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: 13
76
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashdespatch
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?



The photo was taken at 6.59pm, which is about 11 minutes after sunset for that location on that day.



sunrisesunsetmap.com...

The photo is exposed for the relatively bright sea. If I took a photo of a person there with that exposure I would expect them to look rather underexposed - not quite a silhouette but not far off.




posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
If this is the result of a long exposure, then it comes down to judging the character of the OP.

For example, he stated he took photos before and after this one and that this particular image was the anomaly.

1. Is the OP lying?
2. If so, why would they openly ask the ATS community for help.

Ultimately, while images like the one below are reproducible, the circumstances of their reproduction vary and thus all creation stories cannot be discounted or proven false - at least unless someone has ruled out dimensional anomalies.




posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: MysteriousHusky

Honestly, with the utmost respect to VVV - in my personal feeling this is most definitely not something otherworldly. It is a long exposure photograph which was interrupted by a person. The evidence clearly points that way. I think it has been explained very well by Rob48 and a few others and I thank them for the careful analysis they took.

However VVV would not knowingly nor willing try to hoax ATS, but I do think VVV has to at some point at least consider the possibility that they were mistaken this time and just missed the elusive figure on the beach.

Like quite a few have said in this thread, it is very easy to completely miss something especially in photography. Humans are fallible, we fail to notice so many things. Sometimes we can stare at a shelf for 30 seconds looking for a bottle of tomato sauce that's not there, then all of a sudden you see it! Right in front of everything else... In the middle too.... So I do hope VVV will try to add up all the evidence, taking into account that not all testimony can be assumed correct - even ones own.


Perhaps VVV looked in the viewfinder, saw a good shot, pressed shutter (2 second delay to take hands away from camera to avoid shake). Now VVV is no longer even looking in the viewfinder, just the shot in front. All looks clear, however the lens takes in quite a wide view. Captures something VVV failed to notice. There just does not seem to be any evidence that a mystery is here.

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



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
What happened to denying ignorance?

Did ANYONE read this guys OP or replies to others' attempted debunkery before posting?

I can't argue with those of you that won't get off of the 'long exposure' theory without losing my cool in all honesty - this was a four second exposure - to walk into the frame, realize you're being caught on film, and leave the frame in under four seconds - would be near impossible unless you knew the camera was there; Especially as far 'into' the frame as the figure is. Not to mention that if someone had walked into the frame - there would be trails all the way from the right-hand side of the picture, and they wouldn't have paused to take a look at the scenery if they had actually realized they were on camera.

I have high doubts that any kind of 'sea mist' would generate this phenomenon in this detail - and in (~40?) seconds - whatever the (short) time it took to shoot all three pictures - I doubt that Rob reviewed the picture he just shot, saw the artifact, and cleaned his lens before taking another 'long' exposure shot.

Debunking debunked. I see no validity in the concept of someone walking into the shot, and I see no validity in lens artifacts or gas pockets generating this level of detail.

Anyone that is still trying to say this is anything we can explain - doesn't believe in things they can't explain.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: DigitalJedi805
What happened to denying ignorance?

Did ANYONE read this guys OP or replies to others' attempted debunkery before posting?

I can't argue with those of you that won't get off of the 'long exposure' theory without losing my cool in all honesty - this was a four second exposure - to walk into the frame, realize you're being caught on film, and leave the frame in under four seconds - would be near impossible unless you knew the camera was there; Especially as far 'into' the frame as the figure is. Not to mention that if someone had walked into the frame - there would be trails all the way from the right-hand side of the picture, and they wouldn't have paused to take a look at the scenery if they had actually realized they were on camera.


You want to talk about denying ignorance? Have you actually read the reasoning?

The whole point is that the person didn't "walk into frame" - they were ALREADY in frame. The only distance they walked was maybe two or three steps, from one edge of the blurred shape to the other.

Just like this photo, except this one has two people moving and making "ghosts":



Or how about this one:



Anybody who can look at these images and not see the same phenomenon shown in the OP's photo obviously has no interest in rational explanations. Full stop.

The only "unexplained" thing is why VVV apparently didn't see the person, who is clearly a real, solid human being standing in shallow water. But that is hardly a major mystery.
edit on 6-6-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48


I'm glad you responded to that before I did, I'd have been much ruder than you.

Jeeeeezzzzzzzzz.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
a reply to: Rob48




Just one person. The only mystery seems to be why the photographer didn't notice him


Simple. Because there was no one there! Look mate, I know you trying hard, but seriously, there was no one in frame. Do you think i would look through my viewfinder, see someone there, and still release the shutter. The beach was empty. And I was watching the direction of the rocks, actually more than what you see in the frame.

vvv



I wanted to repost this. The OP is definitive.

