What is in this picture?

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by JScytale

 

i didnt say i took it that day. i took it over 2 years ago. i didnt mention when i took the picture till later in the thread. everyone is misreading and accusing. i answer many questions.

haha, nice ninja-edit.
"[edit on 3-6-2009 by Myendica] "
guess i should start quoting before I call out.

Now i ran the photo of the camera phone you used and it had the same EXACT exif data as the other cloud photo in question. which is odd because it should be different because they are from 2 different cameras according to you.

Exif Data taken from the picture of the Phone he used to take the picture in question.

CAM:[OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD ] [C2000Z ] [ ] No
CAM:[OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD ] [C40Z,D40Z ] [ ] No
CAM:[OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD ] [C700UZ ] [ ] No
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-H9 ] [ ] No
SW :[Apple ImageIO.framework ] [050 (Normal) ]
SW :[IJG Library ] [080 ]

can a man get a hoax tag here?

What will be next will you forget that you took it with the camera you were using earlier today?

Originally posted by acrux
Double exposure or reflection on the lense, but I could be mistaken

thats exactly what it is

my guess, it was taken from INSIDE a Car

Whatever it is this whole thing is bogus. He has been caught up about the cammera he lost it now he found it but can't get the original off. The exif data shows that it was not taken with the camera phone. He used the same camera to photograph the camera he claims to have used and i have posted the exif data to confirm this.

reply to post by spiracy


Thanks for taking the time to do this, it really helps weed out the BS from the truth.

I guess the Mods will do what the feel is fit.

never mind, i should have read the posts first



[edit on 6/3/2009 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 6/3/2009 by Blaine91555]

What was the point of the hoax then? A test? A trail run on another hoax? Lack of attention?

redacted

[edit on 4-6-2009 by zorgon]

I've been working with Photoshop for 10+ years. It honestly appears to be two images on separate layers, one over the other with the opacity decreased on one of the images. And the reason I say this is the power lines and pole are "grainy", while the "ghost" image seems considerably more sharp. I don't believe that the ghost image is a camera photo, rather a stock cartoon image or rendering.


Here's a quick version.

Here


[edit on 4-6-2009 by KEMIK]

kemik, i agree with you,

I am also fairly competent with photoshop,

it looks like multiple layers, maybe just 2, one of the layers has been made slightly transparent.

Although it does also look like a reflection,

In my opinion, and by the sounds of the majority, fake.

Myendica what was the point of your hoax? People like you are the lowest of the low when it comes to this topic. blergh.


[edit on 4-6-2009 by estavilso]

[edit on 4-6-2009 by estavilso]

reply to post by Myendica


To me that really looks like a super imposed image of a "Transformer" over the cloud image?

its a car interior, either the sky reflected off the door window, or a reflection from a shot taken inside the car.

you can see your leg and shoe, and the center console, door sill, etc...

the sky is definitely distorted as if it were reflecting off a car door window.

Originally posted by spiracy
Well i just ran it through my exif viewer and here is what it came up with

EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- --------------
CAM:[OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD ] [C2000Z ] [ ] No
CAM:[OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD ] [C40Z,D40Z ] [ ] No
CAM:[OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD ] [C700UZ ] [ ] No
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-H9 ] [ ] No
SW :[Apple ImageIO.framework ] [050 (Normal) ]
SW :[IJG Library ] [080 ]

The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
SW :[GIMP ] [080 ]
SW :[IrfanView ] [080 ]
SW :[idImager ] [080 ]
SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [080 ]
SW :[NeatImage ] [080 ]
SW :[Paint.NET ] [080 ]
SW :[Photomatix ] [080 ]
SW :[XnView ] [080 ]

NOTE: JFIF COMMENT field is known software
Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:

ASSESSMENT: Class 1 - Image is processed/edited

It says that it is processed/edited, he can say how it was transfered and it is not the original blah blah blah. But it matches the signatures of some digital cameras and NOT a mobile phone.
HOAX

Thank you very much.. with so much evidence of his blatant lies can this thread not be closed and the poster banned for hoaxing now?

reply to post by spiracy


i never said they were taken with 2 different cameras. you are all misreading everything, your focusinvg your attention on pointless stuff, since im not hoaxing and ats can ban me whatever you guys are so cool, and so wrong. its a shame, and peace out ill ban myself since you all suck.

reply to post by Myendica


Your "photo" has been analyzed and found to be edited. (See above posts) It would be wise to accept it and move on. I've seen through this post you have refused every and all proposals as to what this photo is or what it could be, almost as if you are looking for a "correct" answer. That is a classic hoaxer

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Cds4344]

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by spiracy

 

i never said they were taken with 2 different cameras. you are all misreading everything, your focusinvg your attention on pointless stuff, since im not hoaxing and ats can ban me whatever you guys are so cool, and so wrong. its a shame, and peace out ill ban myself since you all suck.

It's so easy to do exactly what you did in any photo editing program (assuming this isn't a reflection)

Take 1 photo

Use another photo as watermark.

Set opacity of watermark to 15% or so, and voila. same thing you did.

reply to post by Myendica


Hi forgive me for not reading the 200 or so posts. It looks like the picture was taken from inside the front seat of either a car or helicopter. I have pictures like this that reflect what the dash looks like. When I first saw it it reminded me of a footprint at the top of the image.

I will read more posts to see if anyone came up with the answer. I love guessing games!

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by TallWhites

 

yeah i couldnt figure out how to upload since they keep getting error too large of a file. sorry. and you guys are mean, why would someone be quick to start a thread about something they cannot explain? peace

And that took you a whole year???

reply to post by Myendica


Very interesting photo Myendica. I've been studying those details and this is what I
found at this point. What it seems to be as a head, alien type head with two eyes but
the head is separated in half as you can see in this image I made by enhancing the
details. I fixed the separation and joined a little more both parts. I'm signaling what
I see as a head and also those two kind of eyes so you will know where to see in the
picture. Check it.



Now let's see the same image in zoom and without the signals. Important: Keep
looking at the center and you will detect those kind of eyes and then the head will
be noticeable, Strange effect indeed.



This is the original segment as reference without the fix. Again repeat the same
process and keep looking to the center.



Conclusion. I don't know how did you get this picture Myendica and if this is real or not
is not my discussion at this time. I'm showing you what I found in your picture,
an anomaly that I think is interesting and this is what you requested, an opinion.



[edit on 4-6-2009 by free_spirit]