Eerie photograph I took, analysis needed.

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

It looks like one of those Hawaiian Kyaks with the long side piece attached plus it looks like a ghostly image if a man in shorts, shirt, & cap with an ease, painting...
Whichever, it is an awesome spectacle to behold. Thank you for sharing :-)

Ghost!a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

originally posted by: Necrose

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?

Further, he asked for analysis. I suggested long exposure on page 1. Others suggested it on page 2 and 3. The OP insists that's impossible, because no one was on the beach. He answered this question several times. He was very clear.

The stranger long exposure solution has been offered. Many times. It's no help to the photographer to keep offering it. It's not new analysis. It's time to move on to other solutions. Yes, you could produce this effect with long exposure. We all knew that. We knew that on page 1. But you cannot produce this effect without a person.

I suggested several times different ways it could be the photographer himself. He cannot deny he was there at the time. This solution could be debunked if he looks nothing like the figure(s).

There are potentially other solutions. And then there are the paranormal answers which still haven't gotten much traction.

originally posted by: StormyStars
a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

It looks like one of those Hawaiian Kyaks with the long side piece attached plus it looks like a ghostly image if a man in shorts, shirt, & cap with an ease, painting...
Whichever, it is an awesome spectacle to behold. Thank you for sharing :-)

Someone needs to check and see if someone matching that description was killed there. That could lead to some interesting evidence.

@OP
I think you should go back there and fool around with those same exposure times and see what happens.

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

it looks like a high school class home economics class
threw away all their failed brownie that they baked.

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.

The problem is people like yourself DON'T understand photography if the person walked up as the OP prepared to take the shot due to the long exposure you use a tripod with a remote trigger or put the self timer on this ensures that the camera is not moved.

If the person was standing were the faintest part of the anomaly was just as the shutter opened and stepped forward to the final position and stood there because they were in the final position longer they register more on the sensor. NO running in and once the shutter closes that's it.

Rob48 posted examples which show the effect, having been a keen photographer for 30+ years I have seen people in the field and even in the studio failing to notice something that comes into the field of view it happens when you concentrate on your shot.

What is the most logical explanation as we have EXAMPLES of this effect in many photographs on the net or the WANT of members of conspiracy sites wanting something else so badly they wont entertain the logical and mundane answers.

Hi guys.

Sorry for not posting sooner, but yeah, life gets in the way. Anyhow, I went back to the place in question yesterday.

I took many many pics, and tried to recreate this image. Many hours was spend waiting, and trying. I took my brother along, even having him dress kinda silimarly to what many have suggested. Now, of course it is impossible to recreate the exact athmospheric conditions.

I tried to show in the following pics, the water depth, at about the same height, or low, as the picture in question. I also used exactly the same settings, and exposure as the shot in question.

First a shot of my brother, to give perspective, and an indication of water, more or less at the same tide high or low, before low tide.



Here a shot of him, bending over, and standing up. Like some suggested.



Again with him standing and bending



Standing



All photos taken with same settings as the shot in question. Except the first picture, that was just to show scale.

Something that is weird to me, is no matter how hard I tried, the scale seemed off. My brother is 1.80 meter. He appears much larger than the artifact in question.

But yeah, big thanks to my bro for standing around in cold water while I tried to recreate the shot.

vvv

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
Good work putting in the effort to repeat this! Looks quite similar to the original artifact to me. As for the size issue, maybe the original pic showed a younger child? Somebody pointed out that the head looked quite large, and children's heads are proportionally bigger than adults'.

Well, that seems to sum things up and I hope clears up many questions people had. Thank you VVV, as you say the light seems much brighter, so taking that into account I think your re-do pics solve this puzzle. Not many would go back and put in the effort, so hats off to you.

Just think about this. Has anyone ever snuck up behind you and scared you before? Of course! We get so scared because our brains feel alone and safe (as far as we know). I think this might be a reason why you are/were? so adamant that no one was there. You must have been setting up with your back turned, maybe a breeze was into your face carrying sound away from you as well. Somebody completely ninja's his way into your frame and buggers off as you set up for the next photo. Possibly just rinsing his hands?

Oh by the way, this thread was on ATS radio, but I missed it! I think it repeats in a few hours? (1st hour)

originally posted by: Necrose
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?

What's crazy to me is that you seem to assume that if someone posts something on ATS it is inherently true.

So now do you believe that the image in your earlier photo was an echtoplasmic manifestation? And are you in Durban?
a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

originally posted by: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


Something that is weird to me, is no matter how hard I tried, the scale seemed off. My brother is 1.80 meter. He appears much larger than the artifact in question.

It's not weird to me because your brother was not standing at the same position.





Look at the rock to your brothers left compare that to your OP image (top one) the person was standing nearer to you and was not in line with that almost triangular rock to your brothers left also as you are shooting at 18mm a wide angle that has an effect on perspective when objects are at different distances from the lens!

Also your brother looks smaller not larger?

Check number of pixels in height for both images.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Mate, I am sorry I could not get everything EXACTLY the same.

I was sitting on the rocks, with my cellphone in hand, looking at the original image, trying to compose it the best I can.

Yes, my brother looked bigger to me, than the artifact in question. The images also do not look quite like the original, but I put that down to cloud cover, and time of day. To take a 4 sec exposure, It had to be darker though, otherwise these pictures would be massively overexposed, as you are well aware.

The "ghost" images of my bro looks much more solid too me, than the original. Not quite as "ghostly" as the original.

But hey, I put in effort to go back and try to recreate it. People can make of it what they want. Was done more for the sake of being thorough, and to satisfy my own questions regarding this.

vvv

a reply to: [post=18019425]VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep[/post

Yes at least YOU made the effort and others have made an effort to show how this effect can happen.

