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.

 

Legs missing in picture

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:
d1k

posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   
If you check all the pictures in the album (btw I fixed the album link) you'll see a picnic table in one of the pics, as soon as I saw that I asked my buddy who took the pictures if he was standing on it leaning on the girls, he told me the picnic table was behind him (behind the guy who took the pictures) so he wasn't on that. And obviously there is no room for a picnic table by the shore they are at. Also, you can check the other picutres which are at that same spot and there is nothing to stand on. It does look like hes leaning on the girls, but not to the point where hes standing on something, his body, up to the missing parts, goes straight down, plus as someone else said if that was the case he'd be choking the girl on the right. The angle he would have to be at to hide his lower half he would be putting all his weight on the girls, which you really dont see happening. But again, I dunno, it's by far the weirdest picture I have ever seen.

[edit on 1-7-2004 by d1k]




posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 11:01 PM
link   
This is exactly the reason why I started this thread about a month ago. People will swear a photo has been photoshopped, and look for all kinds of "evidences" of it being photoshopped, even though the person with the pic says that the picture is real.

Btw... I already see the picture becoming and urban legend and appearing on snopes d1k...


[edit on 1-7-2004 by TheBandit795]



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Does anybody know if the encoding information in pictures can be criss-crossed - like maybe if you bought a cheap memory device?

Perhaps this could be a portion that was spliced in from one of their other images on accident - although that would have been one precise accident

Those other images by the way...man...it must be the car...chicks dig the car - lol



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by d1k
Heres a link to all the pictures.

photos.yahoo.com...



Check out pics 27-32. I want a piece of the girl in orange! She is hot even if she has a wonder bra on!!!

Let me (bleep).....



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
to be honest, i wasnt really looking at the guy, sorry. schwing!



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   
wonder what Are You For Real is doing...lol

Member was on ATS
5 minutes ago.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Where are the rest of these pics?

I swear their about to go "Girls Gone Wild"



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I think he had a question about one of the girls in the bikinis. Let me just photoshop this guy out of the picture so he doesn't distract me as I study the ladies in the bikinis and await the question.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
This is exactly the reason why I started this thread about a month ago. People will swear a photo has been photoshopped, and look for all kinds of "evidences" of it being photoshopped, even though the person with the pic says that the picture is real.


LOL!! Well we all now know that if we want people to take a picture seriously, don't include pretty girls in it!!

seriously though, you make a good point. The problem is we're entering an age where pretty much anything can be faked, and all sorts of people will try to pass off a fake, or a curious image of an every day object, as real, or at least as a "mystery". (see lights over Arizona thread.)

it's a tricky dilemma for would be deniers of ignorance!

If we could get the original file from the camera, not renamed or re-saved, there may be some meta-data that confirms the pictures, authenticity. We could also compare it against the full size versions of the other pics, which I don't think are online, to look for anomalies or similarities.

It's a curious picture, certainly...



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Don't suppose it has occurred to anyone here that this thread has become more than a mystery picture at this point. You guys are funny BUT!

These pictures were reportedly taken privately, and not by the person posting them. The people in the pictures are a bunch of friends horsing around and having a good time.

Wonder how any of them would feel if they knew these pictures were now posted on one of the most heavily viewed boards on the web? How would you feel?

I am stunned with so many people on this site concerned about their rights and their privacy that people are having such a great time over this obvious invasion of privacy and a exhibiting such a total lack of respect for the people in the pictures.

The original picture, though a valid discussion is crossing a line on privacy if the subjects are not aware this is on the net, and have not agreed to it. As for the link to the rest of them - TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE!

Hello???




posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless I am stunned with so many people on this site concerned about their rights and their privacy that people are having such a great time over this obvious invasion of privacy and a exhibiting such a total lack of respect for the people in the pictures.

I can agree with you on this post, and I understand you concern...but this is a trend of the internet that will likely never fade, especially given the recent Supreme Court descision on pornogrpahy laws...

There are many people with pictures of themselves on the internet, some more private than others, who have no clue how they got there - Try going to Yahoo and search the images for a general term that can be mistaken for a pornographic search and you'll likely find many similar victims of this...

I do think the poster of this thread should answer the question tho - do they have your consent?



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
There are many people with pictures of themselves on the internet, some more private than others, who have no clue how they got there - Try going to Yahoo and search the images for a general term that can be mistaken for a pornographic search and you'll likely find many similar victims of this...

I do think the poster of this thread should answer the question tho - do they have your consent?



I suspect this has not even occurred to the poster and this was an innocent act.

However, regardless of what else is going on out there I would hope (or I should say it was my hope) that this site subscribes to higher standards. It's not just nu-b's like me that appear to have had a lapse of judgement on this one. I am just a little taken aback.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   
You can see the shadow of the bottom half of the guy on the girl to the lefts right leg. This says to me that its an obiouse airbrush scam.

