It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eerie photograph I took, analysis needed.

page: 12
76
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Well logically they would of had to come from the right. As it would take longer to climb over the rock run across it from the left and climb down the other side to stand in the water and then turn slightly to the left for the photo . It is a pretty simple observation really and use of logic and time exposed doesn't take much to deduce that if some one entered the shoot it would be from the right . I don't think you are grasping the distance traveled to get to the location in four seconds

If you noticed in your picture attempt clearly you can see that your hand had entered from the left the blurriness is as clear as day then we can see where your hand was more stationary and becomes more sharper as you took your picture maybe two feet from your computer screen . Judging by the scale of the artifact it isn't two feet from the camera like how your hand is . Even with a four second exposure I am still able to make out waves and bubbles in the water they are blurry but they can be seen .

ETA I can also see the color of your hand as well all i see in the OP is a shadow

edit on 5/6/14 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep



It looks like a person standing in front of a barstool.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
OP if you are still following... Have you ever taken any similar pictures that could have this exact person in them? Think hard and look through your collection.

Digital cameras are limited by their buffers, which sometimes have imperfect garbage collection. This type of artifact may appear in one picture out of a hundred thousand, but is still relevant. If there is some kind of remnants of a similar picture left in a small piece of non-volatile memory in your camera, you can get an aberration like this.

Also, when you write and re-write flash media many times it becomes less reliable. How old are the memory cards? Maybe you happened to use the exact same memory location as a similar picture and the data was not properly written. Try filling your memory card with overexposed, white pictures and see if there is some kind of issue with it.

I am truly intrigued by the photo, good post. I read some other people's theories and I think what it comes down to is perhaps some kind of electrical interference or malfunction. If you were to go back and take more pictures with film, and the same artifact appeared, we might have the closest thing to proof yet!



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: freedomSlave

Again - they wouldn't have to leave the frame. The person's image would be darker than the bright sea behind, unlike wmd's example where the hand is brighter than the dark screen behind, so they would leave a darker "silhouette", with the bright sea showing behind. Just as you see in the image.

Compare this image:

steelyjoestudio.files.wordpress.com...

The people standing still are frozen, but the people who moved from one place to the other look very similar to those in the OP's photo.



Enlargement:



You can even see the same tell-tale "overlaps" that you can see in the OP's photo:




posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: VegHead

All this says is that a digital image sensor is more sensitive to infra red light than the human eye. Any physical object that isn't made of protons that actually exists in our world will be visible to both the eye and the camera.


edit on 5-6-2014 by Imagewerx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
it does look like a shadow, human outline and all, but at the same time it's very simple and reminds me of a kokopelli.. pretty strange, really simple..



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Some people seem to not understand how this works, not sure I completely understand either, being unfamiliar with the subject of photography. Still, though, people ought to understand the notion that there are reasonable gaps where the shutter is closed between images...the person didn't whizz into frame in an instant, appearing in one spot, moving slowly then instantly disappearing.

The person entered the frame between exposures, i.e when the shutter was closed, I'd have thought that pretty obvious, but apparently not.

So I took the liberty of constructing a simple timeline to illustrate this point:



I hope this clears it up, the person was already in the frame when the shutter opened for the second exposure. Sorry, but this is why ATS is going downhill if you ask me - some people don't seem to apply basic logic to their theories - like I said, I know little of photography but thought this was quite obvious - no knowledge of photography required, the times were clearly outlaid by the OP and EXIF data extrapolated from the images.

I believe this is a person, but I believe the OP simply did not notice, no offence intended - he seems like a genuine guy to me and has always been a good contributor to ATS, so in no way am I claiming it's an intentional hoax, we all have a blonde moment now and then.

If you examine the enlarged, filtered image, it actually fits...again, I crudely edited one of the images to show this, forgive my poor microsoft paint daubings but it seems to fit - it looks like someone tentatively stepping into the water, you can trace the step, and - if you think about it,...the "shadow" would be bolder or darker in places where the person physically remains the longest, if you think of someone taking a step into cold water, testing it so to speak - it all fits.



