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.

 

can someone help me with these pictures

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I guess they are too clear to be up close to the lense and too foggy to be a hoax...but I don't know...

The dutch aren't big in hoaxing...however there is this one woman who was a bit trippy and made dolls of aliens races, she said that greys were the sweetest most wonderful beings
so I dunno...




posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
HIS camera, yes... Hand him a normal (unprepared camera) one and then what do you get?


The strangest thing is that when he appeared in the show about two weeks ago, alot of things happend to people at home. People started to cry or suddenly a picture of a dead family member fell on the floor. The show revieved an enormous amount of calls and emails after the show, that they decided to invite him last sunday again. This is really freaking!


And all this is according to who? His publicist perhaps?
Always look for the man behind the curtain...


No, it's according to the show that he was in. Last Sunday they invited him again and explain that they did it, because of what happend to people at home



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
My opinion:
I still don't understand how a camera can pick up things our eyes can't.
Technically they're based on the same limitations as a human eye in terms of light sensitivity, focus, shutter time (the quicker the darker the photo) and light intake. (close your eyes slightly and get a sharper image, just like a cam.)
Either someone is manipulating the film/photos in the darkroom (I have no idea how that works), or these things are real alien enities which love to manipulate film.
hmmm....



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdrumrunner

Originally posted by Gazrok
HIS camera, yes... Hand him a normal (unprepared camera) one and then what do you get?


From (early in) the article:

"The ETI appear on every camera Robbert uses. The skeptical TV crew of the dutch commercial TV network RTL4 gave Robbert a throw-away camera and were totally flabbergasted to find out that the ETI also appeared on this cam! The producer of the TV program still has the pictures in her cam."


Hmmmph. Sure would be nice to see a skeptic actually read all the way down to the second paragraph once in a while.


Ummm.... How exactly can the TV crew be totally flabbergasted about the pictures if they're still in the camera??? This is just some publicity stunt to get viewers for the Dutch version of "Montel".



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
You know, to me, its looks like somebody got a paper plate and glued black construction paper on it, and shook them in the picture



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by sdrumrunner

Originally posted by Gazrok
HIS camera, yes... Hand him a normal (unprepared camera) one and then what do you get?


From (early in) the article:

"The ETI appear on every camera Robbert uses. The skeptical TV crew of the dutch commercial TV network RTL4 gave Robbert a throw-away camera and were totally flabbergasted to find out that the ETI also appeared on this cam! The producer of the TV program still has the pictures in her cam."


Hmmmph. Sure would be nice to see a skeptic actually read all the way down to the second paragraph once in a while.


Ummm.... How exactly can the TV crew be totally flabbergasted about the pictures if they're still in the camera??? This is just some publicity stunt to get viewers for the Dutch version of "Montel".


Is it just me, or are there not two, distinct, complete sentances there?


The first says, "The skeptical TV crew of the dutch commercial TV network RTL4 gave Robbert a throw-away camera and were totally flabbergasted to find out that the ETI also appeared on this cam."

The second says, "The producer of the TV program still has the pictures in her cam."

Now, given I majored in math, and not english, I would nonetheless have to surmise that it is possible that maybe... just maybe... considering there was a TV crew there that there was more than one camera invovled?



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
sdrumrunner, good point! Furthermore, if those that wish to argue between film, and our so called advance way of creating Photographs for fun, there is one aspect some don't see...



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Well, given the one explaination of how to do it, then yes, one could do it with ANY camera...

As for the hype, well look at the source, the show is obviously drumming up publicity by stating it affected people, etc.

So...let's just throw the skeptic bit out the window for a sec....and assume the claim is accurate.

We're then left with this. This one particular guy, somehow causes these entities to appear on film. Anyone else can take a picture of the same area time and time again (i.e. such as the studio), and it never manifests... This is a bit similar to those guys with HUNDREDS of UFO photos that seem to only want to show up for them....

There's only one explanation for this kind of event people.....hoax, hoax, hoax, and such individuals are usually found out as such sooner or later...



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
...There's only one explanation for this kind of event people.....hoax, hoax, hoax, and such individuals are usually found out as such sooner or later...


You know, even though I am a degreed mathematician with a verifiable 130+ I.Q., who has spent his 35 yrs. on this planet in the pursuit of increasing my base of knowledge, I guess only in my wildest dreams could I ever wish for such an infinitely immense wealth of knowledge so that I, too, could make such arbitrary claims on such authority without actually knowing anything beyond my own speculation.


Truth of the matter is, that while it may be a hoax, it may not. How arrogant is it to assume your speculation is fact?


stu

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Nice bit of Photoshop!



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   
but is it in one way or another, possible to test this photo to see if it has been photoshopped or something else?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Could have been done using a balloon thats way out of focus but they are definately fake.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   
wow you guys, i'm newb here and i looked at those pics and burst out laughing. They look so fake , i can't believe people actually fall for pics like that. As for the show it can always be staged like how David blane does it.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaranGani
wow you guys, i'm newb here and i looked at those pics and burst out laughing. They look so fake , i can't believe people actually fall for pics like that. As for the show it can always be staged like how David blane does it.


Im sorry, but do you have any proof for that! Please give me the proof that it's fake, that's what im looking for!!



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   
I met a ufo researcher that had been to this guys house he told me this:


At the age of 9 Robbert started seeing orange balls of lights, he told his family but no one believed him, they couldn't see them, after a few months he was taken to a psychiatrist, and placed in a centre for about 6 months, put on drugs and normalised!
Back at home, his family started to see things as well, Robert was brought back.
It started to get more intense, the balls of light would throw themselves at the house banging into it and leaving black marks on the outside, circles started to appear in the fields outside and soon the lights were able to pass thought the walls.
By now the whole family was experiencing the situation, and from what he said, it wasn't nice.

