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: 4
76
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48




And it certainly looks to me like the water could well be ankle depth right there.


The shot you used for your estimate, is hardly one to use to determine if the water is ankle deep there.
It is not, I was maybe 10 meters away from it, I saw it.

Its not about getting defensive mate. The fact is, you do not believe it when I tell you, there was no one in the shot. I watch my camera and scene as it takes a pic, It is set on a 2 sec delay, to eliminate vibrations. So I push the shutter, wait 2 sec and the shutter is released. The whole time, I am sitting right behind my camera, watching it, viewing the scene.

Your explanation is appreciated, as I just want to know what it could be. But, pushing your explanation as the holy grail, or actual fact, is also not right.

Granted, you have done the most in this thread "research" wise. So thank you.

vvv




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:00 AM
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



And there's the rub.

I actually think photos are terrible evidence for ghosts. Photos have too many inherent anomalies. And there are countless means to create anomalies both in-camera and through digital or optical post-processing. In fact, I cannot even imagine what a photo would have to look like for me to be convinced it was ghost just by looking at the photo. But that doesn't mean ghosts aren't real. Or don't appear in photos. But it does mean photos aren't good evidence by themselves.

But we have more than a photo here. We have a photo with an anomaly that could be a result of a long exposure. And we have the photographer who tells us no one was there. And we have some other photos suggesting that there wasn't anyone there before or after the key photo. That's several data points.

Now if he did some research and found that there was a legend of the ghost of a boy or young man in area. Or if there was a recent drowning, and photos of the victim resembled the his photo, then he'd have more data points. And the story grows.

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.

But this isn't true debunking. Because it doesn't debunk the photographer's testimony. However, for some it will be enough.

And ask yourself this: How is a ghost supposed to look in photograph? How could anything appear on a photo through supernatural agency that didn't use some part of the photographic process?


edit on 3-6-2014 by Moresby because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Great photo. I'm no photograph taking expert, certainly not a photographers left ankle but you've captured that particular place in a great tone and I can almost smell the spray from that water when I look at it. Oh and the shadow man and Llama walking past each other is a great touch, intended or not.
I wouldn't mind too much about people suggesting it was a long exposure blah blah blah if you where there the whole time. Either you've snapped something that you couldn't see but was there or it's a glitch in the matrix. They believe you or they don't .... who cares. You should stick some more of your photos up with or without shadow lamas it's good stuff.
edit on 3-6-2014 by generalspecific because: must be filled out



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

No the area you indicate in your pic is wrong. It is further to the right. The row of rocks leading into the water. The rocks on the far right of your picture, is where it was taken.

vvv



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
With the first picture posted I couldn't see anything. Once I saw the cropped and the enhanced copies then I could see a human figure. I see two different types here. One I can see someone that appears to be in shorts. But I also seem to see a soldier with a helmet on. I think it's just one object.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Cool picture, ...and my first thought was...

Jodie en het hertejong, but in english it's this link below


The yearling



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
a reply to: Rob48

No the area you indicate in your pic is wrong. It is further to the right. The row of rocks leading into the water. The rocks on the far right of your picture, is where it was taken.

vvv



OK. So here then?



My point is, the water there is clearly not that deep - it is dry sand at low tide, and the tidal range in that area is not very big. Furthermore, looking at the tide table, the photograph was taken approximately two hours before low tide (based on data from Mossel Bay which is very nearby). So the tide was rather low, which fits with having shallow water in that location.

www.tides4fishing.com...

Data for March 15 2014 here. Photo was taken at 18:59, low tide was 21:00.




So all that we have is a photo of a person, who the photographer claims was not there. Any other "weirdness" is purely a result of the long exposure.

As others have said: cool picture. Just a shame somebody walked into one of your shots - but you bracketed the exposures so you still have some good ones

edit on 3-6-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Moresby

If someone was to pronounce this to be a photo of a ghost then good luck to them, probably a stretch but I don't know. An 'Eerie Photograph' like the title suggests? Yes indeed it is. How refreshing that a title of the jaunt isn't entirely blown out of proportion, but still you must pick away. Go down to the beach and take some photos, free yourself from the shadows in which you hide, embrace the truth my tethered friend



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Where was the light source during this exposure? If there was a strong light source (which it seems not to be) then perhaps this image artifact is the result of a shadow of you and your tripod upon various salt water sprays?

Just a suggestion, as this is a very mysterious artifact.

Now my paradoilia is telling me that the human image is staring out to the sea. But I tend to discount what I see in my mind with regards to such photographs.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
First thing I see is a human male staring at sea with a pet at his feet and it looks like a chair behind him (lol).
I don't know enough about photography to give an opinion regarding it but cool photo nonetheless. Exquisite scenery! I agree with the other poster about putting up your images somewhere.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Where was the light source during this exposure? If there was a strong light source (which it seems not to be) then perhaps this image artifact is the result of a shadow of you and your tripod upon various salt water sprays?

Just a suggestion, as this is a very mysterious artifact.

Now my paradoilia is telling me that the human image is staring out to the sea. But I tend to discount what I see in my mind with regards to such photographs.


That's an interesting theory. Some kind of naturally occurring front projection or ghost glass effect.

So questions to the OP: Does the figure resemble you at all? Was there anyone to the side or behind you that it might resemble?



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
It is indeed a cool picture & nice photography too

But we are 4 pages into the thread & (sorry if i missed it, please point me to it), could you post the EXIF data?

i am a photographer & have done tons of these 'ghostly artifacts' just for fun
and they can be made to look very similar to this image...


