Are You Watching It...Or Is It Watching You?!, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 54 times

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 05:25 PM by LittleDragon

reply to post by The_Zomar

I have to agree on this, I played with the same settings that the OP did in Photoshop, and very quickly saw the edit lines on the picture itself.

Only other thing I want to say is that the OP did a very good job on editing the first for highlights/shadows/etc! I couldn't come close to that without some serious effort.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by LittleDragon]

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 05:38 PM by Spiro

Interesting...

Here's what i see >

The two faces dont add up.

There is clearly a frame around the face.

The eyes dont match up.

Looks like possable hair?

The nose is ALOT wider, almost the size of Mike Tyson's.

The mouth is ALOT more rounded.

It has chin?

Edit to add, the eye sockets are completly different.

Way to go OP, bless ya for trying

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Spiro]

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 05:41 PM by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by arizonascott
reply to post by On the Edge

For those saying it is a hoax - look at the posted story covering this subject from said time - there was no Photo Shop in the 70's and the person involved in investigating and looking at this image says it is genuine. Don't dismiss this when you don't have all the facts or make some comment about it being a hoax when you didn't look at all the given evidence.

The pictures are from the 1990's as it says in the OP.... Not the 1970's so I am not sure where you got that from... Especially since you are so concerned with getting the facts straight.

Even if it was from the 70's, while photoshop did not yet exist, they DID have the ability to manipulate photos then,

Here is an article that goes into more detail.

news.deviantart.com...

Photo manipulation has been around nearly as long as photography has, so to suggest that it could not be manipulated in the 1970's ( even though the pic is from the 1990's) is simply ridiculous.

Then there is also the possibility that this picture that was taken in the 90's was just recently scanned into the computer and put through some type of photo shop software... In other words how old the photos is, does not matter, the technology exists to alter the photo and that is all there is to that.

Now that is not to say that I think they are or are not photoshopped. I just want you to know that they could very easily be manipulated photos whether they were taken in 1990 or 1890

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 05:49 PM by gimme_some_truth

A couple of questions for the OP.

You claim that they were not visible to you when taking the pictures. That you saw them after you had the film developed.... I find that hard to believe.

Why take such odd pictures. The second one was a picture of the TV. That was it. You saw nothing on it but decided to take a picture of the TV and this face magically appeared on it?

The first one is of half the christmas tree and is being pointed toward the wall but you can still see the TV which also has a face...

Unless you were just going around snapping pictures left and right, completely randomly, I have trouble believing your story. It just does not quite add up. I mean I see no other reason to take those two pictures unless you were just randomly taking snap shots all over the place?

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 05:52 PM by Spiro

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Did you see my post above ^

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 05:59 PM by arizonascott

reply to post by gimme_some_truth

You are right. I don't have anything left to say. I was off by two decades and the importance of this thread is well, not really worth defending. I was just adding some points, but I guess they are not valid since this is Photo Shopped and this is a hoax of some sort. I am out of the loop.

Cheers

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 05:59 PM by Bluebelle

That second picture scared the crap out of me, wasnt expecting to scroll down to such a close, close up of it.. well done!

But yea, does seem a little strange to take a picture that includes the whole tv, and half a christmas tree... especially considering that it was a roll of film that was used, hence you would expect not to be taking photos willy nilly due to only being able to take a few.

God bless digital cameras!

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:00 PM by WickedStar

reply to post by arizonascott

For those saying it is a hoax - look at the posted story covering this subject from said time - there was no Photo Shop in the 70's and the person involved in investigating and looking at this image says it is genuine. Don't dismiss this when you don't have all the facts or make some comment about it being a hoax when you didn't look at all the given evidence.

I understand the spirit of your post arizonascoutt and I appreciate your sincerity. However, I feel the need to comment - if others haven't already that this first paragraph is completely devoid of logic. Just because photoshop did not exist in the 70's does not necessitate the fact that other photo editing techniques didn't exist. Further more, old photographs are often edited using photoshop. Lastly - stories are now and forever have been just stories. What we need are negatives to be examined by an ATS professional.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:03 PM by On the Edge

Thank you to everybody for your replies! I just woke up and will try to answer some of the questions and comments!

I,too,wanted to debunk this,and maybe someone can yet! The best so far was the reference to the Thundercats! My son watched that sometimes,but honestly,the TV was not on!
I asked the photographer about how hard it would be to "fake" a negative,and he said it would be pretty hard to do. Why,or how,could that be done in 1990? If it is a hoax,then the hoax is on me!(If the person who worked at York photos would kindly come forward and explain himself,it'd be much appreciated!)
Someone claimed that it is two different pictures,but it is just the one,the close-up one is just an enlargement.
What look like two bars of light,one on either side,I read could be something like signs of a portal.
I know there's no way to prove this,but I'm really very stupid-when it comes to all things technical! (If it wasn't for my brilliant husband,I couldn't even have figured out how to put them here in the first place!..And by the way,this is not my "original" husband! We divorced in 1992!)
As far as the picture not being centered properly or whatever,well,I never said I was a professional! The cat was the subject of the photo!(Sadly,he and my other cat were both run over within a week of each other in 1991.)
About my Christianity ,...like I said,we were young,and I remember I was caught up listening to some very sexy,sensual music back then. Also,about this time my husband got carried away with the thought of all the money his new job would bring us,and that can be a potent detractor!
One of us ,after the collapse of everything that person held dear,went on to experience the depths of despair and alcoholism,being suicidal on more than one occasion,and living a life on the edge. (I can happily report that this person hasn't had a drop to drink since 1998!)
When my husband comes home from work tonight,we will post some of the other strange photos I mentioned,though the story behind them is a little longer.
I got frustrated asking for professional help with these photos,and "No" to the person who wants me to mail them the negative! Here at home we have the cheapest scanner we could find,and we worked with what we had.We may have someone with better facilities look at it in the future,but we'll be there when they do!
Tonight I will post again under Paranormal Studies,"More Photos From On The Edge"!
Thank you for your interest!

