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.

 

My roommate awoke to a green orb and he took a picture!

page: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong
What you have failed to explain is the pixilated square around your "test" photo of your razor. I have created a 400% crop of that immage.


I think that's just .jpg compression artifiacts.




posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Here's the old 2009 thread at page 22,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I used that page because the picture there is very telling. The rest of the thread is an interesting read.

Better still, this is one image.



Better still, this is one image.
edit on 5-3-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by UberL33t
 


That looks like a flying saucer
from outer space to me.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by nothingwrong
What you have failed to explain is the pixilated square around your "test" photo of your razor. I have created a 400% crop of that immage.


I think that's just .jpg compression artifiacts.


So why only in that 1 small part of the image? Why not over the whole frame?


jra

posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong
So why only in that 1 small part of the image? Why not over the whole frame?


.jpg compression works by looking at a group of neighbouring pixels and making them the same colour if they are all similar. The higher the compression, the larger the group of pixels.

Why don't you see it all over the image? Well you do technically. But a group of black pixels will look like just that. black. As soon as you get to an area where there's a group of pixels that have drastically different colours, you can end up with artifacts like that.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by nothingwrong
What you have failed to explain is the pixilated square around your "test" photo of your razor. I have created a 400% crop of that immage.


I think that's just .jpg compression artifiacts.

JRA, I was moving the camera around in an attempt to recreate some type of motion. I think you're digging too deep... It was a picture of a rechargable razor LED, taken in the dark with a crappy cellphone camera that was being moved around while trying to press the shutter button. Nothing more...



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Good morning ATR'ers!
Today's mission, GET THAT ORIGINAL!
Thanks again to those who have contributed, both positive and negative.
I've learned a bit about the proper protocol for introducing something like this to the community, such as:

1. If the OP is about a photo, include the photo in the OP.
2. Upload the photo to a hosting website and provide links for unemcumbered access to exif data.
3. Provide as much useful information as possible about the event being photographed and expect to answer a
lot of questions.
4. Expect detractors and naysayers and expect to be picked at - much like taking a stroll through Yellowstone wearing Bacon Underwear. "This is the most ridiculous post I have ever seen" Really??? I've seen some pretty ridiculous stuff in my travels here, if this is THE most ridiculous thing you've ever read then you really should get out more... Or, is that just your canned answer to anything that you don't understand? Talking Dolphins - Why this is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read! Microwave popcorn - Why this is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever read! Boy, this paper has really gone downhill...

Simply put, it's a photo of an unknown object that was sent to me and it raised my curiosity - and I thought I'd share. Along with it came a brief story about the circumstances in which it was taken. The word 'orb' may not have been the best choice to describe it, as 'orb' apparently has a certain set of pre-defined parameters that this object does not seem to meet. Most of the 'orbs' that have been described sound like they are larger for one thing...

To me, it does appear to be LED-like or firefly-like - one of which is artificial, one of which is just part of our amazing planet and all of it's yet-untold wonders. So with that, the question still remains in my head - Is it natural or artificial?

I totally like SMB's explanation of the 60hz AC pulse. I totally like Vegheads photo of the fireflies. I totally think that to capture a photo like that required a professional camera outfit, a tripod and a manipulated shutter speed and aperature. The same probably holds true for a photo of a swinging fluorescent light.

Ok I know, GET THAT ORIGINAL!
If nothing else, it should prove or disprove whether or not it was taken from a cell-phone in the middle of the night. If it was, which I truly still believe - then how in the heck was it done and what in the heck is it? The beading... The smooth and fluid appearance of motion... I guess it's pointless to go any further until it can be assertained that it did or did not come from a cellphone camera. If and when it is though, I think that we should have a contest to see who can reproduce it. Seems like a pretty elaborate hoax and an awful lot of effort simply to fool your roommate.

To those who have related similar stories, sorry that we haven't been able to discuss them in more detail. They sound very interesting and all probably deserve a thread of their own if they don't have one already.

