It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "see through" kid **PICTURE**

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Reminds me of.




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Amanda5
 


Look at the top of his head.It's the same thing that's in the op's pic,just not to the same extreme.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Holy [snip].... after reading through this thread in it's entirety, I can now see the vast amounts of pure ignorance flung around this thread...

And I'll say straight out, Amanda5, you're fueling the ignorance more than anyone. First of all, the OP posted this thread because he's fishing for answers like this....


Originally posted by Amanda5
My suggestion is the Child is a very evolved Soul and emits an extraordinary amount of energy and Spirit. These are areas of study yet to be included in mainstream education. Something profound here despite the photographers who have posted stating their suggestions. While I respect the suggestions of the photographers who have responded to this thread - none have explained and demonstrated what has caused this phenomena.

Educate yourself. And no, before you ask for facts and examples, I will not do it for you. Nothing worse that trying to show truth to those that are closed minded. Yes, I said closed. Being a believer in esoteric new age spiritual brouhaha doesn't automatically make you open minded. And I say this based on your responses to those with logical explanations. The phenomenon seen here is a common occurrence, and has been demonstrated within this thread.

 

For those of you spouting off about the "seam" in the photo.... really? You can't see clear as day the archway in the background? You're looking at a wall with an archway, in front of another wall, both happen to be brick. And don't get me started on the fact that the mods fell onto this bandwagon... I would have expected better


In fact, believing there is an edit in this photo is about as ignorant as believing the kid is translucent.

 

Now, back to the author of this OP. You state....


Originally posted by Talltexxxan
Okay all you "Slow shutter" speed people. If the shutter speed was slow the kid in the background would have been one big blur, because he was running into the picture!

I repeat... The kid in the back was RUNNING. So if the shutter speed was slowed, he would be extremly blurry. Plus the camera was not on a tripod so if the speed 'was' slowed the whole picture would have been blurry.

I say, you are a blatantly lying. You're telling me the kid is "running" but just happened to stop at the very second the photo was taken, look directly into the lens, smile for it and strike a pose? Bull[snip]


Originally posted by Talltexxxan
Also the picture was taken by a 58 y/o woman that took 4 hours to hook up a playstation let alone figure out how to change settings on a camera.

But apparently this rules out the possibility that she didn't know what the [snip] she was doing and happened to take a bad photo? Lots of logic in that one. Just oozing all over the place really.


And what kind of jerk makes an older woman with no technical knowledge set up a PlayStation for 4 hours? And what kind of idiot can't figure out how and where to make 2-4 connections to a television set in 4 hours? You can read the instruction manual to both devices in less than 1 hour.
(sorry, personal observation)


Originally posted by Talltexxxan
And as any parent would know taking pictures of a group of kids being still is almost immposable.

.... do I really have to point out the irony of this statement?

 

Okay, tangent over. Sorry to be so snarky, but I took the time to read through this awful thread, and there was no way I could bite my tongue on this one.

Enjoy fighting over whether this is a ghost kid or a Photoshop edit. Neither are true.


edit on 19-12-2011 by Lighterside because: because I can!



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by neowakko
I find it hard to believe that this is a serious topic. Anyone with a camera has accidentally done this in low light situations.

The kid moved. Even a half-second shutter is more than enough to do this. How much can you move in half a second? Observe yourself when you sneeze or cough. You can move alot in half a second.

Out of the 3 children, 2 of them seem aware that a photo was being taken. The see thru child isn't.
Therefore it is safe to assume that 2 kids posed for a picture and 1 kid caught unaware.

I can see how the OP wants to relate it to something supernatural, but this is a bit much.


Best logical reply in the entire thread.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Talltexxxan
Okay all you "Slow shutter" speed people. If the shutter speed was slow the kid in the background would have been one big blur, because he was running into the picture!

I repeat... The kid in the back was RUNNING. So if the shutter speed was slowed, he would be extremly blurry. Plus the camera was not on a tripod so if the speed 'was' slowed the whole picture would have been blurry.


Doesn't look like running to me. He is just obviously leaning into the frame.
Also you can easily get this effect on 1/10th of shutter speed. You can easily take sharp shots at that too.



Also the picture was taken by a 58 y/o woman that took 4 hours to hook up a playstation let alone figure out how to change settings on a camera.


So it was on A-mode then? Exactly as we had thought.



The rest of the pictures that night were all crisp and clear. And as any parent would know taking pictures of a group of kids being still is almost immposable.


Don't know the relevance of this since we don't have the rest of the pictures. Also we have no idea where and on what settings the rest were taken.



Check out the amount of the chair you can see. the boy would have to be moving insanly fast for the camera to catch the chair behind him while also not blurring the running kid in the background.


Good thing you pointed out the chair. That just reinforces that this a naturally occuring effect with long exposures. You notice that everywhere he is transparent only on the edges. That means he was sitting at that spot and moved within it to reveal some but not all of the background. He could've been sideways or something to that effect.



Sorry to rain on your 'slow shutter speed' parade.


Sorry to rain on your reality. Either you can acknowledge what has happened here or you can believe that unicorns made the boy half-transparent.

edit on 19/12/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Google slow sync ghosting, and check the images.

