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.

 

Talking flame. As discussed in chat 06/12/07

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I have read through this post and d4rk kn1ght's other posts, while he does come off as endearing it is certainly getting more clear that he is less than honest. If I was asked to place a wager on whether or not DK ever left for Nepal I would bet everthing I have he did not, the only problem is I don't believe there is anyone sucker enough to take the bet.




posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Nothing about the story adds up really, from the initial warning about the specific date of the event by someone who'd been retired from the military for decades, to running away to Nepal which is about three times more heavily populated than parts of the UK where he already has family...


Population density of Scotland = 64 people per km2

Population density of Nepal = 209 people per km2



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
no offense... but if you pour gasoline down and set it on fire it will burn even with the light shower...



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by sherfey
 

Well, on his other thread, which got moved to BTS, he was asked to send a photo of himself from the Indian airport, holding a sign (which would, of course, block his face) saying "Hi. This is d4rk kn1ght."
I may have missed it, but I don't see where this request was ever responded to in one way or any other.

Here is a link to that thread: www.belowtopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Okay I'm not defending anyone or saying he's right or full of canal water. But to the point about the position of the flame in the photo, he did say he "edited" the pic to take his brother's vehicle out of the shot. Maybe he just moved it to the left to eliminate the vehicle? If the car was still in the shot, the flame would be centered, maybe?

And not that it has any particular relevance to this photo, but my dad was incapable of taking a picture without the subject of the shot being in the upper right hand corner of the picture. Some people just suck at photography. I'd probably not get a great shot under extreme duress/excitement, either.

Just sayin'.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
Okay I'm not defending anyone or saying he's right or full of canal water. But to the point about the position of the flame in the photo, he did say he "edited" the pic to take his brother's vehicle out of the shot. Maybe he just moved it to the left to eliminate the vehicle? If the car was still in the shot, the flame would be centered, maybe?


That's pretty much what I've been thinking. I was just waiting to see if that was in fact what d4rk was going to say.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I thought of this also, but he did say the flame was dancing around. How fast? I really don't know. I am very skeptical about this, but still have to keep an open mind.

Also a flame does not burn like the one in the picture if it was a petrol base. I know that because there would be that circular blue, yellow, orange flame at the base.

I don't believe it is petrol, if you don't believe me try an experiment of your own, but be very careful.



Originally posted by elevatedone
reply to post by NGC2736
 




I see what you're talking about... yes it appears the flame is coming from that.

Also, why not answer the question, why is the flame to the right of the pic, if you're taking a picture of something don't you pretty much try to center it as much as possible...






[edit on 7-12-2007 by Realtruth]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght

Originally posted by TheSonOfMan
Does dark knight think he/she is Moses...What is the prophesy that you wanna tell everyone knight?

Whats gonna happen with these "lights" u talked about? Why are u going to nepal? whats good?


No Im not moses, no im not going into my origional warning, we as a group went to nepal to be high and dry out in a remote area.

Go to skunk works and read the thread. This threads about the flame we saw that spoke to us.


Yeah, I bet you do need to be pretty high to see a talking flame.

The fact that you edited out a car out of that image does not help you very much either, as it led me to believe that you also have the means to have manipulated the image of the fire.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
Also a flame does not burn like the one in the picture if it was a petrol base. I know that because there would be that circular blue, yellow, orange flame at the base.


Not true! It can appear any number of ways and I believe you are thinking of a jet type discharge anyway.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I was under the impression from the original story that the illusions and images that would be seen in the sky would be a bad thing, something to run and hide from, yet now he is seeing this exact sort of thing, yet it seems to be something good, warning him to get back to safety. So my question is if someone or something has this technology, why are they using it for good to warn DK, but going to use it for evil on the rest of the world in 2012? Wouldn't 'they' use it to scare DK, not warn him? Why be nice?

Also, I'm not experienced with any photo software, but if he took a SUV out of that picture, didn't he do an incredible job? Wouldn't that be tough to do and make it look like it was never there? I don't know how hard\easy that would be. Can anyone clue me into that? Why not just block the SUV out with a black block?

