can you see some details of the surface over which your shadow is cast?
 
John J. said:
There are definitely shadows in the video.
This isn't surprising as it was shot at night, and there seem to be multiple nearby light sources, some moving, and flat surfaces reflecting diffuse light.
We can't account for all the shadows because we can't see all the light sources involved and we don't know their positions (or in the case of phones, torches the angles at which they are being held), or the positions of people / objects level with or behind the filmmaker.
Click to expand...
It's obvious there are multiple lights, therefore there are "light shadows" where only one light source is occluded, and "dark shadows" where two (or more) "light" shadows overlap. But at the point they're talking about the "entity", a couple of people are already through the gate into the back yard, where their shadows would be cast to the right upon parts of the tree and branches by a light attached to the house on the left.

I think Mr. Roder is attempting to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, especially when he invokes the supernatural and talks about something "cloaking" itself.
 
Caution, "opaque" has two meanings:
External Quote:
1. not letting light pass through; not transparent or translucent
2. not reflecting light; not shining or lustrous; dull or dark
A shadow is by definition not opaque in the first sense, because it is simply the absence of light.
 
As mentioned before, most of this was covered in the original thread, including the supposed strange shadow starting at post #163 on pg. 5. It appears there may have been a news crew there so a boom mic is a possibility. Others mentioned that it could be the beard of the officer with the camera as it may have been mounted to his lapel or collar.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...-crash-captured-on-cops-body-cam.12980/page-5

While this story was big deal at the time, even most UFO promoters eventually moved on. There was no evidence to corroborate any of the original story. The original story broke around June 8, 2023, though the event took place over a month earlier on May 1st.

The idea that the mysterious "shadow" supposedly shows a partially cloaked alien was a claim by YouTuber Scott Roader nearly a year later in April of 2024 saying it was scientifically certain that it was a cloaked alien. Something News Nation ran with:

1729129437843.png
1729129459604.png


At best, there is a few frames of a smudge of something. Maybe a boom mic, maybe a beard, maybe a hat, maybe a camera artifact from all the different lights or maybe an alien. Notice in this frame the smudge is much smaller:

1729129728231.png


If the central claim is that whatever this momentary smudge is, it's a cloaked alien and until it's proved to be a hat or boom mic, it's a cloaked alien, then that's called the logical fallacy of Argument for Ignorance. Someone proposes it's a 10' tall, cloaked alien and until someone can prove it's something that is NOT a 10' tall, cloaked alien, then it's an alien. Just no.

We know hats, boom mics, beards, camera artifacts and all manner of mundane things exist. We do not know aliens exist, and if they did there is nothing to suggest they would fart around in a suburban Las Vegas storage yard.

Lastly is the inherent unfalsifiable claim that the alien in question is cloaked. No matter what explanation is offered, the counter is always: "Yeah but, it's cloaked. That's what a cloaked alien looks like".
 
There's also the issue that at least two young men walk past the fence, looking for strange things, but don't notice "the entity" to their right.
The guy in the foreground strangely doesn't react to a floating head.

It's something of a truism that shadows in poorly-lit settings can cause children to imagine ghosts or monsters.
Some UFO enthusiasts now claim that shadows in poorly-lit settings are 'cloaked' extraterrestrial beings.
I'm not sure that this represents progress.

It should be reasonably easy to capture footage of "strange" shadows, especially where the light sources and the objects casting shadows are off-screen.
But to take this as evidence that there are alien (or cryptozoological, or ghostly, or demonic) beings stalking the face of the Earth,
and that this is somehow scientific, is to confuse pareidolia and imagination for objective reality.
 
Scott Roder did actually offer me $5000 to analyze his analysis, specifically to "explain in detail" why I disagree with "each specific element" of his 14 page report. I declined, saying (in DM):
External Quote:

Sorry, I feel that will be perceived as me taking advantage of you. There's also the issue of legal complications if you are dissatisfied.

Fri 6:29 PM​
and then on Twitter:

Source: https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1846318112175804823


@Fin365 did a 3D recreation, which is basically what I'd do.

Source: https://twitter.com/fin365/status/1783758185628647655


Source: https://twitter.com/fin365/status/1783763096273596835
 
John J. said:
There's also the issue that at least two young men walk past the fence, looking for strange things, but don't notice "the entity" to their right.
The guy in the foreground strangely doesn't react to a floating head.

It's something of a truism that shadows in poorly-lit settings can cause children to imagine ghosts or monsters.
Some UFO enthusiasts now claim that shadows in poorly-lit settings are 'cloaked' extraterrestrial beings.
I'm not sure that this represents progress.