The red outline is the pose the person was in when the shutter first opened for the second exposure, the green outline about the pose the person was in mid-step, the final, blue outline the pose the person was in after completing the step at which point the shutter closed - this third shadow being darker as it's appear the person stopped walking at this point, and perhaps glanced back at the camera.

To me, that single step and moments pause could easily be done in 4 seconds.

People ought to read a thread before responding with their ill-founded theories, several people have chimed in so far making points that have been raised and addressed pages ago.

I still think the OP is a credible and honest person, it's easily done. It's still a great image, even without the anomaly it'd be a great image. The shadow just makes it even cooler.
edit on 5-6-2014 by samerulesapply because: I'm an idiot.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Also, to add - I do realise the times specified may actually be the time when the shutter closed as opposed to opening, which would put my timeline out by about 5 seconds. This is where my technical knowledge of photography, or lack thereof, may be evident.

To vvv, sorry for hacking up your images - just thought it best to try and put it into context for those who skip the meat of what is a pretty good thread.

I like this thread because of the investigating done by a few people, rob in particular - looking for actual data and evidence to support their theories. Some people could learn a thing or two by reading through this thread and others like it.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: freedomSlave
a reply to: wmd_2008



If you noticed in your picture attempt clearly you can see that your hand had entered from the left the blurriness is as clear as day then we can see where your hand was more stationary and becomes more sharper as you took your picture maybe two feet from your computer screen . Judging by the scale of the artifact it isn't two feet from the camera like how your hand is . Even with a four second exposure I am still able to make out waves and bubbles in the water they are blurry but they can be seen .

ETA I can also see the color of your hand as well all i see in the OP is a shadow


Well actually my hand was DROPPED in front of the camera as my hand is attached to my arm and it was my left hand you made an assumption about direction.



My hand dropped in front quickly and removed quickly after a slight pause.

The person in the picture was moving over a distance of a few feet so only registered as a blur plenty of proof has been shown and as it is likely that is the cause of this image than any other reason given.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: samerulesapply
I hope this clears it up, the person was already in the frame when the shutter opened for the second exposure. Sorry, but this is why ATS is going downhill if you ask me - some people don't seem to apply basic logic to their theories - like I said, I know little of photography but thought this was quite obvious - no knowledge of photography required, the times were clearly outlaid by the OP and EXIF data extrapolated from the images.


The problem with debunking like this is twofold: (1) it doesn't effectively debunk a key piece of evidence (the OP's testimony that no one was there); and (2) it makes the erroneous assumption that because something COULD explain the photo it DOES explain the photo.

There's nothing novel about your long exposure explanation. I raised it back at the beginning of the thread. But the OP is adamant. Not only did no one walk in front of him while he was talking the picture. But there was no one on the beach at all. In front, behind, or to either side of him.

That leaves us with another possibility. The figure is the photographer himself. He cannot deny that he was there. This could be the result of a naturally occurring "ghost glass" effect, combined with the long exposure. Or the photographer got confused between the time of the exposures and the time between the exposures. (I've made this mistake. With embarrassing results.) And he ran down to the shore himself. To rinse off something in surf. These explanations could be dismissed if the photographer doesn't resemble the figure.

And there are still other possibilities after that. But you cannot simply ignore key evidence and claim you have the solution. Well, unless you work for the US government.




posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Moresby

I appreciate what you're saying.

I'm not claiming to have a solution...I'm presenting my theory and some evidence to support it. Nor am I presenting the facts and claiming that I've solved the case, or presented information that wasn't already available, or highlighting facts that haven't already been highlighted, I'm not.

I simply put the information we do have together in a way that makes sense to me, and possibly a few others.

No offence, but the only assumption being made here seems to be you assuming that I'm making assumptions. the whole point of my last post was in response to those who are skipping the content of the thread and raising points that have been discussed, or making erroneous claims without presenting any kind of evidence.

