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.

 

Coast To Coast - A Shadow Presence

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I am a photographer and my bet is on this being two separate images combined. The floor is weird looking as if it has been overlayed. The person walking obviously is wearing black pants and boots. My bet would be on a female with fairly flowing pants.

Let me see if I could reproduce this at my house. I will have to get my kids to go across the room and one to sit in a chair. I will post my results later




posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
St Udio-

You say that no one is focused or concerned about the blurry image
int he center of the dance floor?

That's the ENTIRE FOCUS of this thread- everyone is commenting on it!

What do you read/interpet as their focus? What do you perceive as the subject
of this thread/every posting?

I wonder if we are not being clear, or you are misreading it.

Not important, but all want to be on the same page...

Oh, and what figure is attacking the lights?

As another poster asked- are you referring to the Air Venilation ducts?

Thanks St.!



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by llpoolej
I am a photographer and my bet is on this being two separate images combined. The floor is weird looking as if it has been overlayed. The person walking obviously is wearing black pants and boots. My bet would be on a female with fairly flowing pants.

Let me see if I could reproduce this at my house. I will have to get my kids to go across the room and one to sit in a chair. I will post my results later


That actually makes sense to me.....it would account for the clear background and the blurry object.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr

That actually makes sense to me.....it would account for the clear background and the blurry object.


ET,I just showed you a picture of a blurry foreground and clear background. You don't have to do anything to get such an effect. Here it is once again




[edit on 4-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
That picture could just as easily be created in Photoshop. With a little motion blur, and transparency. Voila!!

Plus the fact that I see this in the header of the pic: "Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 2006:12:03 14:03: "

leads me to believe that something of that sort is the case here.


2 cents



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
Plus the fact that I see this in the header of the pic: "Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 2006:12:03 14:03: "


How are you seeing that in the header, what software tool are you using?

I have Photoshop LE 5.0, but I'm not aware if I can see that information using that software.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by amehrich
I have Photoshop LE 5.0, but I'm not aware if I can see that information using that software.


all you have to do, is open the picture with notepad, or wordpad.


That is one of the first things I do when someone brings up "incredible" photo's.

No reason to open and save a picture in photoshop, if it were truly authentic.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Thanks Mechanic 32.

I agree that there isn't really a need, but just because that's there it doesn't mean its bogus. It's quite possible that the site operator recieved the image as a 10 meg gif file and for viewing purposes resized the image so it could easily be viewed/downloaded online.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Yeah, it's possible.

But if that were me releasing a photo of something that to many people would be "hard to believe", I think that I would take that into account and reformat to a .png using mspaint. Just to avoid such scrutiny and claims.

But that's just me.


edit = clarity

[edit on 12/4/2006 by Mechanic 32]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Maybe someone on this thread should email the person that submitted the photo to the site to see if the original image can be obtained...

las-vegas-princess@hotmail.com

Any takers?



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
The photo was taken by a Nikon Coolpix L2, edited in Elements 2(which comes with most cameras) the shutter speed was 1/7th of a second and the aperture was 3.2 The ISO was 50 and the flash did not fire.

The shutter speed was slow, but, not low enough to make the image look like that.

My bet is that it has been edited and that would be easy enough to do.

It doesn't take a pro to be able to work with layer and change opacity/erase parts ect;



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
Notice how the background is all blurred.

Better example please!


I have another one here for you, its a picture of my friend's cat. I took this picture myself this summer, the cat quickly turned its head towards the camera when the flash went off causing the blur effect.



Full size picture


[edit on 4-12-2006 by Ranger]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by llpoolej
I am a photographer and my bet is on this being two separate images combined.



That's what I'm putting my money on.

Where is the veiled woman near the blurred image? Other than the real veiled woman....



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Original image




After 5 min in photoshop, a horse stopping due to a ghost rider having flown into his path




And if you look closely at the cropped version, there are stripes that aren't lining up, suggesting a bad cloning job

[edit on 12/4/2006 by llpoolej]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Nice work llpoolej.

Would you guess there was a physical person there that was edited, or was the form added to the image altogether?



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by amehrich
Would you guess there was a physical person there that was edited, or was the form added to the image altogether?


There are countless ways that a picture like that could be composed. Probalby the easiest would be to add the ghostly apparition to an existing picture.


2 cents.


* nice job on that pic, llpoolej.


[edit on 12/4/2006 by Mechanic 32]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I see a picture that the flash didn't work and a child with too much sugar at a family party. Used to do weddings probably have done 1000 or more. Junk picture oops. 1/7 second wwhen it should have been probably 125 or 60 with a flash

mikell

[edit on 4-12-2006 by mikellmikell]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Would you guess there was a physical person there that was edited, or was the form added to the image altogether?



You don't have to do anything at all for it to appear transparent like that. If there is enough motion and the shutter is set slow enough, the picture will come out like that naturally.


[edit on 4-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
This picture was actually taken at a high shutter speed:




It stopped the action....Slow shutter speeds blur the action



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I call shenanigans.

I mean, the kids to the left of the "shadow" are looking at it, especially the girl in the pink. Also, on the right side, the tall kid in black is also looking at the figure, and the women in black to the right of him may be looking at the figure as well.

In addition, several other people do have slight blurs about them.

Also, you can see a flesh colored blur right about where the hands would be moving.

It looks like a little kid moving quickly across the floor to me. I've seen my digital camera do weird things before.

Maybe it's been tweaked, maybe not, but nothing in this image says "super natural" to me.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join