I'm the OP, but MagikShroom is my friend who shot the photo. It may very well be a refraction/distortion of sorts but here is some more background info on the photo:

1. He was wearing a navy blue long sleeve shirt
2. It was shot on an angle at eye level
3. Behind him is a dresser and a stack of blue storage containers

Dude.......is nobody seeing what i'm seeing 'cause i'm seriously not able to see anything else but a oil painting of a victorian setting of a woman with her back to the viewer being held by a man sitting next to a staircase (stone, victorian castle style). (that'll be the white object to the right)
and whats on the left.....i don't know but i'll stare at it for a couple of hours more..(why not i've stared at for most of the day)

It's clear as daylight!!!...don't you perhaps have a painting like this???

Never knew going nuts was so much FUN.....

the problem with 2 lenses both concave is the interaction of reflection and refraction............almost impossible to link it to a 'behind' image because of the way the lense is designed to focus at its centre

Great thread OP, always great to look at these things

I'm inclined to expand a little further to what Must Be A Way has mentioned.

Firstly, 'assuming' the lens is actually present, with any magnification lens, the level of convexity varies somewhat and from the angle that the camera is projected whilst taking the picture, you wouldn't normally see any image (through the lens) as clearly spanned as this is across the entirety of the lens face.

If you notice with the rim of the lens, or rather, the inner perimeter of the rim, the image (reflection?) is at a constant around the circumference. This picture is taken at an angle whereby light refraction would give you a blind spot over a portion the lens due to it's convexity, however great or less it may be, and therefore the image (reflection?) would appear incomplete. However, without physically seeing the magnification '+' or '-' it's impossible to conclude.

It does however lead me to 'rule out' the plausible refration.

Personally I would also rule out the possibility of the 'lens' being cracked too. The image, while appearing to be distorted (if associated) with the image at hand, does not indicate any refraction of light at the supposed crack lines and in any case, again, I refer to my above paragraph, even at low light levels, the 'crack' taken at this angle would be seen somehwat different, depending on the convexity, it would either be barely visible, or become very apparent and refract light quite obviously.

It's all very interesting indeed. I would even hesitate to say that I think there's definitely some form of image captured there. It just doesn't appear to be orthodox and typical of what a lens would ''project'' from a photo taken at the angle that it is.

Great stuff OP.

good post baz,
thank you, as I said in my first post I know little about these things its good to have another scientific mind to bounce off....Im gonna take a closer look and see if I can map the image better


(edit for typo)

[edit on 5/12/2008 by must be a way]

The crack doesn't seem to be running all the way down. Infact it runs down and then to the right!! The second line you see in the middle of the lens belongs to the painting and seems to be some sort of pilar....

here look....



Whahahahaha.......

[edit on 5/12/2008 by operation mindcrime]

Here's a handy tip!!..don't give your photos an obscure name they won't show....

[edit on 5/12/2008 by operation mindcrime]

Must Be A Away,

I should have clarified that this area of physics is not my forte, I'm a civil/structural engineer by profession So I'm hoping someone with more intimate knowledge can support our theory behind it. I was just ''looking'' at the photo from the perspective of applying the basics of physics to what I 'see'.

I would tend to sway away from the idea that it's a refracted image, but more an entirely separate anomaly altogether.

...always something spooky but exciting about these things.

mindcrime..you Coo coo

On your last picture I finally saw the Victorian lady with her back to us, although on second thoughts she'd be abnormally large in comparison to the trees, would she not? Unless they're bushes, hehe!

Personally, on first look, I thought the white blurry thing was a car, but the two white blobs kinda underneath it would prove otherwise - unless it'd run over a pair of white cones (y'know the orange ones they use for roadworks?! Heh heh!).

So then I saw the lake and the reflections, and it took me onto a whole new other thought...

You see the white cross on the right. Well, the other white blobs I saw two people, closest to us, carrying a white coffin. But they're not wearing black jackets. and it looks like they're walking to the right of the picture, or in that general direction.

Then this thought ( yeah, yeah, I know this is totally obscure!) led me to another. You know how some people see ghosts, right? Some ghosts seem to be stuck here on Earth, and reinacting a certain scene before their death, like stuck in some sort of timewarp. And they repeatedly go over and over the same scene.

Well, this made me think, maybe (if there IS such a thing as a ghost picture) that this ghost like picture turned up, but within it, a ghost scene which isn't reflected in the water. And a ghost tree. (haha, I know this is all way off and on a random tangent, but who knows, hehe!) Basically going along the theory of 'IF' Vampires exist, and if the myth of not seeing their own reflection in a mirror is true.