A 'before & after' scenario, does not apply cos the person may have moved in & out of the frame during the long exposure.

the exposure is probably over 25 seconds, so it gives sufficient time for someone to walk in & out of the frame.

awaiting the EXIF data!



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: letmeDANz
It is indeed a cool picture & nice photography too

But we are 4 pages into the thread & (sorry if i missed it, please point me to it), could you post the EXIF data?

i am a photographer & have done tons of these 'ghostly artifacts' just for fun
and they can be made to look very similar to this image...


A 'before & after' scenario, does not apply cos the person may have moved in & out of the frame during the long exposure.

the exposure is probably over 25 seconds, so it gives sufficient time for someone to walk in & out of the frame.

awaiting the EXIF data!


The OP claims it was a 2 second exposure. He was watching the scene during those seconds. And no one was there.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: letmeDANz

Go back a page. bottom 2 posts.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
The two appear to be very large, interdimensional humanlike beings.

They're standing near the rocks to their left, which aren't quite as massive from their perspective as from ours.

Perhaps you've caught them unawares - the one on the right gazing off toward the mountainous shoreline, and the other one turned back looking at the camera.

Now the question is, how did this manifestation happen?




edit on 3-6-2014 by Nirvana999 because: word



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Why don't you look at the EXIF yourself?

Get a decent viewer like faststone, download original picture, and examine the Exif. It's there. I think it said 4 secs exposure.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
Why don't you look at the EXIF yourself?

Get a decent viewer like faststone, download original picture, and examine the Exif. It's there. I think it said 4 secs exposure.


Yes it is a four second exposure. The shots before and after were both five seconds, and the time gap from first to third photo was 40 seconds.

The anomalous shot EXIF data (I've trimmed out some of the extraneous stuff)...

colorspace 2
CFAPattern 0, 2, 0, 2, 1, 2, 0, 1
ColorSpace 1
ComponentsConfiguration 1, 2, 3, 0
CompressedBitsPerPixel 4/1
Compression 6
Contrast 0
CustomRendered 0
DateTime 2014:03:15 18:59:23
DateTimeDigitized 2014:03:15 18:59:23
DateTimeOriginal 2014:03:15 18:59:23
DigitalZoomRatio 1/1
ExifImageLength 3072
ExifImageWidth 4608
ExifOffset 228
ExifVersion 48, 50, 50, 49
ExposureBiasValue 4294967266/6
ExposureMode 1
ExposureProgram 1
ExposureTime 40/10
FileSource 3
Flash 0
FlashPixVersion 48, 49, 48, 48
FNumber 220/10
FocalLength 180/10
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm 27
GainControl 0
GPSInfo 33832
GPSVersionID 2, 2, 0, 0
InteroperabilityIndex R98
InteroperabilityOffset 33800
InteroperabilityVersion 48, 49, 48, 48
ISOSpeedRatings 100
JPEGInterchangeFormat 33960
JPEGInterchangeFormatLength 8898
LightSource 0
Make NIKON CORPORATION
MaxApertureValue 36/10
MeteringMode 3
Model NIKON D3100
Orientation 1
ResolutionUnit 2
Saturation 0
SceneCaptureType 0
SceneType 1
SensingMethod 2
Sharpness 0
Software Ver.1.00
SubjectDistanceRange 0
SubSecTime 40
SubSecTimeDigitized 40
SubSecTimeOriginal 40


So it was a four-second exposure at f/22, with an 18mm lens (equivalent to 27mm on a 35mm film camera, ie wide angle).

Nothing in the EXIF data looks at all fishy to me.



Nirvana999:
The two appear to be very large, interdimensional humanlike beings.

They're standing near the rocks to their left, which aren't quite as massive from their perspective as from ours.


Why do you say "very large"? The photographer states that if he was standing there, his head would be level with the top of the rocks, which looks about the same as the figure standing there. Certainly comparing it to other photos of the same beach, the figure looks the right size to be a human.
edit on 3-6-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I see two people, one up front watching the surf and the other just behind holding a board of some sort, mabye an alaia board. That's what I see anyway, check out the square tail...(right in between the two sets of legs if anyone gives a flying hoot about what I'm referring to)


An alaia (pronounced: ah-LIE-ah[1]) is a thin, round-nosed, square-tailed surfboard ridden in pre-20th century Hawaii. The boards were between 7 and 12 ft (2.1 and 3.7 m) long, weighed up to 100 lb (45 kg), and were generally made from the wood of Acacia koa.[2] They are distinct from modern surfboards in that they have no ventral fins.[1]



en.wikipedia.org...



Any surfers drown out there ever?
edit on 3-6-2014 by GoShredAK because: Edit



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Well we all have our opinion on whether spirits exist or not.
Personally I believe and I think this a great capture.
I can't remember where I heard this, but supposedly spirits appear to us earth bound people as being about 3' off the ground. Which would explain the feet looking like they are in shallow water.?

and like others said, the figure on the left certainly looks like a very clear person. Now the figure on the right struck me as having it's legs bent the wrong way, like the hind end of a horse, llama, ostrich, etc.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: horseplay
Well we all have our opinion on whether spirits exist or not.
Personally I believe and I think this a great capture.
I can't remember where I heard this, but supposedly spirits appear to us earth bound people as being about 3' off the ground. Which would explain the feet looking like they are in shallow water.?

and like others said, the figure on the left certainly looks like a very clear person. Now the figure on the right struck me as having it's legs bent the wrong way, like the hind end of a horse, llama, ostrich, etc.

Looks to me very much like just one person, caught in different poses. Standing at the right (rather fuzzy because he didn't stay still), then bending and reaching down in the middle, then standing still at the left (more stationary and therefore sharper).







top topics



 
76
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join