Help Analyze a Photograpic Anomaly

page: 20
34
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
You can tell that they are 2 different pictures taken real close 2 the same time like picture 4 and 5 .
Not sure about the white spot so gonna hold comment.




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gibborium

Originally posted by bronco73

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
I reiterate: I don't appreciate the 'its altered comments'... because its not. It was taken by a middle-aged woman who knows little to nothing about technology. They didn't even see it until my friend loaded the pictures from their trip onto the computer. You're wasting your time and mine.

Please, at least have the sense to say its a digital glitch or a light reflection or something.


A middle aged woman who knows nothing about technology, yet was able to figure out how to quite effectively purchase and use a digital camera, and by your own original post was able to hook it up to a computer that she must have figured out how to install the software for, copy the pictures from the camera to the computer, and electronically send them to you.

Not to be rude, but if she can do that, then she can just as easily click on the dodge or burn tool. I'm not saying she did and I actually think I believe you when you say she did not. However, to make the claim that she is incapable of accomplishing that feat due to her own incompetence, especially in light of what she had already accomplished, it is quite easy to see why it can appear to be a hoax.
edit on 25-5-2011 by bronco73 because: fixed runon sentences.


First, the woman who took the pictures is different from the woman that down loaded them from the camera to the computer.

My wife knows how to drive a car very well. She even drives a stick shift with great proficiency, but she couldn't change a tire, change wiper blades, or even put oil in the car, let alone do body or mechanical work on it. Just because someone can take digital pictures and download them to a computer (especially in this day of plug and play) does not mean they can edit, a picture in PS or any other editing tool. Besides, it has pretty much been established that the pictures have not been manipulated digitally.

Why not try and post a comment on topic either pro or con rather than trolling. I say this with kind yet firm voice.


If your wife was alone on a deserted highway without contact she'd find a way to change that tire mighty quickly. As well for the blades and oil, you and I both know that she doesn't do it because she doesn't have to, or should I say want to. The blades come with instructions, the jack comes with instructions, and the owners manual of that car shows her where the oil goes.

It has not been "established" that the image was not manipulated. It was stated by the OP with no way to prove or disprove the claim. That is hardly an established fact, unless you blindly believe every single thing that is told to you, regardless of how outlandish it may be.

And, had you actually thuroughly read my post you would have seen that I did in fact tell the OP that I believed him that the person of subject did not manipulate the photo.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Take a step back from the discussion?

I really did read the vast majority of the posts (I jumped a few in the middle).

A good guess is that every one posting has seen remarkable photographs purported to be of ghosts or other paranormal subjects. Some of those have been proven fake and some not, but not one proves the unprovable.

So, let us assume that we can prove and have proved that this image has not been digitally modified. So what? What then would we know?

The image was not submitted as proof of the existence of ghosts. If it could be proved not to be a fake, we do not even have eyewitnesses saying that they saw what the camera photographed-- and even that would not prove anything-- we know that cameras record data we do not see with the eye and visa versa.

Many times, I looked closely at a photograph taken by a family friend, which the friend believed to be the ghost which had manifest itself in many and various ways in his home for many years. He and his wife interacted with it. I had been in their home countless times and never sensed a thing, never witnessed anything unusual but fully trusted my friends. The photo I examined was taken sometime in the 1970's and was similar to the one being discussed on this thread. A saw a very bright complex blob beside a lamp. My friends who took the picture, looking at the same thing, are certain that they are looking at their ghost.

In that case, it is a ghost story with visual evidence supporting events witnessed by several persons in the home over the years, but not by me. In this case we have a visual anomaly with no story at all. My point, I hope, is clear: This is a huge discussion that can have no no meaning, even if it had some possible resolution.

We have a saying: "You're beating a dead horse."

My two cents? I see a picture with a ghost-like image of a man and a woman kissing... and I have seen stranger things, as I would think we all have. Neat, and thanks to the OP for sharing.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bronco73

Originally posted by Gibborium

Originally posted by bronco73

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
I reiterate: I don't appreciate the 'its altered comments'... because its not. It was taken by a middle-aged woman who knows little to nothing about technology. They didn't even see it until my friend loaded the pictures from their trip onto the computer. You're wasting your time and mine.

Please, at least have the sense to say its a digital glitch or a light reflection or something.


A middle aged woman who knows nothing about technology, yet was able to figure out how to quite effectively purchase and use a digital camera, and by your own original post was able to hook it up to a computer that she must have figured out how to install the software for, copy the pictures from the camera to the computer, and electronically send them to you.

