It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Are You Watching It...Or Is It Watching You?!

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:34 AM
reply to post by Obama Bin Lyin

You can tell all that without needing the negative for any reason whatsoever?

So you're saying someone at York photography faked the negative and the photo back in 1990 and pulled a hoax,right?


posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by Obama Bin Lyin

Another question: If there was someone faking this kind of photo,do you think he or she would have only done it one time? I think if this happened to more people,we would have seen something like it before now? I've searched this topic for a long time and never found anything to compare it to.

I'm just saying,it seems odd,if that's true,why me?

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:54 AM
In previous posts I, and a lot of other posters, have shown how the subject photo has been obviously altered to add the face.

I must say the black and white photo in the original post from another person in 1987 is quite intriguing however.

It is not so obvious a hoax.

Any one have an idea how that one was faked, if it was?

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:58 AM
reply to post by Krusty the Klown

Can you explain why you think mine is so obviously faked,negative and all,and the other one not?

I'm not saying it couldn't have been,just that I wasn't the one to do it.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:16 AM
reply to post by On the Edge

If you go back through the posts you will see my reasoning.

I have actually used Photoshop quite alot and have completed several courses in Photoshop technique.

If you say you did not fake them then I can accept that, but somebody did.

Firstly, in the zoom in image of the face, you can see a rectangular line around the face, which is where the image was pasted in, the color immediately around the face inside the rectangle is darker and the straight lines are clearly visible. There is obvious use of the dithering tool around the straight lines to photoshop users.

Secondly the actual face in the far away shot is different to the zoomed in face. The far away shot has a lower face, with chin, cheeks and lower jaw visible. Yet in the zoom in close up the entire lower jay is not visible. This should be the other way around, the close up should show more not less.

Like I said, the black and white images from the other experience I have no answer for. If you have the link to that website I would be grateful, I would love to have a closer look.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:24 AM
reply to post by Krusty the Klown

dude..... their was no "photoshop" then .... i believe back then it would have needed a print shop (not software, think more down the lithographics route).

im not saying it couldnt be faked, but im saying your not gonna know that by looking at it in a forum post! you woudl need to actualy study the Actual picture to make any real headway ... for instance, reflections, on the tv.... the pics have to be scanned someway ... scanning involves light...

not only that, to fake something like that would need some sort of perfectly tv screen shaped sticker /film..... OR an insane amount of printing / print shop knowlage, as thats the kind of people who would be able to "fake" somethin like this"

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:30 AM
And also,just for the record...picture or no picture,I still feel there were "satanic" forces at work in our lives,because it is those very seductions that might appear really good,but turn out to be just the opposite!

Just in case anyone was thinking this photo defines everything I think about that time!

Thank you for all your input here,whether you believe it is real or a hoax,I've enjoyed the feedback!

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by On the Edge

Sorry On the Edge, I forgot to address the negatives in my previous post.

The actual negative strip is impossible to make a judgement on as there is no detail and it is viewed under yellow light. Negatives should always be viewed under white flourescent light. It is simply too far away to see anything but a blob or a blur, which at that distance is easily faked.

The second image of the negative, the close up, is a digital scan, and the cut and paste lines can still be seen around the face. The zoom in on the negative is a different size to the close up of the actual photo print detailing the TV only.

I must admit, however, that if those lines are ACTUALLY on the negative, then that suggests Photoshop manipulation was not used. It could suggest that, as someone has already posted, the image could literally have been pasted or taped on to the actual screen. The face shape and details are still different to the extreme closeup of the color image, which says that all is not right.

It is more than likely that the close up color image is faked digitally, and the original photo negative was a paper and sticky tape on the screen fake, that's why it appears on the negative with a different facial shape and detail.

A double whammy if you like.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:34 AM
reply to post by boaby_phet

As has been outlined in previous posts, including by a moderator, that even though Photoshop did not exist in 1990, in 2009, you can still scan a photo taken in 1990 and then use Photoshop to paste other images on top of it.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:39 AM
reply to post by Krusty the Klown

Here's the link to the one in B&W.

