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.

 

[HOAX]Please help. I have evidence but I get laughed at.[HOAX]

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadlyrhythm

Originally posted by derst1988
Not to burst any ones argument bubble but the camera used was not "a very nice camera" Exif data shows its a olympus C460zz


that doesn't matter. when a camera is trying to take a photo in low light, it has to compensate by keeping the shutter open longer to let more light in, and by simulating higher iso film, creating that noise/grain. the shutter staying open is what causes the streaks.


You misunderstand the intent of the post. The intent was not to prove the OP right. It was to prove others wrong in the use of that argument against him. All is balanced. If you would please read my other posts you would see that not only do i agree that the one with the word sex is a light painting, you would also see i am not a camera slum, so save your efforts to try and teach.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by skylightsintheillions
Looks to me to be a long exposure with a shaky hand.


This is just an example of longer exposure effects, not night-time obviously. But I made myself appear to be a ghost.





It looks like you have no trousers on, and you are "shaking your hand".

Err...not the greatest example! lol



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
It looks like the video camera is moving in the video in the OP to make it appear that stationary lights, probably stars, are moving; and in the pics it looks like the camera is moving while taking a picture in low light, which will cause this effect, as the aperture of the camera stays open longer to absorb more light.

edit on 15-2-2011 by Calender because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam79
I am going to go into as much detail as possible. A few months ago (I would have posted sooner but I needed a certain amount of posts) I witnessed somethings I cannot categorize or explain. I wish I could just say "UFO" or "GHOST" and be done with it, even "streetlight while drinking" would make me happy. I just don't know what is going on. Nothing mechanical presented itself that night.

I've uploaded some vids on youtube,
www.youtube.com...
and there's more if you look.

but with an Olympus Camedia camera, I'm afraid the quality sucks. However, I do have a load of pics as well:

*See Photos Here*

I know what a lot of it looks like. Ridiculous. Especially the pic that appears to say "sex". I can't bring myself to show this to people I know, and I'm not a photo analyst.

Late one night, I was restless and went out to my back porch. There was a giant orb (it clearly could be mistaken for the moon, however it was VERY close to the ground) and what seemed like blue and green glitter bursted from it. I just used the camera and snapped and taped away.

Someone PLEASE give me a reasonable explanation. The whole thing seems so ridiculous. Please also note the other things in the photos that dont move or blur, so its obvious i didnt move the camera.

As the night went on, these red flashing lights began to appear in the neighbors yards. ALOT of yards. They bobbed up and down and moved like jellyfish.

The moon even looked fake, like it was a projection of some sort. I took a flashlight and shook it to flash across the moon, and the moon would get brighter, and release more of these glittery blue and green orbish things. The moon moved in a circular motion, all across the sky, making it obvious that it was closer than it appeared.

Another thing was the clouds gathered as if sucked in by the moon. Like it was hiding, but the clouds would dissapate and the "moon" would move. Again, I know how this sounds, and as god as my witness this is by far the most unexplainable thing i have ever seen.

Someone please tell me I'm not losing my mind.
edit on February 14th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: **fixed photo link**



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Adam79, your lying. Now you just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole. Give it up already.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
]reply to post by adam79
 


You have posted on ATS. SOMEONE is going to believe you.

I, on the other hand, see the moon. I see the moon behind the silhouette of a tree. I see the moon behind clouds above your house. The blurry pictures that you say indicates that the object moved-- This is probably what the moon looks like when someone takes a picture of it at night with unsteady hands.

This:

...looks like a streetlight or car headlights, again taken with an unsteady hand, or the camera was shaken on purpose to get this effect. I apply this to all other pictures where the light appears to be moving. Furthermore, the only images where the object appears stationary are images where there are objects in the foreground (such as a tree or a house). If you shook the camera then, we'd be able to tell you were shaking it because the foreground objects would be blurry too.

edit on 15-2-2011 by ERSRHD because: I made a mistake when posting an image.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
When I take night pics with my camera on night mode they look like that, orange picture that looks like a speed picture but the duration of taking the pic lasts several seconds. Any ideas how to get rid of that...?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandalour
 


I agree. looks like a long term exposure to me... and possibly the use of a laser light to form the designs... I've done this for fun while with some of my lasers and crap.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
definitely looks like over exposed photos.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonoftheSun
Looking at the EXIF data, your Olympus camera's exposure was set at Program Creative for slow exposure.

Could explain some of the effects we see...


Hahhaha
Busted
God I love this site, is this guy a sloppy hoaxer or just woefully misinformed about his camera? We'll probably never know, and yet I'm sure some people still believed he had captured ufos or whatever other sillyness.
edit on 15-2-2011 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by darkest4
 


HAHAHA yup!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Somes specs of what OP have used for those pictures

exifdata.com...

Make
OLYMPUS CORPORATION
Model
X400,D580Z,C460Z
Aperture
3.1
Exposure Time
2
Focal Length
5.8 mm
Flash
Off, Did not fire
File Size
122 kB
File Type
JPEG
MIME Type
image/jpeg
Image Width
1024
Image Height
766
Encoding Process
Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample
8
Color Components
3
X Resolution
72
Y Resolution
72
Software
v759u-77
YCbCr Sub Sampling
YCbCr4:2:2 (2 1)
YCbCr Positioning
Centered
Exposure Program
Creative (Slow speed)
Date and Time (Original)
0000:00:00 00:00:00
Max Aperture Value
2.9
Metering Mode
Multi-segment
Light Source
Unknown
Color Space
sRGB
Custom Rendered
Normal
Exposure Mode
Auto
White Balance
Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio
N/A
Scene Capture Type
Night
Gain Control
High gain up
Contrast
Normal
Saturation
Normal
Sharpness
Normal
F Number
3.1
Exposure Compensation
N/A
ISO
200
Compression
JPEG (old-style)
Orientation
Horizontal (normal)
edit on 15-2-2011 by Vandalour because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ERSRHD

]reply to post by adam79
 


You have posted on ATS. SOMEONE is going to believe you.