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:06 PM by Spiro

Originally posted by On the Edge
I,too,wanted to debunk this,and maybe someone can yet!

I have, a couple of posts ago >

See?

Here's what i see >

The two faces dont add up.

There is clearly a frame around the face.

The eyes dont match up.

Looks like possable hair?

The nose is ALOT wider, almost the size of Mike Tyson's.

The mouth is ALOT more rounded.

It has chin?

Its strange that your closeup is nothing like mine?

Edit to add, the eye sockets are completly different.

Way to go OP, bless ya for trying

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Spiro]

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:10 PM by Nola213

here is a blow up of the TV in the Original picture:

Which is obviously NOT the image we see in the Original post when it was blown up.

So someone is definitely hoaxing here.

But I think we kinda figured that out by the 3rd or 4th post.

Anyhow I'd like to throw out the suggestion; That this Thread title be changed to:

"Hoax Are you watching It...Or is it watching You?!Hoax"

Anyone who agrees please respond by saying you agree it's a proven hoax. At the VERY least I believe it should be moved to skunkworks.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Nola213]

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:17 PM by zazzafrazz

Originally posted by Spiro
Interesting...

Here's what i see >

Two completely different images. First thing I noticed without even zooming, one is a full head, the zoom is not.
OP if your going to pull this hoax, perhaps use the same image at least?
LAME

[edit on 5-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:19 PM by theabsolutetruth

reply to post by Nola213

The two pictures very obviously don't match and there are more ways of hoaxing than photoshop, an image could easily of been an acetate image attached to the screen, the back of the old tv set taken out and only the screen with an imaged taped behind it, so many ways, it certainly looks like a hoax.

However there are a lot of paranormal events and I have witnessed at least one electrical type even of such a nature and wouldn't like to have everything dismissed as a hoax and everything that isn't immediately obvious or out of the usual mind concepts labelled hoax, which some people actually try doing, some people aren't just sceptical, they are utterly closed minded and imo we should be taking fuel from their fire than giving it.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:23 PM by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

Originally posted by On the Edge

I asked the photographer about how hard it would be to "fake" a negative,and he said it would be pretty hard to do. Why,or how,could that be done in 1990? If it is a hoax,then the hoax is on me!(If the person who worked at York photos would kindly come forward and explain himself,it'd be much appreciated!)

yes. it is VERY hard to alter negatives. but we dont have negatives. we have pictures of negatives. those are just as easy to manipulate as pictures.

and that "alien face" from the picture with the baby just like a fish to me. (even though it's completely irrelevant)

[edit on 5-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:28 PM by On the Edge

Believe me when I say "There is only ONE photo!"(That being the one I took of my cat under the tree!)
No offense,but maybe your equipment isn't so good either!

I've read that that this is the case with photos like this,that images that aren't visible to the naked eye will show up when put to print.

Like I said,if it's a hoax,then the hoax was on me! I have done nothing to alter anything,aside from making an enlargement,but I appreciate your skepticism,nonetheless!

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:29 PM by nunya13

My only two skeptical thoughts are:

1. Why is the enlarged image so clear? How was this pic enlarged? I tried to do it with the original sized image in photo editing software and it was very pixelated.
2. When I reduced the size of the zoomed image, it was still very clear to see the contrast of the colors (green/blue in the "face" and the black of the TV) was very high compared to the unzoomed image where the contrast was much lower.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:45 PM by NibiruWarrior

I am unopinionated on the issue - but i like it nonetheless

Whether it's real or not, it scared the plop outta me.

Thanks for posting!

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:47 PM by On the Edge

reply to post by nunya13

I can't answer that question,really. A friend of mine did the enlargement back around 1996,on what was probably just your average,run-of-the-mill copier that he had in his home.
But I have done enlargements of photos at Staples and had very clear results.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:56 PM by On the Edge

Here's the link to the photo I found that I said was similar.
Remember,lots of amateurs take photos of babies and cats and such...they don't always wind up perfectly laid out and planned in advance!

www.anomalies-unlimited.com...

By the way,if there are any genuine paranormal photography experts residing in the Pacific Northwest,California,specifically,who are reading this and would like to do some serious analysis,please contact me.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:57 PM by Bluebelle

Originally posted by On the Edge
reply to post by nunya13

I can't answer that question,really. A friend of mine did the enlargement back around 1996,on what was probably just your average,run-of-the-mill copier that he had in his home.
But I have done enlargements of photos at Staples and had very clear results.

Your friend must be insanely good at his job then... think there'd be a few million people sending him pictures of alleged ghosts/demons if he manages to achieve those sort of results!

Also, just get ATS crazies imaginations running wild.. Looks like a gray/reptilian hybrid.