That entity is nothing like what we see in the OP's photo. This image looks like an overexposed butterfly or something. What I posted doesn't even
do the original justice because there is quality loss from me saving it again. Just blow up the original and look at this area. The white areas are
perfectly circular. You can see the circles from the circular erasure tool.
Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
Also, there seems to be some kind of blue hue around one end of the small white spot... doesn't look like the work of an eraser to me.
If you look at the same area on the tree/brush in the non-anomalous photo, you can see that there is a similar, albeit smaller, white spot.
It is normal and has to do with the canvas background and the hardness of the eraser tool. A better explanation is
As for any anomalies in the other photo, I can't offer an opinion since there is not an original to look at. Since there is quality loss from all
images in this thread except for the original any size adjustments will blur the image too much to see what we need to.
What more do you want? People have posted links that show the large anomaly area has been saved less than the rest of the image. I have shown blownups
of an area that shows signs of manipulation. You asked for help in identifying the white area in your image. Yet when multiple people offer numerous
levels of proof all you do is continue to ask for more while ignoring everything offered.
I have tried to explain why your "blue hue" is there. The hue is MORE proof this has been altered. Not LESS. I never said anything about the large
white area being an erasure. I said there was evidence in the image of manipulation close to that area so I would have to throw the entire image out.
The "main area" is quite obviously not erased. But since I am positive this has been altered I don't believe any other anomalies either.
Furthermore, when I first opened this in Fireworks, the image shows 3 different layers in addition to a background layer. Those layers are locked so I
can't remove them to see what was done in them. Normal photos do not come with multiple layers.
edit on 21-5-2011 by webpirate because: additional thoughts...
The pictures of the house are the exact same photo just the last when was enlarged slightly look at the clouds they match exactly. Ive never noticed
clouds to stand still so you can snap 2 photos. Nice try but i have to call this a fake.Even if by some chance clouds did stand still for a moment in
time and the photo is real you could never prove it without EXIF data on the original camera.
I don't find your argument convincing, because I know this picture has not been altered. There was much said about obtaining the original photo so
the file information could be analyzed as a true indication of its legitimacy. Now, if you could prove it has been manipulated that way, and not
merely through calling potential digital glitchery manipulation, you would have a much stronger case on your hands. makeitso has not shown objection
to the legitimacy of this information, and he was the strongest proponent for acquiring it. I believe you are knowledgeable in photography and
editing, but I just don't buy your argument because I know its not the case.
Wrong the clouds didnt change at all just the contrast ratio changed making it loose some details in the clouds.when you make it brighter white tends
to lose detail but it doesnt effect the dark patches in the sky and they still match.
edit on Sat May 21 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because:
(no reason given)
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!
Funny... because it seems they are quite natural in their changing. By the way, I'm not going to respond to this lame argument anymore, there are
more pertinent things to convince people of about this photo.
P.S.: Dragonridr, you're making a fool of yourself.
edit on 21-5-2011 by OrganicAnagram33 because: P.S.
Hey OP, S&F for this.. I to have seen a few things on my digital camera as well as other.. to which I can NOT explain out they got there~!!
NOW .. for all you 'debunkers' and Nay Sayers that INSTANTLY point out that these pictures are nothing but hoax... well.. keep you hat on and do a
little more RESEARCH and in the mean time..
DEBUNK THIS analysis in the video and compare THIS video to the pictures in the OP..
The million dollar question remains..now, how are 'energies' able to imprint themselves onto photographs ?? I have no idea.. but I believe
it's true.. I personally believe FoF has the $$$$ and experience behind what they investigate to bring solid evidence to the table one way or the
other.. and when they say Faked.. I believe them because they have no sake in the claim otherwise .. and the only a few times I've had to question
their data.. doesn't mean I right, doesn't mean FoF is wrong..
it means.. both of us need more data.. and it could be a lack of technology at the present time to make a solid judgement one way or the other..
Will do 'buddy boy', but if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know it wasn't me, or my camera that took the picture. However, as lame
as your argument is, its better than the 'it's photoshopped' argument.
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2013, The Above Network, LLC.