Help Analyze a Photograpic Anomaly

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Just put it through a forensic image checker.....

errorlevelanalysis.com...


And yup....its manipulated....sorry to all you believers in this nonsense....learn to use some software before calling all us skeptics idiots eh


EDIT: For anyone who says this is real.....as you are all experts on pictures and software, take the image into photoshop...add some more items to the photo....and you will see how and why this has been added after the photo was taken....it will make it blatantly obvious this is a doctored photo....compare the image in the link...with your new edited pic...tell me what you see lol
edit on 21-5-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
It would be nice if you could put up the original pics with the exif data etc included, but from what I see I think there are 2 things at play here.

1) The picture was taken using a flash and at the point the flash fired something was very close up to the lense, hence reflecting the light back towards the lens and causing the white patch. Similar things happen a lot when people take flash photos and the wrist strap of the camera happens to fall in front of the lens like

This

I would suggest that an insect flew in front of the lens when the flash fired


The other thing thats happening is pardolia i.e. thinking the shape looks a lot like a person when really its just a streaky blob
edit on 21-5-2011 by davespanners because: spelling



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Couple of questions for you, Organic. What is the height of the house and from what point was the picture taken from? As in, how far away was the photographer and were they on level ground with the base of the house or were they lower? How close together were these pictures taken? Something to note is that the first photo is either zoomed in more or taken from inside the gate whereas in the second picture you can see that the gate is closed. Something else to note is that the lighting is equally distributed in the first photo while the second one appears to have been overall dimmed and slightly darkened, except for the anomaly which is unusually bright.

I think we can count out a reflection of some sort because as I said, the anomaly is randomly bright while the surroundings are more dim, also it's pure white, an unusual way for a reflection to be presented. Equally white just about, where as from the shadows you can see that the sunshine is coming from the left side of the photo, which would cause a smudge or shine to be uneven.

Just to note, most apparitions are also not like this anomaly. Most are a bit brighter than their surroundings, therefore standing out, and also partially transparent. Of course, that isn't a concise argument as we don't know if the apparitions in other pictures are legitimate either.

Once I have your answers, I can attempt to help you further. I likely won't know for sure what it is, but I can work to rule other things out.

Son of Oda

P.S. davespanners also makes a great point
edit on 21-5-2011 by SonOfOda because: Added post script



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
Just put it through a forensic image checker.....

errorlevelanalysis.com...


And yup....its manipulated....sorry to all you believers in this nonsense....learn to use some software before calling all us skeptics idiots eh


Could you explain how the analysis proves it's a fake? I'm not trying to question the validity of your argument, only how the analysis works. I'm ignorant of the workings of the tech.


Originally posted by SonOfOda
I think we can count out a reflection of some sort because as I said, the anomaly is randomly bright while the surroundings are more dim, also it's pure white, an unusual way for a reflection to be presented. Equally white


if the sun was being directly reflected into the lens it would make it render a a pure white on a Digital sensor, same as if it were a film camera the negative would be absolute Black so there would be an undeveloped area on the correlating spot. pure white is more proof that it's physical and not digital.
edit on 21-5-2011 by Poker because: added response



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


Idiots?
Wow, I hate to break it to you, but your analysis actually proves to me that this is authentic. Your so called debunking site says that this doesn't prove the photo was manipulated.
You can see that the darker area where the entity is standing is not an exact match of the photo. A shopped image would be exact. Plus, do really think that our technology can explain how these energies are going to appear in a photo? Perhaps your software savy can.
Stop insulting everyone just because you THINK you solved the case super sleuth.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


Idiots?
Wow, I hate to break it to you, but your analysis actually proves to me that this is authentic. Your so called debunking site says that this doesn't prove the photo was manipulated.
You can see that the darker area where the entity is standing is not an exact match of the photo. A shopped image would be exact. Plus, do really think that our technology can explain how these energies are going to appear in a photo? Perhaps your software savy can.
Stop insulting everyone just because you THINK you solved the case super sleuth.


LOL ok your right, its a spirit caught on tape.....i now remember why i dont frequent the paranormal threads....your all the same....goodbye...have good fun debating this and arguing about what kind of spirit it is LOL



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
If it's not fake, it could just be a glare that so happens to look like legs and a torso to the observer that is preconditioned to find faces and human forms in innocuous places.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


The clouds actually ARE NOT the same in both pictures. As others have already pointed out.


i think you need to look again.

They are TOO similar to be taken at different dates. There is no way you get almost IDENTICAL clouds in the same position anytime....it just doesn't happen.

They aren't 100% identical....second photo may have been taken 10 seconds later.


When did I ever say they were taken at different dates? They were taken one right after the other, in the span of a few seconds I imagine, judging by the fact that the clouds do move.

They were also both taken outside of the tour bus.
edit on 21-5-2011 by OrganicAnagram33 because: Grammar



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


"Spirit caught on tape" Tape? What year do you think it is?
I think you need to visit more paranormal sites and try to broaden your mind a bit instead of labeling everyone crazy. Skeptics are all the same.
See how I just painted you with the same broad brush? Not too nice huh?



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Looks absolutely terrible. Btw, give us the full sized straight from the camera images next time.

Also Skeptic + Mods. This site really shouldn't scrub exif data from photos.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 


I hope you realize that you will face a ban if this is proven to be fake right???

Posting hoaxes/fakes claiming they are real is not allowed....so....if you do know that it was manipulated you had better own up before your account is banned.

Looks like photoshop to me...going to do some analyisis myself, and suggest other members do the same so this can be thrown in the correct forum....(HOAX)

EDIT: Look at the clouds in both pics....identical....so both pics were taken at the same time. Look at the shadows in both pics....identical....sooooo....ones been altered and we know which one that is lol.
edit on 21-5-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)


I can't believe your gall.

