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.

 

Alien Grey caught in photo ?

page: 18
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by Falgore
IF THOSE ARE MY FINGERS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE THEN HOW COME THEY CAST A MUCH DARKER TONE THAN THE LEFT FINGERS ??????.


You said yourself you have changed your lighting system, so you cannot duplicate the lighting effect you had when you snapped you reflection earlier. The way your old lighting in your tank illuminated your hands looks normal to me.


quote me on where I changed my lighting system ? I had the same lighting system since July of last year

I can post more pictures dating back earlier than the original picture with my lighting system
edit on 17-2-2012 by Falgore because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Falgore
quote me on where I changed my lighting system ? I had the same lighting system since July of last year


ASked and answered here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Falgore

the rockwork is different as I change it once every few months cause I come up with something I like better I guess. The 1st pic in the original post was taken mid August I think on the 13th to be exact. And yes ever since I got a new lighting system I've had hair algae outgrow my coralline algae like crazy. Yes I can't duplicate my original shot right now 100% but the latest photo I provided if you see to the right shows the reflection of my hallway behind me exactly as close as I can get it where you see the "figure" in question which is standing there in the first pic I posted. Thanks


new lighting system....
edit on 17-2-2012 by gavron because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by Falgore
quote me on where I changed my lighting system ? I had the same lighting system since July of last year


ASked and answered here:


Originally posted by Falgore

the rockwork is different as I change it once every few months cause I come up with something I like better I guess. The 1st pic in the original post was taken mid August I think on the 13th to be exact. And yes ever since I got a new lighting system I've had hair algae outgrow my coralline algae like crazy. Yes I can't duplicate my original shot right now 100% but the latest photo I provided if you see to the right shows the reflection of my hallway behind me exactly as close as I can get it where you see the "figure" in question which is standing there in the first pic I posted. Thanks


new lighting system....
edit on 17-2-2012 by gavron because: (no reason given)


"Ever since" meaning since that photo was taken when I told you earlier about the fact that I can't replicate the shot 100% cause my rockwork is different and I even explained it to you that I misworded myself if you misunderstood me.

I'm looking at the paymen records for the lighting system and it was put in for July 12th , 2011 from Dr. Fosters and Smith .com
edit on 17-2-2012 by Falgore because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Falgore

"Ever since" meaning since that photo was taken when I told you earlier about the fact that I can't replicate the shot 100% cause my rockwork is different and I even explained it to you that I misworded myself if you misunderstood me.


So your tank setup is different, and you don't expect the lighting given off by it to be different too?


edit on 17-2-2012 by gavron because: correct spelling...



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by Falgore

"Ever since" meaning since that photo was taken when I told you earlier about the fact that I can't replicate the shot 100% cause my rockwork is different and I even explained it to you that I misworded myself if you misunderstood me.


So your tank setup is different, and you don't expect the lighting given off by it to be different too?


edit on 17-2-2012 by gavron because: correct spelling...


Why would the lighting be any different I was using the same lighting system back in mid July when my Aquatic Life t5 was setup till now. What I meant was ever since the lighting system was setup the hair algae has grown like weed and the rockwork is different.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Falgore
 


...umm...perhaps you should read up on ambient and reflective light, and see what we are talking about here.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

to anyone who thinks I'm a troll go ahead and read what I posted in that thread



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by Falgore
 


...umm...perhaps you should read up on ambient and reflective light, and see what we are talking about here.


I'll take a look perhaps a link would help google didn't return back much ....

found a link and read up on it a bit like I said 108 watts of white light coupled with the fact that it was daytime I find it hard to believe the faces in the photo were replicated in this way as I stated earlier I took my camera and snapped up more than 20 pictures and the opacity off the reflection of the fingers I get is roughly the same as the original photo and in some instances I can't even see my fingers

look again at the opacity photos presented and now look one more time at the 2nd link i originally posted do you see how the so called "part of my camera" moves upward and isn't in alignment with the rest of the upper camera body ?
edit on 17-2-2012 by Falgore because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Falgore
 


Ok pal, thanks for clearing that up. I haven't looked at the links yet but I will later when I have time..

By the way the salesman comment was a compliment for the sheer determination you have shown in this thread..Good luck.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Falgore

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by Falgore
 


...umm...perhaps you should read up on ambient and reflective light, and see what we are talking about here.


I'll take a look perhaps a link would help google didn't return back much ....


What? Google pulls up 18,600,000 results.....and that's not much?

Me thinks the troll is being fed more and more here...



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by lewtra
reply to post by Falgore
 


Ok pal, thanks for clearing that up. I haven't looked at the links yet but I will later when I have time..

By the way the salesman comment was a compliment for the sheer determination you have shown in this thread..Good luck.


thank you appreciated look I would love for this to turn out to be an optical illusion as it would freak me the **** out if there were alien grays standing behind me at the time the photo was taken

I am trying my best to stand up to the skeptics it's hard but I am trying... I don't care if I never gain publicity out of this cause this photo will not put my mind at ease till I 100% figure out what the **** cause this



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Falgore

look again at the opacity photos presented and now look one more time at the 2nd link i originally posted do you see how the so called "part of my camera" moves upward and isn't in alignment with the rest of the upper camera body ?


The camera is perfectly lined up with your hand...which is shown holding it, with the finger on the shutter release.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by Falgore

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by Falgore
 


...umm...perhaps you should read up on ambient and reflective light, and see what we are talking about here.


I'll take a look perhaps a link would help google didn't return back much ....


What? Google pulls up 18,600,000 results.....and that's not much?

Me thinks the troll is being fed more and more here...


I found more links read up I'm not a troll again look at the other thread I created on here. If I'm a troll how ask yourself what the hell am I gaining out of this ? I strongly believe in karma keep that in mind.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by Falgore

look again at the opacity photos presented and now look one more time at the 2nd link i originally posted do you see how the so called "part of my camera" moves upward and isn't in alignment with the rest of the upper camera body ?


The camera is perfectly lined up with your hand...which is shown holding it, with the finger on the shutter release.


did you see how the upper body of the camera moving to the right hand side isn't aligned with the clearly visible camera body on the left side ? it's not lined up...... my god how many times will i have to say this



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
found a link and read up on it a bit like I said 108 watts of white light coupled with the fact that it was daytime I find it hard to believe the faces in the photo were replicated in this way as I stated earlier I took my camera and snapped up more than 20 pictures and the opacity off the reflection of the fingers I get is roughly the same as the original photo and in some instances I can't even see my fingers

look again at the opacity photos presented and now look one more time at the 2nd link i originally posted do you see how the so called "part of my camera" moves upward and isn't in alignment with the rest of the upper camera body ?

reposting for you



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Falgore
did you see how the upper body of the camera moving to the right hand side isn't aligned with the clearly visible camera body on the left side ? it's not lined up...... my god how many times will i have to say this


It is absolutely, 100% perfectly lined up. The opacity photos shown are the nail in the coffin for this entire thread. Clearly and accurately debunked. Anything further on this is just clearly trolling.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by Falgore
did you see how the upper body of the camera moving to the right hand side isn't aligned with the clearly visible camera body on the left side ? it's not lined up...... my god how many times will i have to say this


It is absolutely, 100% perfectly lined up. The opacity photos shown are the nail in the coffin for this entire thread. Clearly and accurately debunked. Anything further on this is just clearly trolling.


look at the new pic I circled the areas I'm talking about



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Falgore
 


So just because the light is not reflecting off the top portion of the camera on the edges, its not there?


By that logic, when you see a crescent moon, the rest of it isn't there??

Seriously??



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join