Emphasis are mine.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
a reply to: Rob48




Just one person. The only mystery seems to be why the photographer didn't notice him


Simple. Because there was no one there! Look mate, I know you trying hard, but seriously, there was no one in frame. Do you think i would look through my viewfinder, see someone there, and still release the shutter. The beach was empty. And I was watching the direction of the rocks, actually more than what you see in the frame.

vvv



Now the non believing rationalists out there will say: Since it can be created via other than supernatural means, it was created that way. And they'll assume the photographer is lying or mistaken about the rest.



Here's what I said back on page four. And this is exactly what's been happening for the last few pages.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
a reply to: Rob48




Just one person. The only mystery seems to be why the photographer didn't notice him


Simple. Because there was no one there! Look mate, I know you trying hard, but seriously, there was no one in frame. Do you think i would look through my viewfinder, see someone there, and still release the shutter. The beach was empty. And I was watching the direction of the rocks, actually more than what you see in the frame.

vvv



I wanted to repost this. The OP is definitive.

Emphasis are mine.


Except that the photograph he took clearly shows a person on the beach.

If I thought the beach was empty but then looked at my photos and saw a person there, I would think "Huh, I never saw that guy standing there."

I wouldn't think "Wow, I photographed a ghost, I must post a thread on ATS about it."

Let me ask a hypothetical: let's assume that VVV wasn't taking long exposures, but was taking short 1/100 second shots. One of his pictures showed a clear image of a man in surf shorts standing in the water. Do you think this thread would be here?

It's only because a long exposure leads to a spooky looking blurred image that it is getting any attention.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Moresby

You don't seem to get it - nobody knows what happened here...that's what we're discussing and why.

What exactly do you expect from people...to just jump on the "it must be something paranormal" bandwagon as per your own opinion?

This is ATS...I think there has bee some constructive reasoning presented both for and against. If anyone knew for definite what happened here there'd be no debate. But the evidence is stacked heavily in favour of this being a mistake on tyhe OP's part...overwhelmingly.

It's you that's adamant that it's not something mundane and explainable, it's you that's willingly ignoring one set of facts in order to validate your view or opinion of what happened here.

The hard, cold facts are this - there have been plenty of people who have stated they believe a person walked into the frame, and have given evidence for their opinion.

What evidence have you or anyone else here to support the theory that it's something otherworldly other than a belief that it is? I've seen none, zero, zip, nil, nada.

The consensus with certain people seems to be that it's a wispy looking shadow therefore it's paranormal.

We still have people coming to the thread and making statements about 4 seconds not being long enough for a figure to pass from one end of the frame to the other, and that no trails appear across the entire image, despite that bein shown to be an illogical argument many, many times.

Anyone with eyes can read the thread and find many arguments supporting the theory that a person walked into the frame - I can't find one single argument that supports it being something amazing and unexplainable - not...a...one.

Again, no offense to the OP, many of us have said that we believe the OP to have integrity and don't think he's intentionally hoaxing - the OP isn't perfect. I'm sorry, but the OP's testimony is NOT evidence.

Two people can see the exact same thing and describe something totally different, eye witness testimony isn't reliable evidence.

the thing that's really infuriating about a lot of these posts is that people who believe this is something extraordinary think that the people applying logic and reasoning...and acutally providing exidence in support of their theories are somehow stupid, or just out to debunk.

So...where's the evidence in support of your claim that it's something paranormal...you don't even have evidence of the paranormal in general. I'm not saying I don't belive in such things, read some of my previous threads/posts in other threads and you'll find this to be a fact - I don't know, neither do you.

You're basing your entire argument on assumption and belief in something nobody can prove, I and a few others are basing ours on analysis of the available evidence...so stop making out like we're the ones who are blinded by bias and denial when it's you.
edit on 6-6-2014 by samerulesapply because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2014 by samerulesapply because: I'm an idiot



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Rob and others have pretty much cleared this up, even though it was pretty obvious just by looking at the picture in the first place.


This gets 70 flags?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Moresby

In fact, you know what...since you're too lazy to apply any critical thinking to the case in question, I did it for you.

Here are some things that I think could possibly, in some small way - support your claims. These are the things I considered FOR the OP in my initial, I believe, unbiased and objective assessment: I considered it from both sides before reaching my own conclusion based on weighing up the available evidence:

1. It doesn't look like the sort of day someone would want to go for a swim, it looks cold and if the times are right, it;s quite late.

2. The figure isn't seen in the third image...this supports, to some extent, the idea that the figure may have simply vanished...it doesn't confirm it but it does support it in some small way I suppose.

3. As someone pointed out already, it looks kinda like a Cantaur.

That's all I got.

What I find remarkable is, that in a previous response to me - you stated that I should not rely on the times specified by the OP, that the OP could have made a mistake - you then went on to describe an incident in your past where you made an embarrasing mistake...in short, you supported the argument against without even realising it.