Off to work, GET THAT ORIGINAL!



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sageturkey
 


Well said, and good luck!



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
doesn't look like an orb to me but then again I am no expert!



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
What the skeptic says:

* We have no proof of ANYTHING. In fact, what we have is the account of another person who "states something" as being "true", however we do not know about the intention, truthfulness etc. of the other person. The OP did not witness what happened, he is (as so often) only relying on WHAT SOME OTHER PERSON SAYS.

* The picture (I examined it somewhat) does not show anything, besides a green dot/wave which could be ANYTHING and a bunch of large pixelation artifacts.

* The picture does NOT exclude a rational explanation - in fact a laser pointer could produce EXACTLY what's on the picture. There is no indication of a paranormal event, BESIDES the witness' claim. If something, eg. visible on a photo or film CAM be reproduced easily (laser-pointer!) - the paranormal explanation makes no sense if a normal, rational explanation CAN explain the photo.

If it LOOKS like X, smells like X, logic says it is likely X, and not Y. For me it is a laser-pointer.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong
reply to post by LordAdef
 


I agree.

The exif data (not from the picture but from the OP's previous post) said 1 sec exposure. There are 15 "orbs" in the pic. So we have an LED which flickered 15 times in a second. There is a post in this thread explaining this flickering, and a simple google search will bring up plenty of evidence that older LED's do indeed flicker, but faster than they eye can detect. A 1 second exposure and a moving camera with a flickering LED. Mystery solved.

I would guess that the OP's room mate may have had a little too much to drink (or similar) that evening and awoke in a dizzy state and misunderstood what he was seeing.

What you have failed to explain is the pixilated square around your "test" photo of your razor. I have created a 400% crop of that immage.



This looks like a cut and paste job to me. Very questionable. There should not be a pixelated square around the green blob. Please put original files on a site where we can look at them properly.


That could be artifact from the interpolation algorithm of the relatively low resolution camera on the phone. The software has cut off values and "shortcuts" that determine which pixels get what kind of values, for the purposes of making it into a picture. I'm not saying that that is what it is. I'm just saying it is a possible explanation.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
What the skeptic says:

* We have no proof of ANYTHING. In fact, what we have is the account of another person who "states something" as being "true", however we do not know about the intention, truthfulness etc. of the other person. The OP did not witness what happened, he is (as so often) only relying on WHAT SOME OTHER PERSON SAYS.

* The picture (I examined it somewhat) does not show anything, besides a green dot/wave which could be ANYTHING and a bunch of large pixelation artifacts.

* The picture does NOT exclude a rational explanation - in fact a laser pointer could produce EXACTLY what's on the picture. There is no indication of a paranormal event, BESIDES the witness' claim. If something, eg. visible on a photo or film CAM be reproduced easily (laser-pointer!) - the paranormal explanation makes no sense if a normal, rational explanation CAN explain the photo.

If it LOOKS like X, smells like X, logic says it is likely X, and not Y. For me it is a laser-pointer.


Exactly, that is what I am getting at. Here's another example, it was from a hoax,




This is what the hoaxer used,




The actual object could be a radio mike receiver, a guitar tuner, or a made up piece of kit.
When the boyo was caught on, he cleared all his uploaded images, but these two were captured, one by another poster and one by me, right before he cleared them.
edit on 5-3-2013 by smurfy because: Links.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


That first pic is right on the money smurfy. This is what I expected from such a photographic test. It really looks like the same effect and color but at a closer distance to the camera.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by VegHead
But...
two important follow-up questions...
(1) How the heck do you jiggle your eyes?
(2) How do you jiggle your eyes without crashing into the car with LED tail lights?


Some people can do it, others can't. For those who can't, just smack yourself upside the head. You'll get the same effect. Or clack your teeth together.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by nothingwrong
So why only in that 1 small part of the image? Why not over the whole frame?


.jpg compression works by looking at a group of neighbouring pixels and making them the same colour if they are all similar. The higher the compression, the larger the group of pixels.

