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: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Even if the kid on the right truly was running there are many other factors that can come into play.

Does your camera have target tracking? Who was the target? What other types of on-the-fly image processing was used for this image?

I have seen pictures like this many time, they look weird and ghostly but it's just a problem snapping the photo or developing the image...

I would kill the idea that this kid is a see through super being, or that this image is a sign of his future ASAP before you fill this kid's head with poisonous ideas.




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I'm not an expert on digital cameras, but I can't see it being shutter speed for one reason.

The transparent part of him is still well defined and not blurry.

The only way I can see this being possible is if the camera stuffed up and quickly took 2 seperate exposures while he quickly moved. But he must have moved very quick if the kid in the back was moving fast.

I have a theory that will not be welcomed here, so check your U2Us.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Not got time to read the whole thread but the picture is possibly part of a panoramic image. I've done this before and it happens when the camera doesn't stitch the images together quite accurately. I took one a while back on an old phone where my brother had three legs and half of his torso was see through. Don't have the image any more.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
This effect is nothing new people.. It’s very easy to make on an SLR. My Nikon's allows you to take up to 3 or 4 exposures and combine them into one (In camera). The first looks normal while the others look see through! I can re-create the picture seen by putting my camera on a tri-pod, take the first photo, then add the second boy into the frame and take another. Or while your camera is on the tripod, take 2 pics one with one boy and another with the second child, then photo shop the second image into the first with a blending mode of 50%.

Take a look at this photo.. That's my daughter and my 1 son.. but I added him using the same method described minus the 50% opacity... if I had done so, my son would have looked like a ghost (see through).

www.pbase.com...

edit on 19-12-2011 by Beowolfs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


Don't believe Photoshop pics! Those effects are not difficult to create!



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
There is also the possibility of a rapid double exposure, though the slow shutter and late flash probably answers the question. I had a frame that got stuck in a camera we took on a trip across the country. It has people in the backyard around the trampoline in Pittsburgh, two shots of the St. Louis Arch, a sunset over the Rockies, and a streetcar on a hill in San Fran and two images of Alcatraz island that all imaged though the entire frame had a blue cast, there were a couple of other images also not as clearly to define.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
I'm not an expert on digital cameras, but I can't see it being shutter speed for one reason.

The transparent part of him is still well defined and not blurry.

The only way I can see this being possible is if the camera stuffed up and quickly took 2 seperate exposures while he quickly moved. But he must have moved very quick if the kid in the back was moving fast.

I have a theory that will not be welcomed here, so check your U2Us.



There is a photographer on this thread - trust me, as staff, he knows what he is talking about. He is highly useful all over ATS with his knowledge for a long time.......Id listen to what he has to say....

I know....because Im the same way.....we all want to BELIEVE this (or many of the images floating around) is something special, paranormal, whatever. But we all need to live in a world of reality too.....and this is a KNOWN affect of camera settings, the user and the subject combined. Whether one wants to accept that answer or not does not change the fact....it is a TRUTH (something we should all strive for)....
edit on December 19th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Like I said before, I have no way to prove that it is not photoshoped but I have no need or want to post a photoshoped picture. I know it was unaltered because I was there. Now @ilustronic gave an idea that I see as actually plausable, and thatis a partial double exposure.

It could not have been slow shutter speed because [I will state this again] the kid in the back was RUNNING in to picture. So if slow shutter speed was the culperate he would be VERY blurry.

Im leaning toward the partial double exposure. Thanks to @illustonic for bringing that idea to light.

edit on 19-12-2011 by Talltexxxan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I do these photos all the time! Great example of slow shutter. Matter of fact my Christmas cards often have them! So cool! Nice way to capture it by catching the flash on the first kid (why he is clear and sharp). But since the other kid was not sitting at the time or got up after it is why he is see-through.

Now let's think for a moment if this was real and truly paranormal event!
First the kid or someone else caused the effect on the film. Ok I can dig that. So they are bio luminescent? And are able to create a flash with their bodies and trick the camera? Hmmm nobody saw this?

Second. The kid is really transparent. Ok again nobody saw this while taking the photo?

Third. The kid is multi-dimensional and the camera was fast enough to catch his phase shift in the process of returning or leaving. Well this one steps out of my knowledge of physics and quantum mechanics so consulting an expert would be your best option.

Now it cannot possibly be my original none-paranormal explanation because all children are special, and the paranormal only exists for those who are also special enough to see and believe it...