It should be reasonably easy to capture footage of "strange" shadows, especially where the light sources and the objects casting shadows are off-screen.
But to take this as evidence that there are alien (or cryptozoological, or ghostly, or demonic) beings stalking the face of the Earth,
and that this is somehow scientific, is to confuse pareidolia and imagination for objective reality.
Click to expand...
Galactic law requires the the aliens to make themselves visible upon request, so if no one asks, you can't be sure there's not one with you.
 
Mick West said:
Scott Roder did actually offer me $5000 to analyze his analysis, specifically to "explain in detail" why I disagree with "each specific element" of his 14 page report.
Click to expand...

A 14 page report on some shadows? Did Mr. Roder ever react to Fin365's 3D analysis? Again, it would seem a "cloaked alien" is unfalsifiable. No matter what a 3D recreation shows, it could be argued that's what a cloaked alien looks like.
 
NorCal Dave said:
Again, it would seem a "cloaked alien" is unfalsifiable. No matter what a 3D recreation shows, it could be argued that's what a cloaked alien looks like.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and that seems to be where people that do not buy into this stuff need to stress "It is up to you to prove it is a cloaked alien. THAT'S the extraordinary claim, please present your extraordinary evidence, or any evidence at all. It looks like it could be just shadows, but of course maybe a cloaked alien looks like just-shadows: that would be a good cloak after all! So what is the give away for you? What proves it's an alien?"
 
JMartJr said:
Yeah, and that seems to be where people that do not buy into this stuff need to stress "It is up to you to prove it is a cloaked alien. THAT'S the extraordinary claim, please present your extraordinary evidence, or any evidence at all. It looks like it could be just shadows, but of course maybe a cloaked alien looks like just-shadows: that would be a good cloak after all! So what is the give away for you? What proves it's an alien?"
Click to expand...
"But before you start, please prove that you're not a lizard in disguise."
 
Edward Current said:
I would think "transparent" would be a better cloaking protocol.

Are there any known examples of prior black-cloaked aliens?
Click to expand...
Good point, they might not be aliens, but humans! Too often, traditional knowledge is neglected these days!
Article:
Witches are often portrayed wearing the black cloak of invisibility, holding a Staff or Stang, adorned with feathers and skulls.

If there were feathers on the property, it may have been witchcraft and not aliens.
;)
 
Mendel said:
Good point, they might not be aliens, but humans! Too often, traditional knowledge is neglected these days!
Article:
Witches are often portrayed wearing the black cloak of invisibility, holding a Staff or Stang, adorned with feathers and skulls.

If there were feathers on the property, it may have been witchcraft and not aliens.
;)
Click to expand...
If there were loose feathers, surely in the south there's a possibility that the dark thing that was being evasive could have been tarred, but escaped before the feathering occured?
 
this is less to me about aliens and more about - what can explain that strange shadow. boom mic, hat, these things do not fit the description of the visual anomaly we're seeing. i, like all of you, are regularly watching video's and wondering what the prosaic explanation is - and for this case, there is still no satisfying answer. you can sit here and tease about aliens all you want, but the visual artifact is weird and unexplained.
 
analiennamed said:
this is less to me about aliens and more about - what can explain that strange shadow. boom mic, hat, these things do not fit the description of the visual anomaly we're seeing. i, like all of you, are regularly watching video's and wondering what the prosaic explanation is - and for this case, there is still no satisfying answer. you can sit here and tease about aliens all you want, but the visual artifact is weird and unexplained.
Click to expand...
Sometimes things just don't have satisfying answers and never have satisfying answers. Particularly when they're in the LIZ, which this is.
 
analiennamed said:
this is less to me about aliens and more about - what can explain that strange shadow.
Click to expand...
it's a shadow
analiennamed said:
boom mic, hat, these things do not fit the description of the visual anomaly we're seeing.
Click to expand...
agreed
analiennamed said:
i, like all of you, are regularly watching video's and wondering what the prosaic explanation is - and for this case, there is still no satisfying answer.
Click to expand...
I'm satisfied.
analiennamed said:
you can sit here and tease about aliens all you want, but the visual artifact is weird and unexplained.
Click to expand...
Only if you ignore the 3D reconstruction that shows it's a shadow.

Unfortunately, we get to tease people about that more often than we'd like. (The most egregious example being the guy who maintained there was a mystery about the MH370 portal hoax even after the VFX used had been conclusively tracked down.)
Don't feel bad, it's human nature to hold up one's convictions. Edit: @analiennamed simply didn't see the 3D debunk.
 