So what is your conclusion re your images?

If you're arguing that this anomaly is a person or persons who got into the time exposure... Then You are calling the OP a liar.

Stop trying to be polite, there is no avoiding that insult - it is implicit in the theory itself.

And just because I can digitally create a video showing Hillary Clinton speaking before Congress, that doesn't make all videos of her speaking before Congress a digital artifact or visual anomaly. I hate to be blunt but this logic seems quite lost on those saying this has been debunked. It's not even a good theory since it relies on the OP being a hoaxer or liar, for which there is no evidence at all. On the contrary he has a track record for the opposite. So...

Still anyone's game.

a reply to: Son of Will

Are you kidding? Everyone who has gone with "long exposure and an unnoticed beach-goer" theory has been extremely respectful towards VVV. There is a difference in how we explained it, we are not saying VVV is a liar, rather it is a simple honest human nature thing to sometimes not see everything around yourself. We genuinely think he just didn't notice him and didn't set out to fool ats.

Not only that, but it's amazing how quickly all of the VVV supporters have disappeared since VVV went back and re-created the photo. The results of which are "eerily" the same as the first op's photo... The thread has turned glacial.

However VVV has avoided any conclusion themselves... Odd... VVV must however be congratulated for going to the trouble to re-create the scene. But I honestly think that anyone who applies critical thinking to this thread can only come to one conclusion as to the nature of the photo.

VVV, don't be ashamed to change your views! It's normal, people are always missing things around them!

a reply to: Qumulys

However VVV has avoided any conclusion themselves... Odd...

Sorry, just been a bit busy lately. I am here now to answer though.

When I went back to recreate the pictures, something about them just didn't feel right. As another member pointed out, my bro might have been standing a little bit further from the exact spot of the artifact. Also, because it wasn't as overcast as in the original, maybe things were different.

Its just, for me there are a lot of "maybe's" or "what if" or "possibly". Even in my own deductions. So many possibilities.

I know all about long exposures, thats why I went back to try and deliberately recreate it. To try and get it like in the original pic. I could not, and even if I spend more hours there trying again, I doubt I would get it exactly the same. My hope was that going back, recreating it, and comparing the pics, would satisfy me, and my search for a conclusion. Unfortunately, it didn't quite.

I really do appreciate all the input, and possible explanations here. Before I even posted this pic, while still contemplating if I should, my first thought also was the same as some members here. A long exposure, someone in frame. Alas, I know it was not someone in the frame, hence my posting it here. Now, if someone walked into the frame, without me knowing, then I apologize for even posting it here.

The original pic looks much more "whispy", or "diffused" to me. On the 4 sec exposures I tried afterwards, much more solidity appears in the "ghostly" images. Yes, maybe the weather conditions did affect it, maybe the density of the atmosphere at the time, maybe something else.

But again, just to many maybe's and questions for me to be fully satisfied. The explanation of someone in the pic is definately the most likely, but for me its not conclusive. I will keep this picture, as rare one. One with something with many possible explanations, even someone in the frame, but purely because I could not recreate it to suit my admittely high expectations, I will just look at it from time to time.

What prompted me to post it here in the paranormal section in the first place, was my own doubt. I know no one was in the picture, again, yes, maybe I looked away for 1 sec or even 2, or even 4. But then surely I would at least have seen someone walk around in that general area.

I don't feel anyone has been rude to me, or insulted me. Sure, there might be undertones, but totally understandable. They come from frustration. Much as i am frustrated about the whole picture.

vvv

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Well, I guess it's in your hands as to your own conclusions. If it were me though, I'd be happy knowing I pretty much re-created the pic and got an answer. An Occums Razor type answer, it was just a photo-bombing ninja . So, I'd save your stressing and worrying about it - you'll go bald if you keep that up!

Ok, this may just be due to an overactive imagination, on my part, but after doing a bunch of different manipulations, level adjustments, and enhancements to the photo, it looks to me like one person (the one that many say looks like a 'boy', but I believe it is, actually, a woman) is standing there, looking dead straight at the camera, while the 'ostrich' is actually a double exposure of a man who is hunched over, pulling his pants up. No, this is not a joke, and it all makes sense, if you think about it.This may also very well explain why you did not see them. I think you possibly interrupted somebodies private beach tryst, and they saw you before you saw them, and the man quickly composed himself, then they ducked behind the rock until the coast was clear. I'm not going to post the enhanced photos here, but in a couple of them, I believe I can see more than I really wanted to, of the man. The reason he is harder to make out, and seems like two people, a big dog, two boys carrying a chest, or a ostrich, is due to the long exposure time, and him scrambling wildly into his pants, while the woman is staring like a deer caught in headlights. One of 'him' looks naked, in the enhanced pics, while the other 'him' has them puled up, while he is trying to stay low, and out of view. Like I said, it may be my imagination, but I don't think so. You did say that there was no one on the beach, so it makes sense that a young couple, with love on their minds, and the ocean air wafting through their hair, might stop for a bit of risky, frisky beach business. How were they to know that the next Ansel Adams was just over yonder rock, snapping away?_javascript:icon('') What do you think? Plausible? _javascript:icon('')

(And, by the way, thank you for the opportunity to play with the pics, and speculate. It has been a lot of fun.)

a reply to: Qumulys

You don't seem to understand. The OP has stated several times that nobody was on the beach, not even close to him. That is a piece of evidence here.

So no matter how "polite" you frame your response, adamantly pushing the theory of an intruder into the frame is the exact same thing as calling the OP a liar.

I'm not pushing any theory myself, but it is troubling that so many seem to not understand the above logic.

Logic > politeness.