But none the less i would have to say that I would serve a not so large portion to both the lasses in the picture. and then get me a few bottles of budwiser and get completley leggless with them


Sorry but being a fella i had to remark on the beauty of the females in the pic. (IT WAS TO BE EXPECTED WAS IT NOT?)


d1k

posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
Wonder how any of them would feel if they knew these pictures were now posted on one of the most heavily viewed boards on the web? How would you feel?


Don't assume things, the person who owns/took the photos was here when I posted and when I made the yahoo photo album. The guy in the picture (with no legs) knows they are on the net and soon will the other friends (if they don't know already). The only people who do not know is the girls, since they were never spoken to again after that day. If they didn't want their pictures taken they wouldn't have. Once the pictures were taken it's out of their hands what the owner does with them.

But putting the drama aside its a bunch of people at the beach having a good time, nothing really to get your panties in a bunch about. Sure we have some gentlemen here who appreciate what they see in the pics, which you see at any beach as well as on TV daily. I can appreciate their appreciation
But again, no need for such drama about invasion of privacy and such.


If we could get the original file from the camera, not renamed or re-saved, there may be some meta-data that confirms the pictures, authenticity.


I have the originals on my HDD which I can send out. u2u me. The yahoo album is the original collection with original names but yahoo resized them. I'm not exactly sure what you mean as re saved, if you mean the alterations that yahoo made to fit in their photo album then agian, i can send the originals. The one I put on my ftp site came straight from the original but was renamed, the original file info should still remain though.


You can see the shadow of the bottom half of the guy on the girl to the lefts right leg. This says to me that its an obiouse airbrush scam.


If he were to cast a shadow on the girls he the sun would have to be behind him wouldn't it? The way the light is coming in it's the girl on the right whos casting the shadow.

[edit on 2-7-2004 by d1k]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by d1k

The only people who do not know is the girls, since they were never spoken to again after that day. If they didn't want their pictures taken they wouldn't have. Once the pictures were taken it's out of their hands what the owner does with them.

but again, no need for such drama about invasion of privacy and such.



Okay, obviously the ones being discussed are the girls and it was them that I was concerned about. Now you confirmed my concern. For all I know they would be thrilled to know they were making such a sensation - but honestly, that is not what this post was about.

So folks, if there isn't a true topic here worthy of discussion, I'll just move on.

Oh, and thanks one & all for this invaluable lessen about the perils of the modern world.


d1k

posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
Okay, obviously the ones being discussed are the girls and it was them that I was concerned about. Now you confirmed my concern. For all I know they would be thrilled to know they were making such a sensation - but honestly, that is not what this post was about.


Again, if they didn't want other people to have pictures of them they would not have allowed to been photographed, simple as that. It's not their pictures, nor is it illegal to post pictures of people w/o their approval if you own those pictures or have permission from the owner.

Along side the comments of the girls there is a serious discussion here about what the subject is really about, a guy with no bloody legs.


Oh, and thanks one & all for this invaluable lessen about the perils of the modern world.


Welcome to earth.

[edit on 2-7-2004 by d1k]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   
We've covered quite a bit of space with "ooh's" and "ahh's" and "airbrushed" this and "faked" that...now that we've all chattered and posted our ideas about the picture and have questioned its place on the boards, let's make a forward step...maybe this can help to discern future real/fake photos as brought up in the previous posters' thread...

Maybe someone can take a side, saying "This picture is faked using photoshop because..." or "This is a supernatural even because..." and we can all express our opinions on one idea instead of 50...I know this was tried earlier with the photoshop scenario, but I think it was kind of lost in the barrage of posts

Is this a good idea?


I'm sure that d1k would maybe like to see this go somewhere other than it's soon to be locked fate...

[edit on 7/2/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

[edit on 7/2/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Yep,

[rant on]
I tried that before with the thread I posted above, but not much people were interested. Especially the photoshop fans who hunt every picture posted on the board and look for "photoshop objects" in the picture that sometimes don't exist. If I see a ufo or a ghost and take a picture of it, then post it on the board, someone will invent some new feature of photoshop and swear they see it in the picture.

[rant off]



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
TheBandit795
Clearly, I believe your avatar is a fake - that tongue on your dog is far too long - let's analyze that!



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   


Whaaat??? I personally took that picture with a digital video camera! Bandit's tongue was that long...
And wet too.. When he was alive I could never reach to the front door without getting wet.
Well his son has taken over that job now...

But anyway, it's good to be skeptical of a picture, but not good to be crying fake or photoshop at the first sight of a paranormal or ufo picture posted on the board.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join