Eerie photograph I took, analysis needed.

Shaggy and Scobby?

holy cow. I rarely have time to totally follow a thread and it's scary how many posters just post without reading it through.
somehow this thread took a sexual turn ?
then a whole bunch of ppl were redundant on what already was posted ?
the same questions to the OP over and over again ?
sorry, I'm just shocked.
I believe VVV in that he said no one was there.
He said he will go back this weekend and run some tests.....
whether it be earthly consisting of a 4 second time exposure with an unwitting person wandering in or a spiritual entity being unwillingly captured, it is undoubtedly a fascinating photo. and pretty to boot...
it will probably remain a mystery.
I still tend to lean towards the paranormal. Just because.

No joke! People pointing out again that two images were duplicates! The last few pages of this thread have been a waste.

I don't think vvv missed someone walking into the frame. Even if someone did, I don't think that would explain exactly what we're seeing in the photo.

a reply to: shauny

Lol...I'm also a Scot, this made me laugh.

Don't be so disheartened by the stereotypical claims, I travelled about a lot and soon learned that no matter what part of the UK you go to, the people in the next town/village/city all make love to sheep!

Except in Cornwall...they prefer border collies.

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

I don't know you, sir...but I've seen you contribute to threads in the past and you seem quite rational and objective to me.

It doesn't look like the sort of day people would head to the beach, not sure if that's due to the long exposure giving such a softening effect to the image, have very little experience with photography - but it looks quite dull and gray, I think that's why the image works so well. As another poster said...you can almost smell the sea, it makes me feel cold and wet just looking at it. I guess that's the point in what you do, and evidence that you do it well.

I really enjoyed this thread, though - a lot of threads seem to be shot down on ATS these days on a whim or opinion without constructive reasoning. It's threads like this that make me come back to ATS - people making reasonable points based on the evidence we have as opposed to closed-minded opinion. It was good to see the old hands come out and discuss an issue like grown ups, not so common these days, sadly.

I, for one, salute you not only for posting the image but for accepting others' contributions whether they support or oppose your own views...you're a dying breed.

Mad props to Rob, also - for showing people how it should be done, awesome thread...I'd flag again if I could.

a reply to: Imagewerx

www.creativecommons.org...about

I see. They explain it to be used additionally to a registered copyright. And that registered copyright, once legally registered works in conjunction with the CCL.

"Creative Commons licenses are not an alternative to copyright. They work alongside copyright and enable you to modify your copyright terms to best suit your needs.'

That answers my question...you do not own or have the copyright to that photo. Thank you.

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.

Silly question as I know jack all but if this was a longer exposed shot would it be possible that the shadow of yourself, the image is more noticeable because the shadow is caught for a longer time. I don't know .. Was the sun even out lol ?

Oops that's me in one of my obe's with feet in the water and skimming the surface of the water to the other end, and skyscrapers on the other end a futuristic town of sorts.
a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Excuse me if anyone has stated this already.

My Nikon camera is able to create double exposures. All that is required is to select the built in setting that tells the camera to use 2 pictures and merge them into one scene. Since the camera is performing this function, no Photoshop is required (No editing). I have not looked at the EXIF data from a photograph taken under those conditions. Never the less, there are programs that allow you to add/remove the stored information of the picture parameters.

My contribution to the OP is strictly to emphasize on one of multiple methods for creating similar images.

Have you done any digging into any drownings or other tragedies that may have taken place in the area where the photograph was taken?

I completely see the image of the 2 humans, but does anyone notice the wolf when you look at it from a distance?

What I see is 2 pictures of the same person-on the right he is bent over, maybe stretching or fastening a shoe lace, with a surfboard upright behind him. The fins on the board give that 'ostrich head' effect, On the left, he has straightened up with the board invisible on his far side.

I also notice a blur in a lightbulb shape round the right hand image-whether significant or not I dont know as i am a complete amateur at photography.

a reply to: lawman27

amateur or not, a naked eye is a third eye.

originally posted by: takeindecision
I completely see the image of the 2 humans, but does anyone notice the wolf when you look at it from a distance?

I do, somewhat. Honestly, when I first looked at the uncropped image it reminded me of the Mo'ai, the statues on Easter Island.