Not to be rude, but if she can do that, then she can just as easily click on the dodge or burn tool. I'm not saying she did and I actually think I believe you when you say she did not. However, to make the claim that she is incapable of accomplishing that feat due to her own incompetence, especially in light of what she had already accomplished, it is quite easy to see why it can appear to be a hoax.
edit on 25-5-2011 by bronco73 because: fixed runon sentences.


First, the woman who took the pictures is different from the woman that down loaded them from the camera to the computer.

My wife knows how to drive a car very well. She even drives a stick shift with great proficiency, but she couldn't change a tire, change wiper blades, or even put oil in the car, let alone do body or mechanical work on it. Just because someone can take digital pictures and download them to a computer (especially in this day of plug and play) does not mean they can edit, a picture in PS or any other editing tool. Besides, it has pretty much been established that the pictures have not been manipulated digitally.

Why not try and post a comment on topic either pro or con rather than trolling. I say this with kind yet firm voice.


If your wife was alone on a deserted highway without contact she'd find a way to change that tire mighty quickly. As well for the blades and oil, you and I both know that she doesn't do it because she doesn't have to, or should I say want to. The blades come with instructions, the jack comes with instructions, and the owners manual of that car shows her where the oil goes.

It has not been "established" that the image was not manipulated. It was stated by the OP with no way to prove or disprove the claim. That is hardly an established fact, unless you blindly believe every single thing that is told to you, regardless of how outlandish it may be.

And, had you actually thoroughly read my post you would have seen that I did in fact tell the OP that I believed him that the person of subject did not manipulate the photo.


I know my wife and you do not. You cannot presume that you know how my wife will react nor what is capable of doing. My wife is not mechanically inclined nor capable of doing those kinds of things. She has been stranded many times with flats and other malfunctions, and has tried to change the tires, change wiper blades, etc. These are actual examples . She was not able to accomplish any of these tasks even though she had a huge desire to do so. She was stranded in the middle of the night during a huge storm with heavy rains and a set of wipers that were useless. I always carry an extra set for such emergencies in the trunk. She was with another woman that was just as ignorant mechanically. They pulled into a filling station that was closed and no one was around. Try as she might, with wipers in hand, she was unable to change them and had to wait the night out till the rain had stopped before they could continue on.

So do not make presumptions concerning the character of my wife.

elevenaugust has done some thorough investigation and has been leaning more to the not manipulated side:



CONCLUSION: Chroma subsampling of both "ghost" photos is consistant with what we should expect to see in a genuine original Sony DSC-W55 photo and couldn't have been faked using solely any graphics programs, even with replacing false exifs datas with other genuine taken from an original photo.

His investigation has been precise and although he is still doing some research the above quote is just one example of what he has found so far.

You said:



Not to be rude, but if she can do that, then she can just as easily click on the dodge or burn tool. I'm not saying she did and I actually think I believe you when you say she did not. However, to make the claim that she is incapable of accomplishing that feat due to her own incompetence, especially in light of what she had already accomplished, it is quite easy to see why it can appear to be a hoax.

The woman who took the picture was not the one who transferred them to the computer. And this is an assumption on your part. I gave an actual example of a similar situation where the person could not accomplish the task. He was not making a claim, he was stating an observation. And what had she already accomplished? One took pictures and another connected the camera to the computer and clicked the mouse a few times to down load them. In other words, she can drive the car, but doesn't understand the mechanics of the car.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gibborium
I know my wife and you do not. You cannot presume that you know how my wife will react nor what is capable of doing. My wife is not mechanically inclined nor capable of doing those kinds of things. She has been stranded many times with flats and other malfunctions, and has tried to change the tires, change wiper blades, etc. These are actual examples . She was not able to accomplish any of these tasks even though she had a huge desire to do so. She was stranded in the middle of the night during a huge storm with heavy rains and a set of wipers that were useless. I always carry an extra set for such emergencies in the trunk. She was with another woman that was just as ignorant mechanically. They pulled into a filling station that was closed and no one was around. Try as she might, with wipers in hand, she was unable to change them and had to wait the night out till the rain had stopped before they could continue on.

So do not make presumptions concerning the character of my wife.

Presumptions are made every day in every way. You made the presumption that the OP was telling the Gospel truth without question, and you assumed his statements to be accurate without proof of such.

And I'm sorry, but if your wife is as you say very capable of driving a car and is quite efficient at driving a standard transmission, then she is also very capable of turning off an oil cap and spilling a quart of oil into the hole. It's no different than pouring herself a glass of juice. Or is she not capable of doing that either? Unless she is a complete vegetable or has the brain power of a gnat, she is more than capable of doing those things. You are either being mislead, or you are incredibly naive.


Originally posted by Gibborium
elevenaugust has done some thorough investigation and has been leaning more to the not manipulated side:

Good for him. Like I said earlier, so am I. However, unlike you I will not discount the possibility or even likelihood that the image was fake.