I, on the other hand, see the moon. I see the moon behind the silhouette of a tree. I see the moon behind clouds above your house. The blurry pictures that you say indicates that the object moved-- This is probably what the moon looks like when someone takes a picture of it at night with unsteady hands.

This:

...looks like a streetlight or car headlights, again taken with an unsteady hand, or the camera was shaken on purpose to get this effect. I apply this to all other pictures where the light appears to be moving. Furthermore, the only images where the object appears stationary are images where there are objects in the foreground (such as a tree or a house). If you shook the camera then, we'd be able to tell you were shaking it because the foreground objects would be blurry too.



while i do agree with you on the most part this image is the only one that throws a wrench in the theoretic gears. All other pictures do lead to the common conclusion of the posters here, and this one image isn't enough to say its true, its just the only one that lends any credence to his cause. IMO. I have dissected it and explained why in an earlier posting.



edit on 15-2-2011 by derst1988 because: incorrect image link posting



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

You take the first photo of a

still object

, and you look at the digital screen that shows something moving around


LOL is this guy serious? Must be hoaxer season, everyone is trying to pull a fast one thanks to 2012 or something else.


edit on 15-2-2011 by old_god because: typo

edit on 15-2-2011 by old_god because: typo



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vandalour
Somes specs of what OP have used for those pictures

exifdata.com...

Make
OLYMPUS CORPORATION
Model
X400,D580Z,C460Z
Aperture
3.1
Exposure Time
2
Focal Length
5.8 mm
Flash
Off, Did not fire
File Size
122 kB
File Type
JPEG
MIME Type
image/jpeg
Image Width
1024
Image Height
766
Encoding Process
Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample
8
Color Components
3
X Resolution
72
Y Resolution
72
Software
v759u-77
YCbCr Sub Sampling
YCbCr4:2:2 (2 1)
YCbCr Positioning
Centered
Exposure Program
Creative (Slow speed)
Date and Time (Original)
0000:00:00 00:00:00
Max Aperture Value
2.9
Metering Mode
Multi-segment
Light Source
Unknown
Color Space
sRGB
Custom Rendered
Normal
Exposure Mode
Auto
White Balance
Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio
N/A
Scene Capture Type
Night
Gain Control
High gain up
Contrast
Normal
Saturation
Normal
Sharpness
Normal
F Number
3.1
Exposure Compensation
N/A
ISO
200
Compression
JPEG (old-style)
Orientation
Horizontal (normal)
edit on 15-2-2011 by Vandalour because: (no reason given)


while most of this is correct, it is only correct for one image, you can bet your @#$ that posters will use this as evidence when it is only exif data from ONE image. i have personally viewed exif from another that uses iso 366 and flash on with a different aperture.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Oh the irony:

reply to post by adam79
 



Originally posted by adam79
grrrr hoaxes make me angry.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by adam79
 


autokinesis comes to mind,, try using a tripod to eliminate the shaking motions.
edit on 15-2-2011 by dave1983 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
A s a professional all of the pictures are the consecuence of the settings nothing else.been on business 20 yrs.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
While this is pretty much set in stone as to what this is (moon), i would like someone to take into consideration the dissection in the post a few pages back by myself. I find that everyone keeps talking about all the other images when only one bears any worth.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonas86
When I take night pics with my camera on night mode they look like that, orange picture that looks like a speed picture but the duration of taking the pic lasts several seconds. Any ideas how to get rid of that...?


The long exposure is required otherwise you'll just get a black image, or very tiny hard to see dots from really strong light sources with weaker lights not being picked up. Only way to remove the streaks is to mount your camera on a tripod. With regular real film your allowing more and more light to effect the grain of the film (?) creating a brighter more visible image, with a digital camera I think its more that your taking more and more images and they are being digitally added together. With digital cameras long exposure while the same in principal as real film isnt exactly the same in mechanics, for starters you dont get all that horrible noise with real film I dont think (dont quote me since I only know the basics about photography
and probably have it far to simplistic). Why things like street lights and other artificial lights being orange is because I think because its a long exposure more the lights actual coloring is being picked up, where normally its to faint to notice (probably wrong on that).

So yeah, to get good non blurred, non streaked night photos always use a tripod or something to steady your hand as much as possible (even a slight tiny hand shake with a long exposure can ruin a good pic). Also you'll have to find the best settings for exposure you can since to long and lights get blown out, to little and you dont get enough light. The default night mode settings for exposure might not be suitable, more than likely such settings are for night filming with other lights around near by such as outside a night time barbecue etc so manually setting your exposure times would be best, never good to leave it up to the camera.

Ive finally managed to work out my digital camera to the point where I can with a tripod actually get pretty good star pictures, not great, but enough that I can take pics of the brighter stars in the night sky. Didnt think it was possible with this piece of junk


Im just a rookie with that sort of thing, hope that helps. So many people dont realize its more than just pointing and clicking the button.
edit on 15-2-2011 by BigfootNZ because: meh meh




top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join