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: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheDon
Are you sure you aren't mis-remembering? It looks like incense smoke to me.

Incense smoke doesn't leave a smoky atmosphere in the room, so if you weren't looking at it you wouldn't even know except for the smell.

Google Images, Incense Smoke
edit on 10-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


As I stated before I am 100% sure there was no kind of smoke in the room or house at the time off taking the photos.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TheDon

That looks exactly like smoke. And it is -.-



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
It appears to me as though there is smoke in the first shot. The second shot has the camera moved forward, which possibly means the smoke was now behind the camera lens and therefore not visible in the photograph.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Smoke, sorry I have seen many a picture with the same affect. It doesn't take much, even striking a match can produce this same affect.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
What type of Film was used. If Digital was used, is there a light, bulb or glass which the sun could catch and how was the weather that day? Also is there a chance the house is on top a burial ground?
XD S



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I only have two questions. How far away was the first picture taken from the lady in the chair ?
Second question. Was the first photo edited in any way the first time it was viewed ?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: bluemooone2
I only have two questions. How far away was the first picture taken from the lady in the chair ?
Second question. Was the first photo edited in any way the first time it was viewed ?


To answer your first question, Maybe a meter for the first photo the 2nd photo 50cm

The only editing that has been performed on the photos was to blank out the persons face in the photos which i did prior to posting the photos here.

I have had the photos over 10 years in digital format which were transferred directly to my computer about 2 weeks after taking the photos. Over the years they have been moved around to a number off backups i run.

Thanks

Thanks



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: RougeFang
What type of Film was used. If Digital was used, is there a light, bulb or glass which the sun could catch and how was the weather that day? Also is there a chance the house is on top a burial ground?
XD S


All camera and time off day you can find using the 2 EXIF links i posted in the OP
plus camera information is here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Concerning the burial ground, all i can tell you the house was built in 1913 prior to that i don't know. There is a church and graveyards about 500 meters away though which is still in use.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: themate14
Smoke, sorry I have seen many a picture with the same affect. It doesn't take much, even striking a match can produce this same affect.


I have addressed this many times already if you took the time to read the replies.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TRiPWiRE

See post above.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheDon
a reply to: TRiPWiRE

See post above.


I did. I have a personal rule - read the whole thread before posting.

I still think it's smoke.
edit on 13/11/14 by TRiPWiRE because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TRiPWiRE

I did. I have a personal rule - read the whole thread before posting.

I still think it's smoke.


OK so after reviewing the whole thread and me stating a number off times that there was no smoke, which i did even in the OP, and also producing a 2nd image taken 12 secs later that shows no smoke as you would call it, you still think it is smoke?

Off course you are entitled to your opinion but you are wrong this time.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TheDon
This is ATS, there will always be nay-sayers. I thank you for putting this thread together, I have enjoyed reading and to be honest I also have my own "pic from the past" (circa 1999, taken on 35mm) that I have declined to share here for the fear of the same sort of hostility.

I know what I snapped, I know cameras (and smoke) enough to know what you snapped is NOT smoke. Please don't be detracted by the "nothing to see here crowd".




posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheDon

Again, incense smoke does not leave a smoky atmosphere. So using the "there's no smoke in the second pic" doesn't really support anything.

I linked pictures of incense smoke and they're identical.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: RifRAAF

What hostility has been in this thread?



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: TheDon

Again, incense smoke does not leave a smoky atmosphere. So using the "there's no smoke in the second pic" doesn't really support anything.

I linked pictures of incense smoke and they're identical.


How many times do I need to say there was no smoke, no incense, no nothing!

Right I thought i would share a picture from 10 years ago just because it had a pretty smoke trail in.

I don't know about you but I have allot better tings to do than waste my time posting fake photos, I do have a life away from the Internet.

The only reason i posted the photos, because i thought people would be interested in it and also might have experienced something similar.
I have posted all the information i can along with camera, EXIF details etc.

Off course you are entitled to your opinion, but I assure you this time you are wrong regarding it being any kind off smoke at the time.

If i knew what it was in the photo, for example smoke, I would not have wasted my time or the users here on ATS time neither.

Thank you
edit on 16/11/2014 by TheDon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: RifRAAF

Thank you, like you I know it is not smoke as well.
I was hoping for so more positive replies on what it might be, but it seems allot off users are unable or not willing to read, and only look at the photo.

It gets a bit frustrating having to repeat myself all the time, and constantly have people implying I am a liar, but hey this is the Internet so no surprise there.

I shared the photo purely to see if i could learn more, which I have actually done, with one user suggesting it could be light which I had not considered before.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Well the second photo was in a complete different angle much closer to the woman. So the smoke could just have been behind the camera. Even seconds later...



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Here is a pic I must have taken around 2006/2007 and I cropped it in around 2013. It was taken by accident while I was messing with the camera. I kept it cause it was so odd. And no this is not smoke either.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join