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.
originally posted by: Rob48
Looks to me like the figure is on the rock, not in the water.
Need that EXIF data. Judging by the sea this is a long exposure. Looks unmistakably like a person who stood on the rock for a little while before moving off.
They wouldn't appear in the other frames as they would have moved out of shot.
They only show up where they were stood fairly still. They could have moved out of shot BEFORE the end of this frame.
No mystery here.
originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
Based on your knowledge of the place in question, would a person stood on top of the rock appear that height? I find it hard to get a sense of scale.
originally posted by: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
a reply to: Moresby
Indeed mate, and thats why I brought it here.
I am well aware of "ghost" artifacts on long exposure photos. I love taking long exposures of water, to get that silky smooth effect. Never before on any of my long exposure shots, have i had any artifacts. In the one or two I did have an artifact, It was usually a moving bush or branch, but thats on purpose shot like that.
This one is different, I would have definately notice someone or something wandering into my shot. If you take into account the shots preceding this one, and following it, then the "object" would have been in those too, or at least a little part of it.
vvv
originally posted by: Moresby
originally posted by: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
a reply to: Moresby
Indeed mate, and thats why I brought it here.
I am well aware of "ghost" artifacts on long exposure photos. I love taking long exposures of water, to get that silky smooth effect. Never before on any of my long exposure shots, have i had any artifacts. In the one or two I did have an artifact, It was usually a moving bush or branch, but thats on purpose shot like that.
This one is different, I would have definately notice someone or something wandering into my shot. If you take into account the shots preceding this one, and following it, then the "object" would have been in those too, or at least a little part of it.
vvv
Images like that can be created by long exposures. And the other photos don't preclude the possibility of a figure or figures entering the frame during that exposure. (Although they do help your narrative.) Nor can we be entirely sure that you forgot or didn't notice a figure entering the frame during that exposure.
However, simply because an effect could be created by a long exposure doesn't mean it was.
You might look into deaths or drownings on that beach. That could make your evidence more compelling. Especially if the individuals could be shown to match your figures in some way.
Again, thanks for sharing the photo.
originally posted by: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
And if it was indeed a solid object, I would have seen it, and it would have showed up in the other two pics.
maybe the whole pic is just a combination of shadows, light, water, creating an illusion of something there.
But i don';t know, and any explanation is better than none at this point.
vvv
originally posted by: Biigs
Could it be one figure on the left looking out to the sea but walking carrying a box behind it with another figure facing the same way holding the box in front of it.
The pic below i have put in what i think can be seen in black and in red the parts too faded to tell, but is my speculation of what would be if the image was clearer.