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Actually the flash is the give away here. I have many times flashed someone, Then setup something else in the image another person or an object. Here are some examples.

Both of these photos are in camera effects! NO PHOTOSHOP! AND...both can happen due to camera malfunction!




This one is actually two different kids!



WHOA Magic? GHOSTS? Hyper(oh yes Hyper sure but...)Dimensional Kids? No...



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

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.


100% Correct!

This is why the rest of his body is solid just below the shoulder. An observation the OP failed to mention. It is why they blur also moves from right to left. The digital point and shoots can have a delay in enough time to cause this.

No offense that he is not transparent, though he looks like a great kid.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I guess the coment " your monther was not a window maker" holds no water here..



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 


Yet you conviniently leave out the whole part about the other boy running untill there is a known explanation found.
Also he may have been running but he obviously stopped when the picture was taken. Or are you actually claiming that there is a bigger change of this one kid being a magical being rather than a known photographic effect?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
this is seriously the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen make it to the front page of ats.... its sad. this thread, and all of its replies.

apparently 95% of the ats community have never taken pictures at all...ever. seriously?

i have a degree in photography, and have been a professional photographer for many years now. when i do photography jobs such as a reception for a wedding, which is usually a dimly lit room or dance floor where i have to use a flash, i either unintentional get this effect because im to distracted too keep an eye on my camera settings or i intentionally attempt to achieve the effect to give the feeling of movement when taking photos such as people dancing, or even people just sitting at a table eating. the pictures have a better feel when you have this type of action in them, vs. a plain picture of people sitting at a table with a fork frozen in the air on the way to their mouth or a person dancing with their leg frozen in the air in a weird position...... with movement in the photo, you can show the forks path of movement, or the legs path of movement. it looks way better that way......which is exactly what is going on in this photo. you are seeing movement. the blurry/see through parts are where the child stood still the least, while the less blurry/see through parts are where he stood still the most during this long exposure. its that plain....and simple. typically most people auto exposure settings on their point and shoots do faster/shorter exposure so most pictures arent like this.

even if i wasnt a photographer, every single person i know has a point a shoot camera, and every single one of them always takes pictures like this every single time they pull their camera out and start taking pictures. its just a common problem (depends on how you look at it, could be a neat effect) that all the auto exposure point and shoot cameras that have flashes......have. the end. period.

i feel stupider for even participating in this thread.

and like some one else said, you say this kid has adhd.......and your wondering why a picture of him shows him not being able to stay still long enough for an exposure thats merely seconds long......seriously?

i love ats, and read it daily. i keep an ats tab up in my browser and refresh it hourly. i believe in everything be it unbelievable or believable.

but again...this is just flat out dumb.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
This is just effin stupid. Clearly it's a photo mishap. I can't stand people who can not distinguish reality from fantasy, especially when the subject is over a dysfunctional brat who has "A.D.D." where the parents think he's some kind of special gift. OOOOoooohhh, look my child has special properties and appears translucent in 1 photo! I'm going to take the credibility of A.T.S. down a couple hundred notches just to get some opinions from other kooks who also have a hard time with fantasy vs. reality.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by timesacomin
this is seriously the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen make it to the front page of ats.... its sad. this thread, and all of its replies.

apparently 95% of the ats community have never taken pictures at all...ever. seriously?


Meh, I would say 95% of the ats community jumps onto a thread and posts before actually reading the thread (heck I did). For instance, if someone were to look at page one of this thread, they might miss out on the fact that most who have posted a reply are in favor of a slow shutter... heck I'd even go as far as saying 95% of them.

I kill me.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Seriously, dude? Go to Google and look up shutter speeds before you post this stuff on here.




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   




If you look at the boys collar you can see that he moved (he has two)....

Probably a case of the fast moving slow shutter effect....



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
well just take another photo and see if the same happens...probably not

its been explained by others replying

I suppose its nice to feel special even for a short time



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Well say what you will. The mother asked me to post this and see what yall thought. I put the other info in there about the boy just to have some brack ground on him.

I REALLY dont think it was slow shutter speed because of many reasons
A- the image is not 'stretch' as it would be if there was movement.
B- The boy in the background would be very blurry due to him running into frame
C- All the other pictures that night were all crystal clear


Another poster suggested that it may be a partial double exposure. Now THAT I see as the most probable explanation.

Get off your high horse people, ohh this dumb, this is stupid......

Yes, I forgot to mention in the OP that the boy in the background was moving. That would have cleared up the slow shutter speed argument. But to not read the thread and then post is just plain lazy.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join