So, the times specified by the OP, times that can be extrapolated from EXIF data present in the images - can be dismissed as unreliable - but the OP's eye witness testimony that nobody was there is absolutely 100% accurate and credible...if you can't see the backwards logic you've employed here then I don't know what else to tell you.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: jessejamesxx
The only way to settle this is to go back and have someone try to stand in the position of the artifact while retaking the photo.


No it would only prove you can duplicate the image using that technique.

A good special effects artist can duplicate films of planes flying with models or cgi. That wouldn't prove that all films of planes are CGI or models.


It would prove whether or not it is possible for someone to stand there in the first place, since the biggest argument in this thread is "maybe you missed someone going into the shot". If the water is too high there, there's no chance of that happening.. and it would rule it out as an option.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: jessejamesxx

Maybe, but not definitively because sands can shift quite a bit at a beach creating another variable, especially given it's a week later. But even if taken at the approx same tide height, the evidence clearly points to it being shallow.

Unless of course it's Jesus.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

the OP was adamant that there was no one on the beach. I appreciate your input into this; but the fact is, you were not there when the photo was taken.

Myself, I believe the OP when he says there was no one on the beach at the time the photo was taken.

edit on 6/6/14 by Beldy because: spelling



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Beldy

Can I ask you this then?

Let's say a murder has taken place, there is a photo of the murderer shooting a person by a witness who saw it happen. Ballistics match the firearm to his gun. He has bullet residue on his arms and blood spatter on his face, and his footprints match the scene as well.
It comes to trial, and when questioned he says "it wasn't me!"

Does the judge believe him? Or does he use the evidence?


I'm sorry, this thread has turned very frustrating for me now - I think I have to bow out.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Qumulys
a reply to: Beldy

Can I ask you this then?

Let's say a murder has taken place, there is a photo of the murderer shooting a person by a witness who saw it happen. Ballistics match the firearm to his gun. He has bullet residue on his arms and blood spatter on his face, and his footprints match the scene as well.
It comes to trial, and when questioned he says "it wasn't me!"

Does the judge believe him? Or does he use the evidence?


I'm sorry, this thread has turned very frustrating for me now - I think I have to bow out.


This ain't the case.
OP started this thread on ATS by himself. He wanted to ask us! This is not a court session, where he is obliged to answer questions. Starting the thread is a voluntary action. Nothing compulsory here... so why, why would he make up the whole story? ..and damn, don't tell me "he is looking for attention"...
WHY ON EARTH WOULD HE BE MAKING IT ALL UP? That's just crazy, innit?



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Necrose

*sigh*

If you go through the thread, I've never said VVV is a liar. In stark contrast actually. I'm just saying that people are capable of not noticing things. That's it.... That's all... All the evidence given to us by the op and the research supplied by Rob explains what it is.
What VVV said about nobody being there is not evidence, it's hearsay. I truly believe VVV believes nobody was there. Not saying he is a liar, just that he must have been mistaken when one adds up the evidence.

You obviously missed the point I was making about the murderer.

But in the end, no matter how much we've tried to explain this, it's just swings and round-abouts. Some people will weigh up most-likely scenarios using evidence and come to a conclusion, others will believe whatever they are told without applying real world logic.
And that's fine. Different strokes for different folks I guess. I'm sure both sides of this thread are equally banging heads on desks. But nothing really ever changes, the world is full of very different types of people. I'm happy sitting in physical and explainable world (boring I know), and others are happy to believe in ghosts/spirits. That's fine, I get it.

But I guess that's where the journey ends in this thread for me for now. It's vibe has turned into one of those religious type threads and I try to stay out of those for a reason.
edit on 7-6-2014 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: undo




I Agree that it is one person. and I believe the OP did not see anyone. I think I might have a solution.

Ever heard of Skim Boarding. You run and jump on a small thin board that glides across the thin layer of water left from a wave. A person can travel quite fast and for a long distance depending on the slope of the shore. I used to skim when I was a kid we made our own boards and would skim down in Santa Cruz and if the shore was flat enough you could ride that thin layer of wave a long way.

With that in mine I could totally see how the OP may not have notice said Skimboarder down the shore. The skimboarder quickly glides his way toward the rocks slowing down and stopping just at the right spot to be in the OP's photo. He stops, picks up his board, waits for the wave to thin out then runs and throws his board and glides back up the shore. Based on the above body reference and experience I can totally see that this could be a skim boarder stopping and then getting ready for the next wave.

Now If the OP was focused on his equipment he may not have noticed one skimboarder making his way down the shore. It would not take long for a skimboarder to get out of his area of focus.

Just a hunch

Skimboarders


edit on 7-6-2014 by Observationalist because: Added Photo



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Qumulys

I suppose vvv could return to the spot..with a chair, and wait to see if someone turns up who resembles the image in the photograph.. Or put up a sign on the beach 'Is this you?' with contact details.



new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join