Christmas Day Unknown Man Photo(updated version)

page: 9
53
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Here is the image inverted.



Playing with other filters, I will see if anything interesting pops out.




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Starcrossd
 


Good thoughts, but what exactly is an interdeminsional? Or rather your interpretation of one?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by tport17
 


Does him being reallu bright say anything?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pressthebutton
reply to post by tport17
 


Does him being reallu bright say anything?


Him being "really bright" is because it's a negative filter and he was originally all in shadow ... whereas the child was smothered in light in the photo and in the negative filter, the child is dark.

Light.

Still looks like an Alaskan I know though.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
With the picture inverted, now I think it looks like he is looking to the right!

Did you ever say what that is a picture of on the wall? Even if it doesn't seem important...



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
could you possibly snap a picture of where this 'man' is supposedly looking at? that way we can see what might have caught his 'eye'. If you dont mind of course.
edit on 24-7-2012 by Anishnaabe because: spelling



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Pressthebutton
 


hmm.. I'd guess I'd say.. 'extra' layers of reality that we cannot (normally) see, but that are no less real. I guess I imagine it as being very similar to here, with beings just going about their daily lives, that have no clue we are living at the same time right next to them. everyone has been saying how the veils are thinnning between the worlds right now, mayhap this is what happened and your Mom just happened to snap the pic and capture him. Very interesting too that your dog sees him right away! Animals are so cool.

There's probably tons of people here with a better grasp on dimensions that will explain better than my feeble attempt-lol.
edit on 24-7-2012 by Starcrossd because: spllng



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by tport17
With the picture inverted, now I think it looks like he is looking to the right!

Did you ever say what that is a picture of on the wall? Even if it doesn't seem important...


I forgot lol ill check when i get home



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Anishnaabe
 



Ill add it to the list of things to do when i get back



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
edit on 24-7-2012 by Pressthebutton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by icepack
reply to post by Pressthebutton
 

it looks like a real person, not a ghost.



That doesn't mean it wasn't one. I saw the same ghost twice when I was working in a jewelry store in AZ, and he looked as solid as you and I. How did I know he was a ghost? How about one second there, the next second gone.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


I said that a couple pages ago I am so with you on that one!



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
This whole thing just seems a bit fishy to me. You say your mom took the picture but didn't look at it until a month later?

What model camera was she using? It's obviously a digital camera because you said you'd provide exif data (I haven't read past the first page though).

Most digital cameras today have the screen where you can look at the picture as soon as you take it and it seems a bit odd that your mom didn't see this man if that's the case with her camera.

If you can tell us what model camera it is I think that'll clear that up. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Its a nikon, and it looked enough like a real person she didnt think much about and she was snapping so fast that she didnt pay much attention. Please dont doubt me



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Pressthebutton
 


It looked enough like a real person that she didn't think anything of it? So you're saying she did see the man after taking the photo? If she saw the man after taking the picture and knew there was no man there as she was taking the picture then why wouldn't she think anything of it?

What model Nikon is it? Is it one with a screen on the back? I think you implied it was by saying she didn't think anything of it at the time.

I'm not being obtuse, just trying to figure this out with you.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


When i get home ill ask my mother what model it was. She has since bought a different camera. And with the whole seeing the man thing, i honestly dont know what she was thinking at the time i was just suggesting possibilities. I think the main reason might be that she took enough pictures at one time to be able to miss it. She was snapping them fast i think. Or atleast that is my.thinking, im not around her currently



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
According to the exif data that I can see on the origional image posted it says the camera is a Sony DSC-H70 if that helps.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by frogbellyjim
 


Thanks. So i guess it wasnt a nikon?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
If you turn the gamma correction all the way down on this picture, it appears he is wearing glasses, or shades.The string on his neck may be the string that holds the glasses around his neck when he takes them off.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pressthebutton
reply to post by frogbellyjim
 


Thanks. So i guess it wasnt a nikon?

Hi!

No, it wasn't a nikon:



Could it be possible for you to upload (to imagehack.com, for example) the original untouched photography, please?

Photo was taken with the max resolution for a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H70 (4608 x 3456 - 1.33 ratio) ["1" in the exifs below], but the size photo is of 922 x 691 - 1.33 ratio ["2" in the exifs], so it was resized.
Do you know how it was resized?

edit on 24-7-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join