Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Full bodied apparition or something else???

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

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

Originally posted by Extralien
reply to post by OneisOne
 


it's the exposure time that bugs me..
perhaps you could enlighten us on anything else you feel don't sit right there.

It's mostly the exposure time. But knowing the camera was in an auto mode, kinda bugs me too. With the ISO being 100 it is almost like the camera sensor was detecting the light and that is why it did not auto adjust the ISO higher to compensate for low lighting. >inserting an edit..... I see where you posted another image, thank you. Seems the night scene shoots with a 100 ISO, so it's not the sensor picked up on light<

Did he mention using a tripod?

Honestly it's one of those that's either fake or not. I personally root for it being a real capture, but I have to try and work through the doubts I have first.

Also where you are seeing socks, I'm seeing trousers tucked into knee high rain boots. But I completely understand your point of view.

And is anyone else seeing red hair?
edit on 17-9-2012 by OneisOne because: add edit for image sensor comment




posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne
 


yes a tripod was used.
possibly something around the neck.. not sure on the red hair though.

I've done a crop and zoom with the exposure upped..



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 

The red hair came through when I adjusted the levels trying to see more detail.



It's a very interesting image and thank you for posting it. And thanks for the civil discussion, something that can be rare when it comes to paranormal images & ATS.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne
 


Few things to note..

the wobbly light is inconsistent and it gets thinner on the left side.
The ground is lit up as is the majority of the 'person'...
the light to the right far exceeds the reach of the 'persons' left arm.
There appears to be a smudge of light coming from the left shoulder down to the right hand side of person. rather mist like.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
looks cool
tryed finding some myth beings with giant spiral horns like that.
Couldnt rly find anything besides a English myth creature called Yale.
www.sarahsawyer.com...

Just for giggles until we wait for someone who knows alittle about CGI.

Haha just read abit from there. "and horns more than a cubit in length capable of being moved and which in a fight are raised alternately and presented to the attack or sloped backward in turn as opportunity requires.”
Its horns are pointing kinda weird. in the photo.
edit on 17-9-2012 by Johnkie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
To me it looks like farmer trousers and its wearing muck boots and the trousers are being held up with suspenders and he has a long sleeved # on..

Its a very interesting picture thank you for posting it i think the guy that took it did catch something very special..peace,sugarcookie1



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
interesting pic indeed.
to me it looks like a napolean /early english era type trousers where they put the long socks over the pants.
It also looks like the male trousered figure (with the demon looking head) is carrying the female on his back like a hostage.
edit on 17-9-2012 by horseplay because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
They claim they didn't see the shape while taking the photo, only afterwards, correct?

Here are some MAJOR red flags:

* The original photo is literally black. There is no detail whatsoever. It needs serious image enhancing to even see the tree line etc.

Question: Why would someone shoot a photo IN PITCH BLACK darkness?

* The "apparition" is centered SPOT ON right in the middle. As always with fakes, be it UFOs or ghosts...sorry dudes, a genuine photo of a video or ghost has NOT the object in question centered perfectly. This looks staged or VERY likely staged.

* There seems to be a light underneath the apparition, as if to purposefully light the "figure" from underneath

* I think this would be very easy to fake as a simple double-exposure

* Shape itself looks odd, eg. it doesn't really LOOK like a human/ghostly shape only resembles it somewhat. There are not really legs or arms visible and also the head looks actually odd. More like some random blotch/artifact which "somewhat" resembles a figure....it also looks like some parts look solid (the "trousers") while the upper part of the "body" looks transparent.

I *personally* think it's a hoax/double exposure or a random artifact which just happens to look like a figure.
edit on 17-9-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
They claim they didn't see the shape while taking the photo, only afterwards, correct?

Correct


* The original photo is literally black. There is no detail whatsoever.

The exif data explains why.


Why would someone shoot a photo IN PITCH BLACK darkness?

Paranormal investigators do this a lot. On the last investigation I went on, I think I took about 150 pictures in darkness. Usually random pics. It is these random pics that we hope to capture something by surprise. We can't see in darkenss but a quick pic with/without a flash sometimes brings up evidence we would normally miss.


* The "apparition" is centered SPOT ON right in the middle.
Luck maybe, total chance? We could all puut a pic of something to the left or the right of a photo but would that really make it any more valid?


* There seems to be a light underneath the apparition, as if to purposefully light the "figure" from underneath

which is something we are trying to work out, not immediately dismiss as evidence of a fake.