Originally posted by Gibborium
The woman who took the picture was not the one who transferred them to the computer. And this is an assumption on your part. I gave an actual example of a similar situation where the person could not accomplish the task. He was not making a claim, he was stating an observation. And what had she already accomplished? One took pictures and another connected the camera to the computer and clicked the mouse a few times to down load them. In other words, she can drive the car, but doesn't understand the mechanics of the car.


I will say again, the person who shot the picture was perfectly capable of finding a suitable digital camera, purchasing it, learning how to use it and take a rather impressive picture. If she can do that, she can do the rest. Unless she is like your wife who can learn how to drive a stick but cannot pour a quart of oil or read an instruction manual.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I have a theory that this image is shopped. And poorly shopped at that.


Good luck getting your credibility back.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bronco73

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
I reiterate: I don't appreciate the 'its altered comments'... because its not. It was taken by a middle-aged woman who knows little to nothing about technology. They didn't even see it until my friend loaded the pictures from their trip onto the computer. You're wasting your time and mine.

Please, at least have the sense to say its a digital glitch or a light reflection or something.


A middle aged woman who knows nothing about technology, yet was able to figure out how to quite effectively purchase and use a digital camera, and by your own original post was able to hook it up to a computer that she must have figured out how to install the software for, copy the pictures from the camera to the computer, and electronically send them to you.

Not to be rude, but if she can do that, then she can just as easily click on the dodge or burn tool. I'm not saying she did and I actually think I believe you when you say she did not. However, to make the claim that she is incapable of accomplishing that feat due to her own incompetence, especially in light of what she had already accomplished, it is quite easy to see why it can appear to be a hoax.
edit on 25-5-2011 by bronco73 because: fixed runon sentences.


Not to be rude, but if you had thoroughly read the thread bronco73, you would know that you're not accurately depicting what happened.

Maybe you should go back and read it if you want to have an intelligible argument. Assuming you probably won't, and will make some sort of quick and baseless rebuttal, I'll make it easy for you...


Originally posted by missthinks
To everyone questioning the legitimacy of this photo- I am the person the OP got the photograph from. I understand that a photographic anomaly like this is hard to take seriously, but trust me, it's not doctored (the information provided proves that it has not been modified, right?). The woman who took the shot could hardly upload the photos onto the computer, so I personally helped her do that.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Butterbone
 


Good luck gaining credibility on a site that deals with detailed analysis, when you have offered none.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
Not to be rude, but if you had thoroughly read the thread bronco73, you would know that you're not accurately depicting what happened.

Maybe you should go back and read it if you want to have an intelligible argument. Assuming you probably won't, and will make some sort of quick and baseless rebuttal, I'll make it easy for you...


No need to, I already have. My assertion is that the person who took the picture should have been able to upload it to the computer. Without that knowledge or somebody doing it for them every time pictures are taken the camera is worthless.


Originally posted by missthinks
To everyone questioning the legitimacy of this photo- I am the person the OP got the photograph from. I understand that a photographic anomaly like this is hard to take seriously, but trust me, it's not doctored (the information provided proves that it has not been modified, right?). The woman who took the shot could hardly upload the photos onto the computer, so I personally helped her do that.


I do understand that missthinks is the third party that took the picture from the camera and got it to the OP. Now, forgive me if I don't trust her, until and unless there is conclusive proof that this image is either authentic or faked, then either explanation is equally possible.


edit on 25-5-2011 by bronco73 because: OrganicAnagram couldn't figure it out as it was



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bronco73
 



Just for a second bronco73, entertain the thought that the person who took the picture was relying on others to upload it for her, because that's the case.

I'm not going to insult her intelligence, she is probably a perfectly capable woman. The point is, she hadn't learned how to upload at that point and relied on others for a speedy file transfer. Had she been left to her own devices, she would have probably figured it out in due time.
edit on 25-5-2011 by OrganicAnagram33 because: Addition
edit on 25-5-2011 by OrganicAnagram33 because: bronco73 edited his post



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by bronco73
 


No, I did not take the pictures from the camera. missthinks did for the person who took the picture. She gave me a digital copy over e-mail so I could make this thread. She then provided the originals on a file sharing website so people could go over the complete data set.


Oh my God man I put that reply there to missthinks for your benefit. Fine, I'll edit the post...
edit on 25-5-2011 by bronco73 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by bronco73
 


No, I did not take the pictures from the camera. missthinks did for the person who took the picture. She gave me a digital copy over e-mail so I could make this thread. She then provided the originals on a file sharing website so people could go over the complete data set.

Just for a second bronco73, entertain the thought that the person who took the picture was relying on others to upload it for her, because that's the case.

