Please Check This photo Out-Not a UFO one...

Please check this photo out, its interesting because it is hidden until the brightness is picked up. Also it is not a UFO, it is a something... The poster original, state that she was also a PHOTOSHOP user for 14 years and had studied this picture.

Now I want to put this to the test, it could be a statement that is meant to throw people off into thinking that it is genuine.

Let me know what you think. My thread is here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is the post:

Ok this is from coast to coast (C2C) and from the poster original, this image was achieved by enhacing the original. All you photo experts out there, this can be a good exercize for you!

Is the ghost really in the darkened image??

Here's the post and the pics.

Below is a photo given to me to look over by a coworker, Jennifer W. I have 14 years Photoshop experience, and I can find no visual markers or artifacts of cloning or layering. This was a test photo to make sure the flash was working on a digital camera as college students from Amarillo went on a biology class field trip to Lake Travis near Austin, TX. The figure that appears to the right of the student when the photo is lightened is of unknown origin and was not noticed by anyone at the site. In brief, the figure shares lighting characteristics with the dock that appears to the left of the student, and, there is no evidence of double exposure. Some see a diver, some see a Native American. Why the eyes glow is unknown. Could this be a scuba diver that didn't say hello and went unnoticed, or, is it something less easy to explain?

--Michael

Photos:
1 is the original
2 is lightened
3 is enhanced







Now I tried to bring up the brightness and the contrast on the dark image, and what I get seems VERY PIXELIZED, shades of gray in the ghost and the boat dock areas. Hmm...So is this a legit photo or a HOAX??!!

It looks like a witch Doctor to me. I would not know if it is real or fake though, I can't even get my avatar up...

I guess my photoshop skills are weak, but seems to me like the 2nd and 3rd pictures have been doctored with. I am unable to get anything but lots of blurry cubes from the "original" one. Unless theres a better version of the original one somewhere I will have to say rubbish to that one.

Gonjo's got a point, I get nothing but matrixed large data cubes. However, I'll say this from the get go. The 2 lights people are percieving as "eyes" might very well be distant and faintly captured lights, and the "body" nothing more then the light reflected on the water.

Both the lights and water highlights are barely captured, and youre probably seeing alot of edges that are burned by photoshop into large pixlated data making up a larger impression then what was actually present.

If I had to go by these I'd say lights across the lake/water and reflection in the water. Thats all.

Thanks for the post! Someone had the idea that it was a reflection of the photographer (the person taking the photo in the foreground). This makes alot of sense to me, just look at the body positioning relative to the shadow figure...Also the eyes in the shadow figure, I believe you can see faintly that the photographer is WEARING GLASSES. This may bring the reflections at this particualr area into higher brightness than the rest of the reflection.

My question at that point would be how is the reflection happening. Yeah he's wearing glasses, but whats in that area to reflect off of? I'm surmising there's just water there, which wouldnt give that kind of reflection from that viewing angle (or anything that I can think of) Also the man's arms are bent, and I dont see the thing in question having bent arms.

I'll stick with the lights across the water reflecting. Makes the most sense to me. Any way to get a picture of this area in daylight from the same angle?

Looking at the original image, I would almost argue that there's an actual figure there standing off to the side, and that they practiced taking a picture with the flash in order to get just a faint bit of light on the "ghost".

Yes I would like to see daylight images of this area as well, doesn't even have to be from the same exact angle...

Are you sure that's the raw image? As stated before... you can enhance the one posted but you can't get it to look like the enhancement you did yourself.

I'm not sure how that second picture was made. Here's what I get.