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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   



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...



apparently you didnt read the article on this spoon guy where it stated they had also used disposable cameras, these fall a far cry from a digital embeded system used to go outside the visual spectrum. But again i guess i forgot this guy can magically charge any camera so that it can madify the wavelength of light and show images outside the visual spectrum.





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?


If the objects where in fact there then they would be seen by others or are you again going with the theory that this guy has powers to super charge cameras?








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...



Ill give you this one as it could be concieved as personal opinion however the general consesnus of an object being blury and the background being in focus is one of two things the object is to close to the camera to allow focus for the capabilities of the lens or the object in question is in motion.


I dont doubt that there are possibly people in the world that are haunted by some sort of entity, granted i will write most of them off as people with chemical imbalances of the brain. If there are people being haunted/taunted by forms of life not known to our modern science then this guy is not helping them out he is hurting them with his spoon people.




posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by minniescar



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.


apparently you didnt read the article on this spoon guy where it stated they had also used disposable cameras, these fall a far cry from a digital embeded system used to go outside the visual spectrum.

If there are people being haunted/taunted by forms of life not known to our modern science then this guy is not helping them out he is hurting them with his spoon people.



I highlighted the relevent section of my earlier post where I do in fact mention film before I mention the digital image capture process. I guess I can't expect everyone to read every last word...

Lastly, if in fact he actually is capturing these entities on camera -- something I do not at all discount -- I really doubt he has any control over how they look or appear.

I guess we all have our "line in the sand," so to speak, of what we are and are not willing to accept and believe. It just amazes me how people still tend to interpret data in the context of their belief system as opposed to letting the data drive their conclusions... Oh well...



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
As for the line in the sand ill admit this is where i draw the line, if the images only appeared on one camera i would be more apt to beleive it. At that time the camera and film could be checked for errors or malfunctions, however different cameras and different film being used with the same results is another thing. Especially since these images only appear in the photos if he takes the picture. Really its like him saying he has some sort of power to charge the camera, if he said he saw things we cant thats more beleiveable but his alledged ability to make the camera see what he sees screams of slight of hand to me.

I whole heartedly beleive its possible for someone to see something that others do not due to people seeing different visual spectrums due to eye differences. Come to think about it my uncle was 19 before they releized he saw the color red instead of green when looking at something green. If you think about it thats can easily happen since when your little they teach you the primary colors and if green looks like red you would never know the difference becuase when they show you something green and say its green then you dont know any difference since its only a word.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I cannot promise anything, but im working on the picture that has been taken with the camera from a girl that works at the show, were he appeared last Sunday. She told that, wilest they were standing and talking he took her camera and took a picture, because he saw something. I hope i manage to get this picture, it's still at her digital camera, so it can't be fake.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   


it's still at her digital camera, so it can't be fake.


No offense but that statment made me laugh, as i said im expecting that this guy is good at slight of hand and what you described follows my guess. Picture this

Spoon guy: " hey quick give me your camera i see something "

Girl: " here it is , what do you see i dont see anything"

Spoon guy : "its right over there"

Girl : " i dont see anything " ( as she is looking towards what he is looking at and away from the guy and camera )

Spoon guy : " i think i got it in the picture" ( said as he pockets the spoon into the palm of his hand"

Girl then looks at the images and low and behold it has a spoon alien right there in the photo as blurry as it can be.

Slight of hand is not that hard to master , all you need to do is give you vicitim something more interesting to look at and be quick with your hands.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by minniescar
...if the images only appeared on one camera i would be more apt to beleive it. At that time the camera and film could be checked for errors or malfunctions, however different cameras and different film being used with the same results is another thing. Especially since these images only appear in the photos if he takes the picture...


I tend to think if this were to only occur on a single camera, it would seem less credible, as then you would have to settle the issue of the validity of the person examining the camera, etc., and I'm sure given enough time, someone could find something wrong with an otherwise perfectly fine camera...


I tend to think that the presence on more than one camera lends more credibility to the story.

It's also worth reading rai's comment above that these were taken in the rpesence of other people -- maybe it's simply that he knows where they are -- not necessarily that he has to take the picture.


I whole heartedly beleive its possible for someone to see something that others do not due to people seeing different visual spectrums due to eye differences. Come to think about it my uncle was 19 before they releized he saw the color red instead of green when looking at something green. If you think about it thats can easily happen since when your little they teach you the primary colors and if green looks like red you would never know the difference becuase when they show you something green and say its green then you dont know any difference since its only a word.


Very good point, and so worth consideration that it deserves to be quoted and re-posted.


Lastly, Rai, I for one very much look forward to the chance you may be able to get a copy of that photograph, as I am sure do we all!



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I see your point. but it was minutes after the show and there were still alot of audience and crue there, then they obviously should have seen that he was on to something. But why shouldn't it be possible that he is the only one that can see something and why can't it be possible that to show that only on camera. I don't say i believe him, i find it very interesting. I also didn't see that picture from last Sunday. But I find it too easy to say that it is all fake. I also saw an interview with his family a while ago and they are the most normal people as you can emagine. His father has a very high position. I know that maybe it doesn't say alot, but still.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by minniescar


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?


If the objects where in fact there then they would be seen by others...


I take you you possess infinte knowledge in the matters of the human optic nerve system? No? Than please explain to me how you can unilaterally and unequivocally state that others would "see" them as well?



Originally posted by minniescarI dont doubt that there are possibly people in the world that are haunted by some sort of entity...


But, for some inexplicable reason, you're convinced that it's just not this guy, even though he has presents a much more solid case for the validity of his experiences than most people who make similar claims?
That seems odd to me and shouldn't make sense to anybody with a wit of common sense...



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Ever heard of Ghost Study ? this site is FULL with these kind of pictures of alledged ghost, I even submitted what I captured from the queen mary cam...

Also, my mom has made pictures and things appeared that weren't there, I have the pictures on my personal website if you like to see, and it's not the strap...or smoke....



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by rai76
it's still at her digital camera, so it can't be fake.


I know that I can put altered images back onto my digital camera.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ishari

Originally posted by rai76
it's still at her digital camera, so it can't be fake.


I know that I can put altered images back onto my digital camera.



Good point, but let's remember that the images were also reportedly captured on a disposable camera, so regardless of the fact that one can alter and upload images back to their digital camera, that alone cannot explain the occurrences discussed in this thread as they pertain to this particular case.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
i was just pointing out that just because this one image is still on a digital camera that doesn't mean it's more provable or more important.. i realize i'm not saying this well...

[edit on 13/1/05 by ishari]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join