I am a sincere poster, hoping for some people to make a decent analysis... and this is what I get? Maybe you should consider that you're being incredibly disrespectful to say something like that. Leave it up to the mods to decide if someone gets banned or not.

I understand why people are so reluctant to put forth any image for analysis, because most people don't do any real analyzing.

I have made no claims that this is some kind of 'ghost' and even offered the explanation of mundane light artifact or digital glitch... but most seem to ignore that.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Sorry if I sound dumb, but I don't understand why the analysis of the photo 'proves' that it is fake - could someone please explain?

As I said before I don't know what the anomoly is, but my personal opinion is that the OP isn't hoaxing. I don't necessarily think it is paranomal, could be a light reflection like somebody mentioned? It might not even be a ghost of a person (or two persons), it might just appear like that because we tend to see people and faces in shapes.

But, and please OP don't take this the wrong way,
but if someone was going to do a hoax, wouldn't they make it look... better, somehow? (Hope that makes sense)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfOda
Couple of questions for you, Organic. What is the height of the house and from what point was the picture taken from? As in, how far away was the photographer and were they on level ground with the base of the house or were they lower? How close together were these pictures taken? Something to note is that the first photo is either zoomed in more or taken from inside the gate whereas in the second picture you can see that the gate is closed. Something else to note is that the lighting is equally distributed in the first photo while the second one appears to have been overall dimmed and slightly darkened, except for the anomaly which is unusually bright.

I think we can count out a reflection of some sort because as I said, the anomaly is randomly bright while the surroundings are more dim, also it's pure white, an unusual way for a reflection to be presented. Equally white just about, where as from the shadows you can see that the sunshine is coming from the left side of the photo, which would cause a smudge or shine to be uneven.

Just to note, most apparitions are also not like this anomaly. Most are a bit brighter than their surroundings, therefore standing out, and also partially transparent. Of course, that isn't a concise argument as we don't know if the apparitions in other pictures are legitimate either.

Once I have your answers, I can attempt to help you further. I likely won't know for sure what it is, but I can work to rule other things out.

Son of Oda

P.S. davespanners also makes a great point
edit on 21-5-2011 by SonOfOda because: Added post script


Unfortunately, since I have never been there, I can't offer that data. Everything I know about the photos I have provided. I can inquire highly pertinent questions to my friend so that she may ask her mother, however, I don't think they would be able to provide any info like how tall the house was and things of that nature.

Also: I think the second picture is dimmer because the camera's auto-focus/calibration is on, so whatever that bright thing is, the camera's auto-adjustment is trying to compensate for the brightness.
edit on 21-5-2011 by OrganicAnagram33 because: Addition



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Well to start I know the OP personally and I mean very very well. He isn't lying about it not being manipulated. I do not know the friend he acquired the photo from personally but I see no reason for them to be lying to the OP about that. The OP certainly did not modify the photos himself and has been assured that no one else has.
The person the OP acquired the photos from showed him these a long time ago and had no idea that he would be posting this on the internet a year, or years later.

That being said. I am also a photographer. I understand some of your inclinations to say it is Photoshop because that is possible to do digitally quite easily, BUT ease up people. The OP is NOT claiming this to be ghosts or paranormal. He is just asking for a second opinion on what it could be, besides Photoshop. I highly agree with davespanners' analysis

Originally posted by davespanners
It would be nice if you could put up the original pics with the exif data etc included, but from what I see I think there are 2 things at play here.

1) The picture was taken using a flash and at the point the flash fired something was very close up to the lense, hence reflecting the light back towards the lens and causing the white patch. Similar things happen a lot when people take flash photos and the wrist strap of the camera happens to fall in front of the lens like

This

I would suggest that an insect flew in front of the lens when the flash fired


The other thing thats happening is pardolia i.e. thinking the shape looks a lot like a person when really its just a streaky blob
edit on 21-5-2011 by davespanners because: spelling

An insect would be a really good guess, or some sort of light moving object, maybe even a leaf or along those lines. As you can see the second photo is a bit darker aside from the bright anomaly which means that the camera was on auto exposure and something light got into the frame so it thought it needed to expose the scene darker.

Otherwise hey, I am willing to say that it by some slim chance it could be two ghostly figures. I am pretty skeptical about ghosts but at the same time I do not hold all the knowledge in the universe and unlike some of you stubborn people I am willing to accept the fact that things are possible which are beyond my realm of knowledge and understanding.

But in all probability, the evidence is there to suggest something most likely got in front of the lens that the woman taking the photo didn't notice. The difference in exposure is strong evidence of that.

As a final not the two photos are clearly not the same. If you're such a photoshop whiz you should be able to match them up and figure that out pretty quickly based on the clouds.
edit on 21-5-2011 by 22ndsecond because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-5-2011 by 22ndsecond because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by davespanners
 


I don't really want to upload it again onto my account. I offered the original file names, what else would you like to see?

If there is substantial data to be gleaned other than that, I will upload doubles...

The name of the pictures is the only thing I changed, all the other info should still be there.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I have to agree that this looks fake and should of gone strait to the hoax bin.

Jeez...who's on duty around here these days?



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
the clouds more a little to the right,
it looks like a man on left with his head on the head of a girl.
and the light in the second one is darker.
the light from the two figures makes the camera compensate.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 


Zip the originals, and upload them to a file sharing site, such as 4shared.com. There is data stripped from the photos when uploaded here.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jerryznv
 


Actually I said in my above post, more than likely some sort of light object flew into the frame which is what caused the camera to expose the second picture darker.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Will do, just give me a few.





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum