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.

 

Help Analyze a Photograpic Anomaly

page: 13
34
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


The member missthinks is the one with the photos, I can ask her via e-mail.




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 

Yes, please do! Many thanks again.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 


Well that's a video camera first of all, and some remote controls have lights on them. Doesn't really show me anything.
My friend actually shoots in infra red most of the time. (A photographer I went to school with) He sent his camera away somewhere to have it set up to be able to do that. I'll show you his work sometime and if you'd like I can even ask what sort of alterations needed to be made to his camera in order to do that.

[Edit: Even if a camera could pick that up without alterations what's to say ghosts appear in the infra-red spectrum? Have never heard anything like that. Who knows.. all these little clues don't tell me much at this point in time. As you know when you showed me the image I told you myself it looked two human figures, before this whole thread was made. I am not ruling anything out but the possibility of photographing ghosts isn't making sense to me. If camera's picked up invisible (to us) rays we'd be seeing so much more anomalies it's not even funny. Think of all the digital cameras in the world. Now if they can sometimes but very rarely pick them up, then maybe that could explain it... but in that case I want to find out how.]
edit on 22-5-2011 by 22ndsecond because: addition



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 22ndsecond
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 


Well that's a video camera first of all, and some remote controls have lights on them. Doesn't really show me anything.
My friend actually shoots in infra red most of the time. (A photographer I went to school with) He sent his camera away somewhere to have it set up to be able to do that. I'll show you his work sometime and if you'd like I can even ask what sort of alterations needed to be made to his camera in order to do that.


There is an IR blocking filter in between the lens and the CCD.
They remove that filter to make the camera more sensitive to IR light.

Some modifications require a visible light blocking filter (IR pass) be
installed which makes the camera suitable for IR photography only.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Version100
 


thanks!!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 22ndsecond
 


From the choppiness, it appears to be a normal digital camera in video mode.

All TV remotes have lights on them, but you can't see it turn on because they're infrared. Although some do have a separate visible light to tell you the battery is working when you're pressing the button. The one in the video is one that is invisible to the naked eye but can be seen through the camera.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
OH man you cought someone getting raptured!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 


Notice that the clouds are the EXACT same.

Fake fake fake....



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scales
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 


Notice that the clouds are the EXACT same.

Fake fake fake....


Like, OMG guys, look, another one! Read threads much?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMur
 


Hahahaha best reply yet



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
believing you explanation you say that was not manipulated, it looks very interesting, I had never seen anything like this picture.

the only thing I can say is that I see is someone holding something in his arms like a baby...



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 


Putting "ghosts" aside, I have to say what a great looking house for a renovator's delight!!!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 


Lol, id rather not sit and read 13 pages, half of which are tinfoil hat-too tight responses just to agree with someone about the clouds rather than post about them myself.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 


Looks like someone edited it in paint, the house looks somewhat edited as well.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Looks like a shop, pixels and seen alot of shops before, etc and so forth.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scales
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 


Notice that the clouds are the EXACT same.

Fake fake fake....


I'm not taking the side of the OP , but the two pics are not the same .
So I say take another look before you cry "Fake fake fake"

Regards



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tpg65
 


Look at the clouds. They are EXACTLY the same in both pictures. It would have to be like a one in a trillion chance to have that.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Scales
 





Originally posted by DrZrD
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 


Several readers have asked the question "Is the second photograph built from the first image"? IMO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!



The left hand image was cropped from the photograph with the white figure and the right hand image was cropped from the reference image (otherwise images are unchanged). Note that the shadows are indistinguishable but the clouds have changed. These are two distinct photographs!



Originally posted by sprocket2cog
reply to post by violet
 


Thats impossiable, it is not the same picture, ive been doing image editing since the first hand held black and white scanners came out.
Its easy to think it is, but if it had been resized there would be a change in the pixel density and more artifacting in the second image.
Yhis isnt thatcase.
ive prepared this animated gif,
its both images overlayed and switching from one to the other. look at the vertical perspective and the clouds.
the second photo was taken standing in a slightly different postion

edit on 22-5-2011 by sprocket2cog because: (no reason given)


Actually, the clouds do change babes, not much though, considering the pictures were taken sequentially and within seconds of each other.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scales
reply to post by tpg65
 


Look at the clouds. They are EXACTLY the same in both pictures. It would have to be like a one in a trillion chance to have that.


Please take another look through the thread . You will find a close up of the roof on both shots and the clouds are NOT in the same position .
I would say the two shots were taken about 1 minute apart .

Regards
edit on 27/04/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27/04/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Anyone who is posting 'the pictures are exactly the same' or anything of that nature clearly hasn't read the thread at all and shouldn't even be posting. So many claims have been repeated 50 times, even though they have previously shown to be false.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join