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.

 

A photo from the past.

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: RifRAAF
Can you take a photo of the same person holding open the same photo album at the same page? maybe by trying to re-create the shot you might get a similar "artefact"??


I am unable to do that as I no longer live in the house or are in contact with the person in the photos.

Thanks




posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Pitou

The room was clear and actually the whole house was regarding anything burning and no one was smoking, as you see from the 2nd photo it is totally clear and i took that 6 seconds later.

Me knowing that there was no smoke at the time off taking the photo I off course rule that out as the cause of the effect in the photo.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheDon

here one i made in about two minutes with some lines and a blur.
for just goofing off i think the effect is close.


oh, what kind of whiskey is that on the table? i can't say i recognize that bottle.



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TheDon

Are you able to visit this house? I'm thinking print the pic out, write the date it was taken and a contact number on the back and leave it in their mail?? Maybe on the off chance the current tenants have encounters their own "anomalies"...

I'm quite intrigued by the pic because tho it superficially looks like smoke, I actually don't think it is "smoke" but rather "light" that has cased the artefact.

Camera artefacts are normally easily explained, but this one does have my head scratching...



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I can assure you that I have not goofed off regarding the photo I posted.

Though off topic, it is Tullamore whiskey www.tullamoredew.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: RifRAAF

The house is just up the road, so I could iff I wanted too, though I believe it is emtpy at the moment as it is being converted into flats.

My X who i lived there with did say on a number a times she thought the house had spirits in it.

I actually do have a number of photos also taken in the house which show orbs, but I do know alot of photos with orbs in can easily be explained away due to camera issuses.

I have spent many hours looking at the photo, and I have to say that is the first time I have heard it could be light.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheDon

... smoke ...


It also looks like a negative-version of dye-in-water pattern ...

www.flickr.com...

e.g. created by a stray drop of chemical-concentrate when the print or photographic-film was processed / manufactured.
edit on 10-11-2014 by engvbany because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Spooky pic. Can anyone play with contrast with the lines coming from the book on the table? I'm on my iSad.
The top one comes out and into the foreground and around her head, the second one seems to come from the book, then pop back out with the same pattern as it passes behind the book she is reading. it doesn't seem to have the bleaching effect across the pic book she's reading, but pass behind it. it would give it more dimension than just a complete foreground artifact.thanks for the share. my buddy just FB posted this one from Oregon, I was looking for the Jacklinks guy and noticed this weird image. center, right, top, way back in image. not quite as cool, but looks like a person with head & shoulder profile.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TheDon
Empty haunted house up the road... man I wish I lived on your street I would be sneaking in there with a camera, digital thermometer and spectrum analyser app on tablet... (I am not recommending you do this as it would probably be tresspassing and I am not advocating you commit any offence or crime)

Why I say light is a couple of reasons, but I may be wrong. I am a smoker and have been for over 20 years, and smoke altho almost white, it actually isnt... cigarette smoke is greyish, this artefact is white... thats not my reason tho...

My reason is the CCD chips in digital cameras (or CMOS if thats the type of sensor in your camera) are sensitive to light and can capture light frequencies we cant see. The light that made the artefact in the picture cold easily be there invisible to you and the lady in the photo... what caused that source of light however is the mystery???

Personally I think that light is a spirit from one of the people in the photo album, a deceased relative... but I cant tell if those photos on that page are even of people???



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: engvbany

It also looks like a negative-version of dye-in-water pattern ...

e.g. created by a stray drop of chemical-concentrate when the print or photographic-film was processed / manufactured.


As I stated prior the photo is a digital photo so in this case that would not be relevent.
Link below states camera used.
Image 1 LINK

Thanks
edit on 10/11/2014 by TheDon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

I had actually seen that as well when looking at the photo, it looks like it goes behind the book and also in front sometimes. Not being so good with photo editing software I did not want to play around with it as I believe I might just make things appear which are not there.

Thanks

edit on 10/11/2014 by TheDon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: RifRAAF

You have mentioned many things that I have thought as well plus others that have seen the photo.

Also you see on the table a few other photo albums which are old as well.

As i mentioned prior if it had just been the one photo on its own one could explain it away what we are seeing, but since I have a photo taken 12 secs later were we see nothing does make one wonder.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Here is the EXIF data for thoughs who have not checked out the links in the OP.

