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: Hecate666
It's clearly a house with a porch. The angle is fine too. We live in the fens and when you drive on the roads, the houses sometimes look wonky, due to the road being at an angle and not the house.
I have tried to see something other than a hut with a porch. There is a table and a normal folding chair.
The only reason this is supposed to be 'weird' is because OP says there is no hut...
But unless there is a picture from the same viewpoint showing just trees, I don't see why I should just take OP's word for it.
It's a lit porch.
originally posted by: game over man
It's not a lit porch because that photo is taken in the day time. Does everyone not remember old film footage where it starts to break apart with big white spots? That is what we are looking at. How can everyone be so gullible about this when ATS debunked the astronaut man behind the little girl photo? This shouldn't be in this forum...
originally posted by: Moresby
originally posted by: Hecate666
It's clearly a house with a porch. The angle is fine too. We live in the fens and when you drive on the roads, the houses sometimes look wonky, due to the road being at an angle and not the house.
I have tried to see something other than a hut with a porch. There is a table and a normal folding chair.
The only reason this is supposed to be 'weird' is because OP says there is no hut...
But unless there is a picture from the same viewpoint showing just trees, I don't see why I should just take OP's word for it.
It's a lit porch.
I saw it as a porch. I can now see what others are seeing. But I still think my initial take was right. It's a porch.
But I'm happy to be proven wrong. The miniature temple idea was intriguing. And the OP's idea is intriguing. But I need to see more evidence. Or, at least, hear a more convincing back-story.
Even when apparently paranormal events have mundane explanations, often the initial mundane explanations offered are just as wrong as the paranormal claims.
So whichever side I come out on these things, I'm always open to being wrong.
As a side note ...
I hate the word "pareidolia". It's so pretentious. And makes me want climb the walls every time I read it. But that's probably just me.
originally posted by: tigertatzen
Oh, and I agree with you about the pareidolia thing, by the way. It is indeed pretentious, and far too often used as a convenient method by which to dismiss people for questioning things that really do warrant closer scrutiny...which is diametrically opposed to the denial of ignorance. Just my $0.02. 😉
originally posted by: smurfy
It actually looks like a small building or alter/barby. Use the link and magnifier.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
originally posted by: aphon
a reply to: Moresby
I find it hard to see it as a porch... the window at that house shows outside's bright open space. While behind the "porch" is supposed to be the ground or salak plants.
Btw this plant's part of Keladi family, and there's no plant like Keladi that's as big as a house roof.
The roots of Salak tree are not as big as a house neither.
originally posted by: aphon
a reply to: Moresby
This's a tree with small leaves, it looked clearer under magnifying glass when the quality was better when i received the photo at first time.
Like this tree :
originally posted by: game over man
originally posted by: smurfy
It actually looks like a small building or alter/barby. Use the link and magnifier.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Everyone needs to look more closely at the photo...on the lower left side the is a little yellow ball which is not an orb but dust or something on the lens, "snowballs". Look at the top center of the photo how the sunlight shining through the trees makes it look like a perfect lantern, also the same color of the "lights" inside the "house." The "house" fits the pattern of the trees perfectly, study it longer. There might be more dust on the lens distorting the image along with light shining through the trees. It also looks like it was taken with a flash.
It really doesn't look unusual at all it might in fact be sunlight shining through the branches just like the rest of the photo and not a result of lens flare or dust on the lens.
originally posted by: aphon
a reply to: tigertatzen
No, it wasnt taken in the 70s, i got this in the 90s (probably 1997-1998), the picture took place in Siantar around 1990-1998