* I think this would be very easy to fake as a simple double-exposure

On a digital camera?


* Shape itself looks odd, eg. it doesn't really LOOK like a human/ghostly shape only resembles it somewhat.

so what is a 'ghost' supposed to look like?


I *personally* think it's a hoax/double exposure or a random artifact which just happens to look like a figure.

That's fine, thanks for your opinion. Maybe you'd like to help prove your thoughts? could you expand on it by providing examples of something very similar that is known to be 'man made'?

I'd love to see somebody actually try to recreate this photo.
You've got 8 seconds with a camera set up in the same way the exif data shows in which to make the same image..



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Holy c**p my mum and dad nearly bought that house in the 1970s when i was a teenager glad thy didnt!
The image looks like another from the 70s the cover of Hawkwinds space ritual album
futurismic.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Have been talking to the photographer some more and he has sent me a set of pics.
These were taken not too long after the pics in the OP..
One minute later to be exact.. (EXIF)

This camera was set to take black and white shots and onto 'Auto'..now we can see in the exif we got 30 sec exposure, ISO 1600

and we can see the ruins in the background..

These were taken on a Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL..someone elses camera set up right next to the one that captured the image..
He is in contact with the other guys to try to get all the pics from this moment, if any more.. so we might be able to match some up




These are the guys who were actually there..



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I am not in any way a photography guy, so I cant begin to know if this photo is real or faked, or help find out. I pretty much just enjoy and read what people here at ATS say.

But when I see the figure in this photo, I see a woman. It reminds me of some of the paintings of Mary. the way her head leans left and looks towards the ground. The pose is very feminine with the feet crossed like that.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Nice, you know the first image I kinda thought it was more bird-like. It's quite creepy I'll say that much. Like a few others have said, I don't know much about photography but it's definitely a nice image, whatever it turns out to be.

I keep going back to the first image where it's darker and I can't pinpoint why exactly but it seems bird-like to me, anyone else see that? Odd, but cool, and interesting so I'm flagging it.

Cheers.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 

I won't embed the after shot again as it's huge - here it is in your post on p1

OP Photo 9/9/12 8:40:15 PM filename wm50575600.jpg
Aftershot 9/9/12 8:40:47 PM filename rg50575610.jpg

Not really disputing that it's the next shot in sequence (30 sec gap) but I'm wondering why the first photo name has "wm" at the start and the second "rg".

Also, if it was the next shot, wouldn't the next filename be 50575601 rather than 10?

I know nothing about the Panasonic camera that these were taken with - but don't most cameras name their shots in sequential order?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Netties Hermit
 


That's because they were uploaded to ATS.
ATS renames pics as they are added to the site.

By the time I had uploaded the first and got ready to add the second, nine more were added to the site by other people for other threads somewhere.

hope that clears that little problem up or you



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Ahh - ok. I didn't know that. But I do now

(Feel a bit silly now)


BTW - I tried to overlay the pics by the second camera onto the first but it was a bit hard to get a match as it was different sizes/resolutions. (Those were modified about 9 days later). If you can get the originals of those I'll give it another go.
edit on 20/9/2012 by Netties Hermit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Netties Hermit
 


Personally, I don't think that would help much. As two different cameras were used, the settings were different as they are both owned by different people.

Perhaps a visual side by side comparison is the best bet here.
An overlaywould only really help if we were trying to triangulate where the "person" was but only if we knew the height of each camera and how far apart they were and also how far away they were from other objects, like the trees.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


O.k. now lets see pictures of the area before and after, with daylight, and dim lighting and a normal night picture. Without those we really have nothing to compare this picture to as it could be easily faked. Video would have been nice.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by Extralien
 


O.k. now lets see pictures of the area before and after, with daylight, and dim lighting and a normal night picture. Without those we really have nothing to compare this picture to as it could be easily faked. Video would have been nice.



Here's a pic of it in daylight. Same direction, similar distance...completely different photographer, unrelated to those in thread.
www.flickr.com...

As for video, there's no guarantee you'll get the same evidence and you can't always be filming at the same time as taking still pictures.
Without a return visit, which is not impossible, we'll have to make do with what we've got for the moment.
I am waiting for a reply from the photographer as he believes there may be other pics taken around the same time from the other person he was with..
Time will tell on that ..



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


Is it just my imagination or is that a face?



Thoughts?





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join