This is for the main image is question, the 2nd image EXIF data is the pretty much the same except for a 12 second difference in the time stamp.

EXIF — this group of metadata is encoded in 8,466 bytes (8.3k)
Exif Image Size 1,280 × 960

EDIT:
The camera in question as i have seen a few replies regarding the source, being what i used to take the photos off the images.




Make Canon
Camera Model Name Canon PowerShot A10
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Modify Date 2004:06:25 22:41:56
10 years, 4 months, 14 days, 2 hours, 18 minutes, 57 seconds ago
Y Cb Cr Positioning Centered
Related Image Width 1,280
Related Image Height 960
Exif Version 0210
Date/Time Original 2004:06:25 22:41:56
10 years, 4 months, 14 days, 2 hours, 18 minutes, 57 seconds ago
Create Date 2004:06:25 22:41:56
10 years, 4 months, 14 days, 2 hours, 18 minutes, 57 seconds ago
Components Configuration Y, Cb, Cr, -
Compressed Bits Per Pixel 5
Shutter Speed Value 1/60
Aperture Value 2.89
Exposure Compensation 0
Max Aperture Value 2.8
Subject Distance 0.815 m
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Flash Fired
Focal Length 5.4 mm
F Number 2.80
Exposure Time 1/60
Maker Note Canon (418 bytes binary data)
User Comment
Flashpix Version 0100
Color Space sRGB
Focal Plane X Resolution 6213.592233
Focal Plane Y Resolution 6193.548387
Focal Plane Resolution Unit inches
Sensing Method One-chip color area
File Source Digital Camera
Offset Schema 12
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Resolution 180 pixels/inch
Thumbnail Length 7,032

Thanks


edit on 10/11/2014 by TheDon because: add camera



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Something I didn't notice at first--there is an orb!.. On the door toward the top--just to the left of the green sign.

It also appears to me that this orb is part of the light artefact. see below, middle of the cropped pic



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: RifRAAF

OK that is something new, i had not noticed that before


not sure about it being connected though really hard to see with the quality off the image


Thanks



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheDon
As I stated prior the photo is a digital photo so in this case that would not be relevent.

OK what about this materialistic explanation.
It is possible to double-expose with a digital camera : an afterimage of a bright object can persist onto the next frame(s), if taken in rapid succession.
[ analogous to the human-eye "seeing" a camera-flash for many seconds after it has occurred ].

The previous exposure may have been an accidental one without flash charged , forcing a longish exposure.
[ longish exposure of above about 1/4 of a second would be required for that much trailing ] , the light-trail pattern persisting onto the next flash-lit image of the lady sitting at the table.
edit on 10-11-2014 by engvbany because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: engvbany
That does not seem to fit with the information already provided, if this artefact was caused from a previous image captured then the OP would be able to look at the pic before it and see what cased the artefact.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: RifRAAF
a reply to: engvbany
... if this artefact was caused from a previous image captured then the OP would be able to look at the pic before it and see what cased the artefact.

If the photographer still has previous (dud) exposure, from 2004, then yes the previous frame would have the same light-trail pattern if the mechanism was as I have hypothesised.

Example of digital camera afterimage : here the lamp has produced a bright spot in the next frame ...


www.sgha.net...
edit on 10-11-2014 by engvbany because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: engvbany

Possible but I believe that is not the case this time, though I cant remember, I am not in the habbit of taking photos rapidly.

Also as i mentioned i did not notice the mist/ whatever until I transfered the photo, the reason for the 2nd image was due to the short time after i took the first image, i am pretty sure i checked privious images and though i can't remember if there had been a previous image with a near time stamp i would have kept it.

Thanks

edit on 10/11/2014 by TheDon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheDon
... I am not in the habbit of taking photos rapidly


You wrote that the two photos of the lady were 12 seconds apart.
Taking images at 30 second intervals is rapid enough for afterimage still to exist.
( the older CCD-type cameras are more prone to afterimage than the later CMOS type ).

The dud preceding image may have just appeared to be grossly-overexposed white ,
with the light-trails only showing up if the contrast / brightness were adjusted.

edit on 10-11-2014 by engvbany because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join