It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 21
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in


posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:13 PM

Originally posted by immortalcamel

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.......

What other forum would be better suited for analyzing a photographic anomaly that almost everyone associates with a ghost? No, I have not stated this is a ghost, although it's a possibility, I'm not going to deny that.

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:19 PM
reply to post by elevenaugust

Originally posted by elevenaugust
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!

I'll see if missthinks can acquire other photos taken with the same camera. I don't know how well that will go though, seeing how she said that the person who took the pictures was unhappy to learn they were being shared on the internet.

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:37 PM

Originally posted by bronco73

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.

It seems once again, your are the one making presumptions, and/or didn't bother to read all the posts. You seem to think that everyone should be at the same level of competency/ability that you are. That there is no need for a learning curve. Yes my wife is now capable of much more mechanically than when she was stranded all night during a heavy rain without wipers. She also has a cell phone and can use it proficiently. Cell phones were not available then like they are today.

You also presume to know my mind and what I think. My first post was:

Originally posted by Gibborium

Originally posted by sprocket2cog
Ok, so here is a image error analysis.

image A is a forensic error analyisis of the original image as seen in image B (the one from the opening post)
as you can see there is no white areas around the ghost anomaly, it shows as a slightly darker spot, but there is no blocks or marks..
the way then software works, it picks up errors in compression from edited areas and highlights them in varying brightness.
as an example of how an edited photo would appear, i have included the image (image C) that solid007 edited to make it hard to find the edit...(he added light to the stairs and door way)
but as you can see the area on the steps where he made small edits is clearly show in the error analysis image D.
so at this point i would say if the original image was edited its a very good job indeed..
heres the site you can use to do your own comparison of the images
edit on 22-5-2011 by sprocket2cog because: (no reason given)

It appears to me, you have done an excellent job in your analysis. You definitely show there is a difference in the OP image and the faked image produced by makeitso. After reading all the posts and seeing the examples that others have tried to put forth to show that the OP image was shopped puts that idea down. IMHO it appears the OP image is genuine, not photo shopped, not faked digitally. I think this is the final nail in the photo shopped side of the debunkers.

I am going with genuine artifact. However, that still does not answer the question of what it is, and/or what caused the anomaly.


I don't seem to see where I "made the presumption that the OP was telling the Gospel truth without question, and [that I] you assumed his statements to be accurate without proof of such." I read and weighed the information that had been presented, and in my opinion, the debunkers had not been able to refute the evidence which had been given.

And it has been establish through testimony, elementary deduction, and extensive analysis, that the digital photos presented by the OP have not been manipulated. Yes, the right person with the right knowledge might possibly be capable of fraud. IMHO, the evidence given so far reveals a very high possibility that the digital photos posted are genuine and have not been manipulated, or faked/shopped as so many are willing to state without ever looking at the evidence.

So let's focus on the original intent of the OP. Let's examine the photos and see if we can determine what the anomoly possibly could be.

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:43 PM
Here is a youtube of a phenomenon known as a "rod" or "flying fish". They were once thought to be inter-demensional beings and other paranormal things, but as the video shows, they are simply an insect that is caught by the camera that is moving faster than the shutter can stop it in motion.

This is one of the possible explanations, but, in my opinion, the shape is wrong for any flying insect.
edit on 5/26/2011 by Gibborium because: youtube link

edit on 5/26/2011 by Gibborium because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/26/2011 by Gibborium because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/27/2011 by Gibborium because: (no reason given)

top topics
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in