I'm not going to insult her intelligence, she is probably a perfectly capable woman. The point is, she hadn't learned how to upload at that point and relied on others for a speedy file transfer. Had she been left to her own devices, she would have probably figured it out in due time.
edit on 25-5-2011 by OrganicAnagram33 because: Additon


It would take all of 5 minutes to figure it out. and since this person quite obviously already has a computer, the emailing of the picture should have been equally easy.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bronco73
 


The e-mailing of the picture to whom bronco73? Are you suggesting the person that took the picture, who I don't even know, could have e-mailed it to me? I don't see what you're getting at... and no, it has not been established that this woman had a computer, it was not uploaded to hers, at least at first. I have not been told whether or not it has, and this is of no consequence to the analysis of the photo. This argument is going nowhere.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by bronco73
 


The e-mailing of the picture to whom bronco73? Are you suggesting the person that took the picture, who I don't even know, could have e-mailed it to me? I don't see what you're getting at... and no, it has not been established that this woman had a computer, it was not uploaded to hers, at least at first. I have not been told whether or not it has, and this is of no consequence to the analysis of the photo. This argument is going nowhere.


I agree and I'll end it right here. This will be my last post on the subject.

Unless the woman who took the picture is a complete imbecile, she would already have had a computer with which to access the photographs she took Or, she purchased a computer when she bought the camera. Either way, she needs a computer for the digital camera. Without one, the camera is close to useless.

The emailing or sending of the picture came from the third party who assisted the photographer of the image, to the OP. And, according to the OP, "My friend was the one that uploaded the pictures from their trip onto a computer". Since the photograph is in digital format, and the only places it resided were a digital camera (unless they deleted it) and the computer used to upload the picture to. Now, the simplest way of getting that picture from her computer to the OP would have been via email. Sure a memory stick or cd are also possible, but it would stand to reason that the person would have taken the easiest route possible to get the picture to the OP.

There, I'm done. As I promised this will be my last post on the subject. The floor is yours, flame away.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bronco73
 



Originally posted by missthinks

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


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


No need! They've actually been acquired from my mother's computer at her school, so I'd have to retrieve them from it. I will post the original soon.


They weren't acquired from the photographer's computer.

I'm fllllaaaaaming!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
If u want to find out if a photo has been manipulated, the easiest way is to read the EXIF-data on the file, or download a photo viewer software, such as Nikon ViewNX, which tells you exactly what has been done with the picture.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Ok, after spending two hours doing various tests, I finally succeed in reproduce a fake photo-test with legit exifs datas imported from a real untouched photo taken with the same camera.
JFIF Version tag disappears and YCbCr Sub Sampling is set to (2 1); the manipulation stay invisible for both EXIFTool and JPEGSnoop as well.

I won't detailed the whole process as it will undoubtedly give bad ideas to hoaxers, but I used:
- A graphic software (GIMP, Photoshop, whatever...)
- A hexadecimal editor (HexAssitant, HxD, ....)
- A photo/Exifs datas editor (PhotoMe, Exifer...)

This wasn't an easy task at all and there's no doubt in my mind that for someone to planned to do this, he should have very serious skills and knowledge in:
- Exiftool DOS command-line
- Hex editor and how to interpret datas and find the right blocks as well
- How works EXIFS datas structure
- How works JPEG format and marker

Plus, there are other ways to trying to determine either a photo was tampered with or not, like comparing (for a set of photos taken with the same camera) Huffman tables, doing a "camera noise" study...., study of an eventual blur (Fourier transform....) etc...

In spite of the possibility (small but still present nonetheless) of the photo to have been faked, I don't believe this was the case, especially at the light of what we learned in the previous pages from everyone.

Most likely this was only something very close to the camera and lit by the flash and have coincidentally a human shape.
Anyway, I'm still interested to know what could have been the cause of the EXIF datas to both photos to show these discrepancies. So, I'm waiting patiently for the OP to bring me some other photographies taken with the same camera!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33



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.


Yes you have. Then why did you post it into the paranormal studies section? Unless you believe it to be paranormal? Which would lead one to believe you believe it is a ghost. See the connection? Reflections, bugs etc are not usually considered paranormal; unless perhaps it was a reflection off a ghost. In that case, Houston we have a problem. This could be the reason people ignore everything else you say, but what do I know.......



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   


I have to question the straightness of this line, that I have marked in definition, as the only reason I my self would question the authenticity, of the anomaly there in. I'm the least person here to professionalism. I just look for things that don't make sense and point to them. Also if this were a normal house craker box style it would be a lot more believable. I'm calling hoax.
edit on 26-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Here are some interesting photos:






From an old topic here on ATS.

Conclusion at this time was that that was a bug, probably a moth, close to the camera being lit up by the flash.





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join