Robert was about 17 by this point, very shy and not seeking publicity, a few years pass and suddenly he starts seeing fog in the house, this fog then starts to take the shape of the things in the photos and he starts to be able to hear them.


Now I think this, having had a very similar thing happen you can go one of two ways, years of dealing with this and finally you think "right, how can I make this situation help me?" things go through your head, should I profit or should I remain true to myself, I recon he thought, well I'll just make my situation better. I have no doubt that at first what he said was true, but I have major concerns with the pictures, I even found myself waving bits of paper in front of my camera to see what it looked like, very like his!
Maybe I do him a grave disservice, but it just doesn't tie in with the events. Not once were the things in his past anything other than scary for him.

Also why is the background of every photo blurred, and why is the image of the grey always at the bottom and we never see space below it?

[edit on 12-1-2005 by Ambergambler]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Lets just put this into a rational perspective ( to be honest i really cant beleive any of you beleive these photos but for those that do ill humor you ) Cameras work much like the human eye , light hits an object and it is bounced back to the lens where the image then hits the film. Film then basically gets burnt from the light bouncing onto it so the outline/image of whatever the camera is pointed at is burnt into the film. So in order for something to be photographed it must be present and within the visual spectrum of the human eye ( unless special cameras are used ) So this would mean if take a photo and see something in it after its developed that you didnt see before that 1 of 2 things has happened, either 1. you just didnt see the object at the time smoke is a real good example of this ( trust me im a smoker who has fudged up many of shots ) or 2. the camera has had some sort of malfunction such as double exposure, scratched lens, bad film, bad film processing, etc.

In this case we can eliminate option 2 becuase the odds of it happening reapeatedly with the different cameras to the same person are slim and none. So this leaves us with option 1 that the images where present at the time the photos where taken. Please take note that the images in the photos are always blurry , this happens when the light reflecting off of an object back to the camera is to close to the lens causing it to be out of focus. You will notice the background images are in focus for the most part. So if anyone has thier digital camera ( or any camera for that matter ) handy and a plastic spoon then take a marker then draw some eyes on the spoon and put the spoon in front of the camera and take a picture and post it here, i garantee its going to look the same as these photos.

Its a no brainer, camera's take pictures of the human visual spectrum meaning what we see, in order to even begin to beleive these photos are nothing more then slight of hand with a spoon you would have to beleive that this guy is not only being followed around by spoon headed aliens but that he magically energizes ever camera he touches so that it can photograph items that arent within the human visual spectrum nor the spectrum of cameras. Give me a break guys i beleive in some really far fetched things but this one takes the cake.


stu

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
It is possible to tell if the pixells have been altered on a digital image. As for blobs floating round his room... could be too much sugar in his diet.


I don't mean to sound rude but either he is seeking attention, or he needs help!

[edit on 12-1-2005 by stu]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Honestly Rai76 , i can't give you any proof but i can say with confidence that im pretty good with photoshop. The pics shown just dont look convincing , its pretty easy to forge stuff like that. hmm maybe this guy has some psychic powers where he can create an image on film i dunno but doubtful.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by minniescar
Lets just put this into a rational perspective... Cameras work much like the human eye , light hits an object and it is bounced back to the lens where the image then hits the film. Film then basically gets burnt from the light bouncing onto it so the outline/image of whatever the camera is pointed at is burnt into the film. So in order for something to be photographed it must be present and within the visual spectrum of the human eye ( unless special cameras are used )


While your description of the photographic image capture process is essentially correct, your whole arguement is flawed, as it is based on the erroneous assumption that the emulsion layers of every single distinct brand and type of consumer film ever created map exactly to the visual spectrum detectable by the human optic nerve system. Similarly, it is not uncommon for the embedded systems that process digital image capture to "reach" outside the human visual light specturm by nms. In short, this is incorrect. But what the hell... I'll humor you...



So this would mean if take a photo and see something in it after its developed that you didnt see before that 1 of 2 things has happened, either 1. you just didnt see the object at the time smoke is a real good example of this ( trust me im a smoker who has fudged up many of shots ) or 2. the camera has had some sort of malfunction such as double exposure, scratched lens, bad film, bad film processing, etc.


You've completely ignored Option 3: that the objects are actually there, and in the photographs. Or are you really claiming to have absolute knowledge on these things greater than the collective knowledge of mankind?



In this case we can eliminate option 2 becuase the odds of it happening reapeatedly with the different cameras to the same person are slim and none.


Yes, this is quite a logical assumption.


So this leaves us with option 1 that the images where present at the time the photos where taken. Please take note that the images in the photos are always blurry... this happens when the light reflecting off of an object back to the camera is to close to the lens causing it to be out of focus. You will notice the background images are in focus for the most part.


This is pure speculation. It is only safe to conclude that the objects may be in a different focal plane than the lense of the camera is focused on. Unless you are an expert in photogrammetric analysis, I do not see how you are qualified to determine exactly how close or far the objects are from the camera...


In short, don't sell it short. Unless you either possess some unfortold knowledge on the subject or you're willing to stick to factual assumptions, you are simply speculating as are the rest of us.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
This looks like its probably the guy himself wearing gloves and a papier mache head , just double focused or something. Dosent look like a black native NG torso to me!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join