Last edited:
analiennamed said:
you can sit here and tease about aliens all you want, but the visual artifact is weird and unexplained.
Click to expand...

EDIT: I repeatedly used the term "cellphone/camera" in this post, when I think the video in question is actually from an officer's bodycam. My bad! The point I was making about the camera moving around at night with multiple shadows/light sources results in some artifacts is, I think, still valid.

After watching Fin365's recreation from post #18, including his updated one where he moves the tree closer to the fence, I think his animation of the light on the fence causing a shadowed area in the tree combined with it being filmed with moving cell phone bodycam at night explains it pretty well.

Looking back at the video in the OP and taking a few screen grabs we can see there is very similar artificing before the person with reaches the gate. This is from 00:58 in the video:

1729265943990.png


There are lots of smears, patches and undefined areas that are the result of artifacts from a moving cell phone camera bodycam at night. Note the left shoulder of the kid, it's similarly smudged as is his right shoulder.

Here we can see the focus and the shadows, again with lots of artifacts, change in just 2 frames:

[compare]
1729266280302.png
1729266322999.png

[/compare] EDIT: Apparently the "compare" function no longer works, or I've misremembered how to implement it. These two photos should overlap each other with a slider bar.

Finaly, when the shadow does appear, it is perfectly synced to the kids movements. Pause the video, then use the < and > keys to scrub back and forth frame by frame. It becomes obvious that the kid and the shadow are synched. After stepping back a bit, the kid moves screen right as the shadow starts to appear moving screen left:

1729266871009.png


This continues frame by frame until the kid is now blocking the red hat and the shadow moves screen left:

1729267044157.png


At this point in Roders version of the video he stops it and then proceeds to show how it's a cloaked alien. The amusing part is that as he scrubs back and forth with his cartoons, the synch between the kid and the shadow is obvious:

1729267311065.png


The young man and the shadow move in complete synch, because he is causing the shadow.

As for teasing aliens, it was Mr. Roder and News Nation that made the claim that this is not a shadow but is a cloaked alien. Nobody here claimed it was alien. The only reason anyone cares about this little shadow is because it is tied to claims of crashed UFOs and 10' tall aliens sitting in skip loaders. Again, no one here made any of these claims.
 
Last edited:
@NorCal Dave @Mendel - i missed this whole video debunk mick linked. clearly this guy did the diligence and his explanation is thorough and logical. my curiosity is definitely satisfied, case closed. sorry for missing that earlier. i come to this site to try to understand as much technically as i can, so its great to see this level of analysis vs hunches. every other site has hunches.
 
analiennamed said:
i come to this site to try to understand as much technically as i can, so its great to see this level of analysis vs hunches. every other site has hunches.
Click to expand...

Oh, we have plenty of hunches! I think the difference you'll find here, as opposed to something like reddit or Facebook, is we try to support our hunches as best we can and are open to others showing how our hunches might be wrong. We try to treat our thoughts or opinions on something, like the mystery shadow, as more like a hypothesis. It needs to be supported with evidence and ideally, it's falsifiable.

In the case of the mystery shadow, it wasn't anyone here that figured out the light on the fence and to be honest, I feel a bit dumb now that I've gone back and looked at it. It was pretty obvious. In my/our defense I would argue that whole shadow as cloaked alien seemed a silly coda to case that lacked any kind of evidence. It seemed a misunderstanding at best and a hoax at worst.

So, when Mr. Roder came along nearly a year later and the new UFO network News Nation pushed the story, everyone just got a bit lazy. There was no real proof of a cloaked alien and while the shadow does look a bit strange, nobody really tried to disprove what Mr. Roder had failed to prove in the first place. Hat, beard, boom mic any of those things might have been more possible than a cloaked alien.

Now we know better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
What is this at RAF Lakenheath?
Replies
11
Views
462
Calter
C
Nemon
Jake Barber tells Ross Coulthart about non-human technology - The "Egg"
13 14 15
Replies
589
Views
37K
Mendel
Mendel
C
Strange video of underwater "Alien" creature
Replies
16
Views
2K
yoshy
Y
Starflint
Has anyone caught another UFO in Mexico recently?
Replies
6
Views
376
FatPhil
FatPhil
Jack Mallory
A new and comprehensive debunk of the "Jellyfish" UAP [Wrong]
Replies
11
Views
1K
Bruce M
Bruce M

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top