....now, does anyone understand what I'm getting at, or am I waffling a load of bull?!

(Don't worry if you don't understand my meaning, I can confuse myself sometimes - that's some feat! )

Emmy, you're not talking nonsense at all.

This is the beauty of perception for you. I think it's great that people from whatever informed background view or perceive what they see. As stated above, I was inclined to view from a scientific perspective whereas others have viewed it by the appirition that they see, and I would definitely say that both are palatable in my opinion. It gives greater and wider scope for analysis.

reply to post by emmy

Whahahahaha...Me, coo coo??....You, coo coo!!....

Yesterday i found a funny picture of a ballarina who was turning clockwise...but when you looked long enough it started turning counter-clockwise....and the thing is you just can't seem to control the way you see it....(made for some heavy argument overhere....it was a fun evening)

It's the same with this thing. Ones you seem to see something you just can't seem to change it...you just keep seeing it. And the longer i look the clearer it gets.....

I know it's a trick of the mind but ain't it a fun trick.....!!!

I will get to the bottom of this even if it takes me all night....
Damn thing is...i'm real sh**ty at drawing else i would have drawn the damn thing i'm seeing and convince you all.......whahaha

[edit on 5/12/2008 by operation mindcrime]

Edit: oops forgot the T&C about bad word.......shame on me!!!

[edit on 5/12/2008 by operation mindcrime]

Operation mindcrime,

Keep fighting your good fight and thanks for offering to look at into this image. It's pictures like these that really absorb my attention too. I normally (albeit self proclaimed) have exceptional obsevrational skills, but I'm really baffled at this image (within the lens) and I struggle to make any associations with the shapes, tones and colours in it.

Ok, I see a man hanging by the neck and I also see a demonic or angry face.

You have to turn the photo upside down because of how lenses work at that distance.



[edit on 5-12-2008 by SailorinAZ]

Originally posted by SailorinAZ
Ok, I see a man hanging by the neck and I also see a demonic or angry face.

Okay dude, you're scaring me....since this is all in the mind...

but lets try some wire models here, i'm sure you'll see it to (or maybe not.... )



See it!!!!!

Originally posted by BAZ752
Must Be A Away,

I should have clarified that this area of physics is not my forte, I'm a civil/structural engineer by profession So I'm hoping someone with more intimate knowledge can support our theory behind it. I was just ''looking'' at the photo from the perspective of applying the basics of physics to what I 'see'.

I would tend to sway away from the idea that it's a refracted image, but more an entirely separate anomaly altogether.

...always something spooky but exciting about these things.

Im an electronics engineer and have worked heavily in radar/IR and sattelite imagery........but it helps non here? other than a parobolic effect is nither mirrored or reversed???

Originally posted by BAZ752
Emmy, you're not talking nonsense at all.

This is the beauty of perception for you. I think it's great that people from whatever informed background view or perceive what they see. As stated above, I was inclined to view from a scientific perspective whereas others have viewed it by the appirition that they see, and I would definitely say that both are palatable in my opinion. It gives greater and wider scope for analysis.

this I totally agree with !!! each and everyone to there own perception add then together and there should be an answer!!!!
Im only looking for answers1

It doesn't appear to be, but perhaps it is upside down, I learned in physics something about rarefraction, refraction, bending of light or whatever, and one of them shot the view upside down or at a different angle, depending on the sourceof the lens. Someone who cares about physics may be able to do a betterjob explaining than me, or the ever so mighty internet.

Interesting, my first thought was that it was a boat on water with trees behind.

But, the reflection doesn't match, even with distortion by movement of the water.

Having looked at it again a little more closely, I'd say it could be a building, there does seem to be what looks like a pitched roof.

As for it being a magnification of clothing, that would mean the photographer would have to be behind the object, which clearly isn't the case. The most you'd get from being in front is a reflection, no magnification.

The only solid way to debunk this is to say that he's caught a reflection of an image from a window. But as you say there was no window, we'll have to rule that out.

Given the fact that i think i see a oil painting in the lens round about victorian times. Take a look at a Renoir or a Vermeer....if you look real close you actually don't see the picture...so take the original frame...blow it up and step 6feet away from your screen....no what do you see???

I swear it is a 18th century art work and i'll will find out which one.....

humor me.....stand 6feet away from your screen and take a long hard look...