Help Analyze a Photograpic Anomaly

reply to post by DrZrD


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.

Painted this with a standard white brush in Photoshop. Obviously a :

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 here.

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.

reply to post by webpirate


reply to post by Pointofview


This is all conjecture with no proof.

reply to post by OrganicAnagram33


Yes I did. See the above post of mine.

reply to post by webpirate


Show me in the code, provide solid proof.

Here it is with dramatically lowered contrast and brightness, for your viewing leisure:

reply to post by Pointofview


Thank you, and with the increased contrast it should be apparent that this is clearly not the work of an eraser.

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by webpirate

 

Show me in the code, provide solid proof.

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.

reply to post by OrganicAnagram33


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.

Originally posted by SireFurious
This looks shopped. I can tell by the pixels and by having done quite a few shops in my time.

No, seriously. I call hoax. Alerted. No flag for you. No Star. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

hmmmm...you using PS so much .. your seriously lite on your analysis....care to show us an example of such a shop and then compare the 2 pics above and show us HOW exactly how this has occured??

If not, don't make the claim 'you just know'...........anyone could say that ..it's like saying I been to Area51 & Area52 and I KNOW UFO's are real.......

so dispense with the 'I JUST KNOW THEY ARE' jargon and get on with the analysis as the OP ask for your assistance ...

reply to post by webpirate


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.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by dragonridr

 

post removed by staff

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.

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!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bb892d9fa320.jpg[/atsimg]

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!

Best regards,
Z

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.

you should allways make sure your optics are clean buddy-boy

reply to post by OrganicAnagram33

I agree with you on this. They are close, but even the image data shows they were taken 1 minute apart. They are not the same image.

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..

reply to post by Foxy1


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.

Real Ghost ......