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
THAT is the DOCTOR, Saying goodbye to Rose

Hi,

Have read the entire thread I have got a question for the op, have you ever taken a picture since you have had that camera Nikon D3100 of a guy or dog/cat standing in that position that is showing up as this anomaly?, now with that question being said it might be pretty hard, but I too am a photographer and what am thinking is that some how, not sure, but your camera is crossed over an old picture to this new one so a camera is a small computer and it might just be a software glitch perhaps a restart of the camera would have fixed it that's an idea I have, if you can think at any time that you might have taken a picture of a man that would fit in with this anomaly.

Now most likely you went to the beach and set the camera up and turned it on booting the camera up, so it was from a fresh start, what picture did you take before that week?

I stood for 15-20 minutes waiting on folk to move out of frame so I could take a picture.

Am calling the camera in to question.

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

I have a few thoughts and theories to share on this, none of which I claim to be the truth.

I have read a bit of H.P Blavatsky's writings and in her books i have found asnswers to many things, there have been many times where i have had a very confusing paranormal question or something bothering my mind for days and I will open a book to a random page and the answer will be right there... that is a phenomena in itself but one book in particular, the Veil of Isis explains a lot about things like this.

My first Theory is that it could be some being existing on another frequency of reality, not necessarily another dimension as such but a different frequency... another way to explain this in other terms would be like saying computers might be a higher dimension to radio and can still pick up on radio (higher dimension = more capabilities) but this is just another tuning of the radio... if that makes sense, sorry if it is worded badly. Maybe some information is leaking over from another reality?

Another theory is that it could be a glitch or some form of information that was lost or fragmented from somewhere? This is a little bit hard to explain, but possibly like a fragmented hard drive, little packets of information got lost?

It could also possibly be some being from the Astral plain which is very closely linked in with our reality, and in that particular area the veil between our worlds is quite thin? maybe someone was in that exact location in their dreams and their mind projected an illusion of themselves?

I don't know what it is, but these are just a few possibilities that I think could be possible. I don't think there is any way to know for sure...

In any case, Awesome photograph I love it! You should definitely get it printed and framed!

Namaste.

If you are positive that there was no one else around, and your other claims are accurate, then obviously something strange is going on here. The shape of a person is unmistakable. It is not just "close," rather it is perfect. I see a boy standing in front, and a slightly larger person walking behind him, sort of turned at an angle, which makes it a bit more difficult to make out, but it is relatively clear to me.

The person who posted the picture with the accompanying red text is obviously seeing the same thing I am. The shorts alone make me think of the 1950's or 1960's, but I am no fashion expert so am not certain on that point. If I were you I would look for deaths at that spot, starting with the most recent. Obviously this will be much easier if the spot has a name. This may not be a paranormal photograph, but explaining it with the information you provided is next to impossible, simply because there is no accounting for it naturally.

It would have to be some freak occurrence or something I would think, IF these are actually people in the area but who did not enter your shot. How that could happen I have no idea. Maybe like a mirage of reflected light, but then you would have probably seen it with your naked eye. I don't have enough knowledge in these areas to really formulate a meaningful opinion. I will tell you this though...If I saw two people in shorts like that, I wouldn't soon forget it. It would probably haunt me at night.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Imagewerx

www.creativecommons.orgabout...

I see. They explain it to be used additionally to a registered copyright. And that registered copyright, once legally registered works in conjunction with the CCL.

"Creative Commons licenses are not an alternative to copyright. They work alongside copyright and enable you to modify your copyright terms to best suit your needs.'

That answers my question...you do not own or have the copyright to that photo. Thank you.

The idea is that anyone can copy and re-use the photo as long as they credit it's originator,this is just good manners and should be done every time anyway. You do retain intellectual copyright meaning someone else can't recreate the image and claim it was their's in the first place.

Now a question for VVV. My apologies if you've already explained this. When you took the photo,was the camera on a tripod (it has to have been for a 4 second exposure),and did you use the automatic timer function to open the shutter and stand back while the photo was being taken,i.e. you weren't looking through the viewfinder. (Yes I know the viewfinder goes black when taking a photo when the mirror comes up,but I thought I'd ask anyway.)