I have stressed there are not TWO photos! Only the one and the second is an enlargement of the original,but not through computerization,just a plain old copy machine!

I see you know what you're talking about with one end of the photo business,but how much have you studied spirit photography? It could be that those "bars" are a kind of energy portal-I forget where I read that. Yes,they are also in the negative. (I really have to have that thing professionally scanned! Sorry I can't offer you more!)

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:51 AM
I don't believe in any of this - for the reasons so far given
But I will still be a little cautious when I switch off my television from now on...

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:58 AM
reply to post by On the Edge

Thanks On the Edge I will eagerly have a look at that website.

In this post you mentioned that you were not the photographer, and you asked the photographer "can you fake a negative?"

The reply was "no", which is true.

You also mentioned that you wanted to debunk the photo. It is more than likely be that photographer (your estranged husband?) was playing you with a sticky taped image on the TV screen.

There are just too many inconsistencies here.

Your posts seem quite sincere and I am not a debunker, in fact quite the opposite and I do not discount anything out of hand.

The evidence presented here suggests hoax however.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:06 AM
On the Edge

I'm still getting used to the editing on this site!!!

Yes, I understand that the zoom in image of the TV is very much from the same photo, and not a different image altogether. That is quite clear.

The problem is that the face in the close up has a different shape and has finer detail than the original far away shot.

This is impossible in digital or chemical film/negative photography. The closer you zoom in the less distinct the details always are.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:10 AM
No,I am the "photographer". And my husband was not estranged until about a year later. The negative is as real as any negative can be.

That being said,I thank you for your opinion. Maybe we'll talk more on this subject again. Sorry you're not able to see it in person!

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:13 AM

Thank you for all your input here,whether you believe it is real or a hoax,I've enjoyed the feedback!

Of course you do, obviously you're a sucker for attention...
It's always the same story here on ATS. Some guy who just recently registered comes with a strange story which gets debunked very fast. They always play the nice guy, often hiding behind religion. Hey, a religious person wouldn't be lying, that's impossible! But still dozens of pages and bandwidth are spent on the moron, laughing behind his computer screen at all of you believers. You should read this topic from the beginning and cry at how pathetic most users are. A lot are freaked out and 'wish they'd never seen it', lmao. I even saw someone spending almost a page on how aliens would suck the energy out of us using electronics, oh yeah, that's why we're all converting to digital tv so it would make the aliens even easier to get to us... Give me a friggin' break.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:19 AM
reply to post by Staafke


And people accuse Christians of being "judgemental"!

You've pretty much labeled every poster here,unless they think like you,of being pathetic os something.

I hope you're not like this in "real life"!

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:25 AM

I hope you're not like this in "real life"!

And I hope you don't scam people like this in yours.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:26 AM
reply to post by On the Edge

No worries, On the Edge.

I just had a look at the website with the black and white image.

I cannot see any evidence of manipulation of this image. It is quite impressive.

My Occam's Razor Explanation: The inside lining of a traditional vacuum TV tube consists of a fine lining of a phosphorescent dust like material, which I cannot recall the name of. The last image on the screen when the TV was last turned off was the image on the screen and this was embedded in the dust like material. Not visible to the naked eye, but visible when an extremely bright light source, such as a camera flash, is exposed to the screen.

I'm quite happy to have this theory debunked by a television technician as I'm not an expert in TV construction.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:36 AM

9.PROFIT ???

[SNIP] DEMONS DON'T APPEAR IN THE TV,THEY GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOTE: there is a mobile game for the s60 series price of persia that demon can be found in those games... i'v seen that in some games ie OR iron maiden eddie pics on google


Removed profanity

[edit on 6-11-2009 by dune_mister]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by dune_mister]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by dune_mister]

[edit on 21/1/10 by masqua]

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:01 AM
reply to post by dune_mister

If it's that easy,why don't you go do that and then show us your results! I,for one,would love to see it!

As for people who feel the need to fake things for attention,...I hate to dissapoint you,but not everyone is motivated by those things.

My life is very satisfying without needing to create anything artificial to make up for something I'm lacking.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in