Why don't you see it all over the image? Well you do technically. But a group of black pixels will look like just that. black. As soon as you get to an area where there's a group of pixels that have drastically different colours, you can end up with artifacts like that.


The square is too big for this. When the algorithm interpolates the image it only looks at adjacent pixels. So this should be no bigger than a 3X3 pixel square, and it is much larger than that. So Compression artifacts and colour filter algorithms don't explain this.

www.dpreview.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sageturkey
 

it could've been flickering so fast he didn't notice but it created a strobe effect on the camera



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The OP is tracking down the original pic. He'll have it up soon, and we'll be able to determine what is is then.

The rest, at this point, is mere speculation.

I'm waiting for the original.




posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Based on the images posted by the OP so far, here is my analysis.

Roommate's original photo, scaled to match the size of OP's lighted bedroom reference pic, and applied an Exposure filter to bring out any subtle lighting. Notice the small white light on the left side of the photo...


OP's reference photo for the bedroom. Notice the glare off the doorknob just outside the bedroom...


Roommate's photo, enhanced and superimposed onto OP's reference photo assuming the white light in the roommates photo is the glare off the doorknob...


Again, the 2 original untouched (except to match scale) photos aligned, superimposed, and screened...



My opinion is that what he was seeing and what is in his photo is light reflecting off the wall next to the door in the bedroom, as opposed to the light source itself, and that your roommate's perception was a little off having just waken up. As to what it is, could be anything, but a green laser seems plausible. Which is a little creepy actually, assuming it wasn't your roommate, because - and I am guessing there is a window directly behind or to the right of where the photo is pointing - somebody may have been standing outside the window messing with your roommate.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by evilod
 


Were both pics taken with the same camera?

If the camera were different (I think they were) then how do you now they both have the same focal length? (Zoom factor)

How do you know they were taken from the same position.

How do you know that blob in the first pic is the door handle?

I love your work, and it is done well, but unfortunately meaningless until the above questions are answered.

Sorry. I honestly like what you have done, but there are too many unknowns for it to prove anything yet.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


IMHO, that picture does resemble the OP, but it is not exact. I'm not as educated as you ATS'ers with shudder speed and exposure and all that jazz, but if the light was artificial, it definitely doesn't move in a linear fashion as would be expected with a controlled beam of light. Even if moved by someone or something, it appears that the object in question dips down as is apparent but is slightly angled towards the OP's friend and then raises up and and it appears that it is moving away from the guy (camera, whatever). If this was done as a hoax, I do not think sageturkey would be so willing and compliant to try and disprove his own thread while giving credit to some attempted replications and theories, though that is common reverse psychology stuff. Plus, one thing nobody has mentioned is that he's been here since 2008 and never started a thread, probably because, like me, he never had anything to start a thread about. So something 'crazy' happens to a close buddy of his who happened to be living with him at the time and happened to get a blurred picture of something he saw in the middle of the night, so he posted it here, a place he knows he can safely and anonymously have it deciphered. His intentons are clear and truthful: if his buddy is yanking his chain, he wants to know. If it's something else, he wants to dig deeper. A confirmation or explanation is all he's looking for. With that being said, let me thank you for being so complient and willing to figure out what this is. If this is a known hoax, then shame on you, sir. But I truly do not believe that to be the case, though I know that means little to nothing, I have always thought orb stories were a load of bull, but this thread has intrigued me.
Sage, can you ask your (former) roomate if he can still remember and discern if the light was eminating off the wall or in mid-air? I think that would help eliminate or offer some explanations. Your razor charger light does resemble the OP. For those who think it's the razor charger, simply have the charger in its original spot in the bathroom, shut off all the lights and basically replicate the scenario. I'm assuming you moved the razor charger in the one you already provided of the razor's light. I hope you can see what I'm trying to get at. Set it up as if it were just another night in your house where everything us supposed to be.
I'm willing to stand by Sageturkey and put my credibility (if any) on the line.
Hope you can provide those originals with the EXIF files.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join