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.

 

REAL DEMON PHOTOGRAPHED: The Case of Joe Martinez

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


No, I am not an expert in demonology but then I am not the one babbling on about them.




posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete




A much more relevant link would show accidental double-exposures, especially with evil demonic dog faces.


Oh yes, there must be loads of those. Hang on, I can't seem to find one for some reason.


Lol it's your own topic that you're criticizing. You posted an irrelevant link. I described what a relevant link would be, and you're criticizing that, even though it's your own topic to be looking for links of double-exposure to debunk the photo in the OP.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete


No, amplifying colors absolutely does NOT change the image, only the colors of the image.


Changing the colours of the image does, in fact, change the image. It goes from the original, to the edit, changed image. That means, not the original.


And we don't even know if sharpness / contrast was manipulated, but like I said a few times already: If the sharpness / contrast WAS manipulated, it was minimal, as you can still see the guy's face as a recognizably blurry film photo.

If sharpness/contrast was changed, that would make more changes to the original which would make it no longer the original.


Changing colors does not change the forms seen in a photo.

Increasing sharpness or contrast might do that, but we can see that if that was done at all, it was very minimal, and certainly not distorting the photo beyond its original appearance as a blurry film photo.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


Changing colors does not change the forms seen in a photo.


Of course it does. It changes it from one thing to another. In this case, a woman holding flowers to a kind of odd dog.


Increasing sharpness or contrast might do that, but we can see that if that was done at all, it was very minimal, and certainly not distorting the photo beyond its original appearance as a blurry film photo.

So might changing colours. As seen by your odd dog, that wasn't in the original image.
edit on 882018 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete


Especially if the freaky optical illusion was caused intentionally by a non-physical entity.


Or by someone manipulating the image to make something look like a dog.


The dog face shows the same blurriness and consistency with the rest of the photo.


AFTER manipulating the image to get the dogs face to stand out.


The only obvious manipulation was increasing the colors, which doesn't change the imagery itself, besides color.

And this tangent is irrelevant anyway. We have the non-color-enhanced version too, and the dog face is still quite visible WITHOUT increasing colors:




posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


The only obvious manipulation was increasing the colors, which doesn't change the imagery itself, besides color.

So it doesn't change the image, but it changes the colour in the image, which would change the image? That's funny!


And this tangent is irrelevant anyway. We have the non-color-enhanced version too, and the dog face is still quite visible WITHOUT increasing colors:

Zoomed in, which, in itself, changes the image.
edit on 882018 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


My link was relevant because it explains how double exposure can occur accidentally and why. That's quite enough hand waving, thank you.

Oh, you expect me to find a link like this?

"A much more relevant link would show accidental double-exposures, especially with evil demonic dog faces."

A bit tricky, I'm afraid. Can't seem to find one, for some reason.




edit on 8-8-2018 by oldcarpy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete


Well color manipulation doesn't change the forms seen in the image


Actually, it did.

It went from not a dog, to a kinda dog after whatever changes to the original were done.


Nope. The dog face is perfectly visible without the colors being manipulated.




posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


No, I am not an expert in demonology but then I am not the one babbling on about them.


Actually you ARE babbling on about them. lol



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Maybe the guy is just with "Comparethemeerket"

And invited this little dude to the party.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete


Well color manipulation doesn't change the forms seen in the image


Actually, it did.

It went from not a dog, to a kinda dog after whatever changes to the original were done.


Nope. The dog face is perfectly visible without the colors being manipulated.



Are you really trying to tell me that image you just posted it just a crop of the original image? How very dishonest of you.

That image has been zoomed in and enhanced.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


What were you saying about another 100 pages of arguing about colour manipulation?

I get the impression that if you were in a locked room on your own you would probably end up having an argument with yourself.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete


Changing colors does not change the forms seen in a photo.


Of course it does. It changes it from one thing to another. In this case, a woman holding flowers to a kind of odd dog.


Increasing sharpness or contrast might do that, but we can see that if that was done at all, it was very minimal, and certainly not distorting the photo beyond its original appearance as a blurry film photo.

So might changing colours. As seen by your odd dog, that wasn't in the original image.


Of course it doesn't. Colors can be changed while the images remain otherwise unchanged.

And the dog face is visible in the version that doesn't have colors changed.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Could be!

Those little buggers were EVERYWHERE for years! Maybe they time travelled to photo bomb a couple?

Seems more legit than some demon dog thing lol



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


No, that's you, that is. I'm telling my dad about you and my dad is bigger than your dad. Am I finding your level yet?



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete


The only obvious manipulation was increasing the colors, which doesn't change the imagery itself, besides color.

So it doesn't change the image, but it changes the colour in the image, which would change the image? That's funny!


And this tangent is irrelevant anyway. We have the non-color-enhanced version too, and the dog face is still quite visible WITHOUT increasing colors:

Zoomed in, which, in itself, changes the image.


Ah yes, the bottom-of-the-barrel arguments over semantic nonsense.

Colors can obviously change without changing the forms seen in an image.

Zooming in also does not change the image besides... zooming into it...



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


Continued on page 100.....



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


Colors can be changed while the images remain otherwise unchanged.

Changing colours CHANGES the image.


And the dog face is visible in the version that doesn't have colors changed.

That image? Yeah, that's different from the original too as it's been "cleaned up".

Original with only a crop done...


Your manipulated image that you're trying to pass of, dishonestly, as the original...



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


My link was relevant because it explains how double exposure can occur accidentally and why. That's quite enough hand waving, thank you.

Oh, you expect me to find a link like this?

"A much more relevant link would show accidental double-exposures, especially with evil demonic dog faces."

A bit tricky, I'm afraid. Can't seem to find one, for some reason.





Quit the semantic nonsense.

I correctly called your link irrelevant because it shows DELIBERATE double-exposure of huge images, for artwork.

A relevant link would show ACCIDENTAL double-exposure, preferably with a small anomaly, as seen in the photo that this thread is about.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


Colors can obviously change without changing the forms seen in an image.

False.

Take 2 triangles that make up a square. Original image are 1 black, 1 white triangle. There are 2 triangles.

Change the image to make them both the same colour, you have a square of one colour.

But it was only the colour that changed.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join