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.

 

Freaky Doppelganger Pics

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   





From the Coast to Coast website, a listener submitted these


The shirt the girl is wearing is different and so is the expression on her face! If this is real, this is amazing!!!

www.coasttocoastam.com...






posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Well, ....
I was going to say a double exposure, but.... maybe not.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I think it could be the same shirt, just a little more garbled.

I have to go with Speaker on this as a double exposure.

Interesting enough anyway, DG



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Did you see the face??? How can the face be facing elsewhere if its a double exposure?

The shirt isnt the same


I'm not 100% sure its not double exposure, but it sure doesnt seem it to me!



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
this is one picute not plural.looks liek double exposure,her heads at same angle and everything



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
But...but....her eyes are closed in the background one!!!

Doesnt anyone see the difference?



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I don't think they are the same shirts either
it looks like the transparent girl has a small
collar on hers.

Looking at the smaller picture there seems to be darkness on the shirt in the same place as the nontransparent one.
Yet on the zoomed in picture it doesn't seem to be there,
It also looks like a button up v-neck style on the transparent

I wonder if it was a digital camera or film.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
But...but....her eyes are closed in the background one!!!

Doesnt anyone see the difference?


I was going to mention that the eyebrows seem straighter then the
non transparent. But thought it was just me seeing it.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
But...but....her eyes are closed in the background one!!!

Doesnt anyone see the difference?


ahh your right.....and i can't see the picture on the shirt,,hrmmm

I must admit i didnt look that hard at first but your right,interesting



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   
The Honda logo is also double/blurred in the image.

It looks like a slow exposure, combined with movement of the photographer, then a flash, is what produced this.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Skeptic that makes sense..

Had to say you look exactly like my father and its kind of weird.

Maybe your his doppleganger?

Kidding about the dopple ganger but you do look just like him.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
SO, you've certainly seen a lot and been around
so i will go with what you said.

It is strange, though.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Most cameras are currently equipped with "red-eye reduction." This feature illuminates the subject with 2 flashes; a small initial flash to reduce the size of the person's pupil (and to get their attention so that they don't blink) and then a much brighter flash that properly lights the subject. If the camera is moving between the 1st & 2nd flashes, the first weak image can be recorded as a ghost image.

I think the person taking this photo took a step back after pressing the shutter button. The girl's attention was caught by the initial flash and she had time to lift her head. Since the 1st flash was much weaker, shadows in the collar show up better. The 2nd stronger flash completely "blew out" the brights of the image and removed all shadows from the collar. Also note the ghost image of the girl's arm is the same as the proper image - the position of her arm didn't change between the flashes. And regarding the picture on her shirt, the 1st flash was much too weak to illuminate that portion properly.

And it seems the red-eye reduction" worked too.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The Honda logo is also double/blurred in the image.

It looks like a slow exposure, combined with movement of the photographer, then a flash, is what produced this.


I too agree with your assessment of the photo. I attempted to duplicate such a picture with my digital camera. I put on portrait mode and zoom the camera will do a slow exposure and a slow flash or double flash. Please review my samples showing how only light colour seem to transpose while dark colours stay primarily in focus. Also note the yellow box outlining the emplem on the girls shirt showing up in the bushes.




[edit on 9/7/07 by Rhain]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
nice eyes,didnt see the logo before thanks man



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Grrr...

This is a simple camera effect to achieve, I have done it before. Take a picture with a camera, rewind the film, take a second picture.

I have done this before by accident, I had holiday photos, finished the film and rewound it, then totaly forgot it to get it developed.

Then I had some Geography photos to take, went and got my camera and was surprised to find film in it. Took the photos and got them developed, one of them managed to look like a rainbow was coming out of the castle at disney Florida, it was a nice effect, shame it was totaly useless for my coursework and got bined. Other shots included AT-AT's imbeded into the side of cliffs and people floating in mid air, quite amusing!

Posts like this are the exact reason I am getting fed up with ATS, OK try to find the truth but for goodness sake do not believe something without a second of thought.

I believe in this stuff too but I am a skeptic when it comes to "proof".



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shinji
Grrr...

This is a simple camera effect to achieve, I have done it before. Take a picture with a camera, rewind the film, take a second picture.


I do believe it was mentioned that the camera was a digital camera.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I wonder if Dopplegangers wear clothing.

If so where do you suppose they shop?



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
I think it could be the same shirt, just a little more garbled.

I have to go with Speaker on this as a double exposure.

Interesting enough anyway, DG


Well, I am not so sure that it is a double exposure. The facial expressions don't match. Initially that is what I thought it "may" be, but when I really look at it, I am not too sure.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by interestedalways
I think it could be the same shirt, just a little more garbled.

I have to go with Speaker on this as a double exposure.

Interesting enough anyway, DG


Well, I am not so sure that it is a double exposure. The facial expressions don't match. Initially that is what I thought it "may" be, but when I really look at it, I am not too sure.


Actually I don't know the technical definition for double exposure. It means to me that two images are made together into one picture. I have one very similar to that of my daughter where her eyes are open in one image and closed in the other, behind the first, like this picture. It was a very nice effect. It seems to me that somehow the camera picked up two images and merged them in one picture.

Call it what you want to call it.

Maybe "superimposed" would be a better term.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by interestedalways]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join