Nothing more than the camera most likely was set to the wrong settings when taking the pic or if on auto chose the wrong mode ( depends on lighting and metering etc)

Next.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Yup just slow shutter speed. Nothing abnormal here. As you can see his shirt is "seethrough" aswell. Which excludes any medical or paranormal explanation to this. Camera #ed up for a second, thats it.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Lighterside
 


Please don't tell me to educate myself. I heave free speech and free thought. If you do not agree with me fine. Arrogance is a very unattractive trait. If you don't like the tone or content of a thread feel free to move on.

Much Peace...



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 

It depends on HOW slow the shutter speed is. You can very well get sharp images with without a tripod and yet get such artifacts. I have had this exact issue happen myself several times even without using tripod. My guess is that the boy suddenly moved exactly when the picture was taken.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
see through kid? is this for real? people in the year 2011 can't tell this is a camera effect thing, they actually call out ghost.My god we are doomed , there is no hope for civilization. We should really be wiped out , we are too stupid and unworthy



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 


Shutter speed. Look at the woman in the left of the picture, you can see how her hair is slightly blurring out, shutter speed.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unvarnished
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 


This is definitely photoshopped, there are options on photo editing software that changes the transparency of the picture to how much you want it. Cool effect though! Lol


Like I've stated before, its not photochoped. Do I have anyway to prove that it isnt? No, but I take my reputation seriously here and I would not post a photochoped picture. I was there when this picture was taken, and atthe end of the night when we were looking at the camera of all the pics from the night, we then noticed the anomoly.

And it couldnt have been slow shutter speed, becuase the kid in the background was moving (running into the picture) when the picture was taken. So if anyone was to be blurry, it would have been him



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I know that slow shutter speed would cause this effect along with a quick moving kid. And normally I would have just writen it off as such. But if that were the case then the kid in the background would have been very blurry, as he was definetly moving when the pic was taken.

I wouldnt have posted this here if it wasnt for the knowledge that the kid in the back was running into the picture.
I know it looks as if he was meerly leaning into the pic but he was sitting on the other side of the table and once he saw the camera come up he jumped out of his seat and ran over. he was still moving when the pic was snapped, I know this because he tripped after the pic was snapped.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by Lighterside
 


Please don't tell me to educate myself. I heave free speech and free thought. If you do not agree with me fine. Arrogance is a very unattractive trait. If you don't like the tone or content of a thread feel free to move on.

Much Peace...


I wouldn't feel enticed to tell you to educate yourself if you weren't refuting both photographers, and plain common sense as if you were an expert on the subject.

Arrogance may be unattractive, but unfortunately I'm not trying to attract you, and I tend to leave my attractions reserved for those who know how to critically think.

If you don't like the mission statement of "deny ignorance" on the site you visit, feel free to move on.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I've seen lots of pictures like this. In fact, there are some pictures from my childhood, of ME looking transparent. Unless I have suffered a serious oversight, I'm not a ghost or translucent being. It happens from a slow shutter speed catching a moving object and creating an image of what was behind the moving object.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Qumulys
 


Nailed it on the head.


Thanks to the OP though for bringing this picture to my attention and Qumulys's debunking. Now I can let others know should this pop up again.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Are you even serious?

He was obviously moving!



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I've managed to spoil my photos with the same effect when I purchased new camera, had to adjust the auto settings to get better shots.Nice to read the science behind it. Thanks to the informative posts.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amanda5
Looking at the first photograph - of the three Children with the Child of interest in the centre.

The little boy has his hand by his side - holding the chair - as if he is bracing himself to rise up out of the chair. His hand is a little blurry but does not seem to be transparent at all - even though as we move our gaze up his body the transparency gradually starts to take effect.

If the transparent nature of the Child is due to technology - surely the effect would encompass the entire body and not become evident gradually. Just throwing that thought into the mix.

Much Peace...


What are you talking about?!. "..the effect would encompass the entire body and not become evident gradually..." That just makes no sense at all. Actually your entire sentence makes no sense at all. Beginning with "the transparent nature of the child". What is that!?

The answer is so simple. The kid moves his head+shoulder during shutter time. That's all. No mystery. A small jerk is enough to cause that effect. ADHD patients are well know for small jerks, tics and sudden movements.


Much violence, putrid acid and volatile hatred.
edit on 19-12-2011 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I took a picture up in Alaska when I was there, actually a bunch of pictures at a pow wow in Homer. For the front page I took a picture of myself in the room I was staying in and on the wall behind me was a painting of an American Indian with a off white wall. I set the camera up on a trpod, set the time for a delayed click and took the pose ready for the timer to triger... it did, picture taken... Well when I got it back from Walmart as I viewed the picture it had an exposure like YOUR picture here. Mine however came out way cool in that it was a good picture of me, and the Indian picture on the wall with the off white background had the effect of 'coming out of my mind' I don't know how it happened, I was using Fuji 200 with a Canon Rebel EOS 35mm on auto focus. I don't think there's much to the 'weird factor' here as you'd like to believe, and the boys certainly not see-through ...lol. You just happened upon some anomoly as I did with mine. No Mystery. I'm sure a photography expert will inform the readers how these double whatevers happen.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join