Sorry if I don't make my point clear on the first paragraph, I'm not very well at articulating my thoughts and this is my 1st post.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Where was the vehicle taken out of the picture?
I cant even see where it could have been? One would have had to do a TON of editing if a vehicle was removed


What *I* see is a piece of paper on the ground.....lit on fire....and someone taking a picture thru a glass window.

I dont know the OP or any of his previous threads, so Im just making opinions on the picture.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 

That would make some sense.
The picture is 1024x768 (p).....and reg pictures taken (at least mine) are 2592x1944 (p)


I still just see a piece of paper on the ground on fire.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Wow, blown up it almost looks like a broken off gas main or possibly an extension from a bleeder on an oil jack.

Does anyone see how it seems to be shooting out the end of a tube. Not so sure it's paper at all but then again I'm not so sure of anything.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I hate to say it, but I agree with the last couple of posters. Looks like a scam. I was willing to give DK the benefit of the doubt, but this seems to cap it.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

My thoughts as well on removing the land rover.
The flame looks like a gas flame as if its under pressure , it's long and thin.
I believe the flame is inside behind the camera,hence a Reflection on the glass and the angle of it.
Regards
Zelong.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Well, I don't want to make accusations, as I don't have any proof either way, but it does smell fishy.

The story of editing the vehicle could be a cover, so that people who come out and say 'LOL PHOTOSHOP', can be quickly dismissed with 'yes, i admitted it was photoshopped, just to remove the vehicle for privacy reasons'

Also, It demonstrates that he is fairly good with photoshop, and while we should always be vigilant with any photo, when we know it is from someone known to be good in photoshop, we have to be doubly careful.

I liked the idea someone mentioned earlier in the thread, of the photo of him at the nepalese airport, I was thinking something like that too. It would add a tiny bit of credibility if we knew he really had upped and moved to nepal. Again though I guess people would just call photoshop on that image too.

To me this seems just another of those stories that we can't really prove either way, unless the D4rk Kn1ght actually happens, or if he's hoaxing, he makes a big slip up. I have a feeling though even once the date has passed, there will be a few people claiming that it was based on a mayan interpretation of a julian conversion of a gregorian date or something, and that it's actually due the next year, ad infinitum.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Talk about major paranoia! This is just pure craziness man, DK your freak'n me out here, quit it.


What I dont understand is why the Flame entity would tell you to get your ass back to nepal now eventhough all this crazy light show in the sky stuff is not due to take place till another 3-4 years. What could you possibly be in danger of at this time?

I dunno about you guys but if I saw this talking flame in my driveway I'd take out the garden hose and try to put it out before It could turn my whole world upside down. And If my garden hose didnt work on It I'd skip Nepal and drive myself to the nearest looney bin.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by The_Crimson_King]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
My problem has got to be the..

"Oh look, A talking flame.. So lets take a picture concentrating on a fence in the distance."..

Genuinely disappointed here.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Regarding off-center flame and photoshop skills

It seems that folks might be just skimming this thread. On page 4, 5th message from the top, yeahright gives a pretty probable solution: his brother's car might've been to the right of the flame. He then cropped the land rover out of the photo. This would explain why the flame is off-center and why there is no evidence of a land rover having been airbrushed out of the photo.

Sound plausible?



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
A couple of other thoughts I just had about the image. I'm not any kind of expert in images, but that won't stop me speculating


I don't know if the flame is really there or added.

Where was the vehicle that was edited out? I assume it was within the image we see. Something about that strikes me as odd, as I can't obviously tell where it was. Why make such a good job of removing the vehicle? To me the interesting thing is the flame (after all that is what the story focuses on). If it was me, I wouldn't spend time cloning in some replacement for the vehicle, I'd just quickly cut it out, leaving a box where it was.

Also there is a lot of noise in the image, it seems like too much noise. Adding a bit of random noise is one technique that can be used when photoshopping, it's a bit crude, but it kind of helps make the images you are putting together seem more cohesive, that random noise across the whole picture, makes the picture seem all one, if you get what I mean. That could just be a poor quality camera, as i say, i don't know a huge amount about that, but can any expert say for sure if noise was added at some point?




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join