I'm not claiming to be right, but I refute on statement you made - I think I presented reasonable evidence to back up my theory and the reasoning behind it.


Edit to ask...

Out of curiosity, what evidence do you think I've ignored...the OP's testimony? I already stated I believe the OP to be honest, having witnessed his past contributions to threads, and stated I believe he, like all humans, may be subject to the odd blonde moment.

I have evidence to support that last claim - provided by yourself:

" Or the photographer got confused between the time of the exposures and the time between the exposures. (I've made this mistake. With embarrassing results.) "

So I appreciate that.
edit on 5-6-2014 by samerulesapply because: ETA



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
looks like a person and a crane/flamingo type animal to me



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Imagewerx

I personally think the photos are quite interesting here.....Based on what you said...I was concerned for your rights to ownership...for your sake!



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I didn't even read the OP first, I just saw the picture and saw the artifact immediately. Someone used the word unmistakable as to seeing what appears to be a human form, and I agree. Except to me it looks like there's a dog (or camel) beside him.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Necrose

Do you think I knew the exact speed to move my hand to match the person in the picture do you think my hand in a CLOSE UP situation could move the SAME distance as the person in the picture.

YOU said it was impossible to get a ghost image with a 4 second exposure YOU were WRONG and proved so!!!!


4 SECONDS AT F22 AT 100 ISO giving a CORRECT exposure is the same inside OR outside


Not really. I don't see a ghost image of your hand. I see your hand! Huge difference!



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: lindalinda
I'm wondering about the temperature that day. This being the Southern Hemisphere, it would have been very late summer and 7 pm, so not exactly ideal for wading in the ocean, which is why the beach is deserted. So maybe he was a die-hard surfer wearing a wetsuit? After all, some people seem to see a surfboard. But I doubt it, because then he would still be there in the next shot. And he appears to be wearing only shorts, anyway. Unless it was a blazing hot day, which seems unlikely given the overcast sky, he would have been severely underdressed to go into the water.

He was only in the water up to his ankles. I paddled into the water further than that this April in the UK, when it was still early spring!

As for the stuff about dead surfers, what on Earth does that have to do with a figure caught in an actual real photograph? Dead people don't appear standing up and moving around in photos.


How do you know that they don't?

If it's just a guy standing in the water, why are you even reading about it?

As for paddling in April in the UK, you didn't say how you were dressed or the time and temperature. If it was cold but sunny at noon, you can feel a little warmer than cold and overcast at 7 pm.

I live in San Diego and the surfers are out there in January, but not as many and they all wear wetsuits. And if someone was standing on the beach taking three pictures in a row, could you have appeared in only the middle one?

edit on 6/5/2014 by lindalinda because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/5/2014 by lindalinda because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: thebtheb

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Necrose

Do you think I knew the exact speed to move my hand to match the person in the picture do you think my hand in a CLOSE UP situation could move the SAME distance as the person in the picture.

YOU said it was impossible to get a ghost image with a 4 second exposure YOU were WRONG and proved so!!!!


4 SECONDS AT F22 AT 100 ISO giving a CORRECT exposure is the same inside OR outside


Not really. I don't see a ghost image of your hand. I see your hand! Huge difference!


So you think you can see through my hand if you saw it for real.



Does that look totally solid to you?

Why don't you explain how you see the computer screen behind


BOOK an eye test !!!!
edit on 6-6-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:28 AM
link   
I see a well endowed naked man facing left. Aside from that it could be a wooden chair.
Edit I meant the entire smudge part could be a chair

edit on 6-6-2014 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I'm just going to post this again to make the point: "ghost images" are perfectly possible in a long exposure like this, and not only that but they look just like the photo we are discussing.






posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48 that picture you posted was at dawn or dusk everything is pretty dark the op`s picture is in bright light so shouldn't`the blurry figures have some colour to them?



new topics




 
76
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join