What is in this picture?

I'm sorry I am just going to come out and say this. I do NOT believe him.
This was in my opinion a very poor attempt at hoaxing the members of ATS.
It is a good thing I am not a mod.. lol I don't pull punches I would have banned him for hoaxing when his stories started changing.

reply to post by NephraTari


believe me? i never said it was anything. i too am skeptic, but i refuse to accept people opinions that it was through glass or photoshopped. i didnt manipulate it, nor was i behind glass. besides that, yeah double exposure? if that is possible, i would believe it, if it wwas what the other member posted a link to, then sure. if it is unexplainable, then i posted my perception, but for now i dont believe that perception untill all digital anomolies couldnt explain it.

It is only nice picture. No ufo or aliens. (?) It is reflection or nor but it is not anything more than interesting picture. "What is in this picture?". We don't know. It is ufo picture..

Originally posted by Myendica

i havent seen the phone in such a long time and couldnt remember what was wrong or why i couldnt extract the images that i didnt think to look for it first, and didnt anticipate the scrutiny that i should have. i made this thread in haste and with that made stupid mistakes in the wording of my text.

In other words rather than making the effort to determine whether or not you still had the phone, you decided to lie instead. You made up a story about not having the phone any more.

Well in the future, as I am sure you now know, it is always best to wait untill you have all your facts right in front of you rather than just make it up and hope no one notices.

i made the comment about not recalecting because it was taken over 2 years ago, and with that said, you cannot be precise, even cops will say when being questioned about an incident the person, when trying to recall, will make subtle mistakes. now because i was so amazed trhe second i took the picture in the first place, i am sure i was not behind glass, because i would not have been so amazed. but i cannot recelect because it has been so long. but no, i beleive i was not behind glass, and for you to believe me is your own decision. i am not trying to say this is anything. i want explanation, and behind glass isnt good enough, for me.

Ah, ok, so you now admit finally that your remberance of that day is skewed. Very good. Now we are getting somewhere. You admit you believe you were not in a car but as you said, "even cops make subtle mistkaes when trying to recollect events"

So you admit you are NOt sure where the picture was taken. Thanks that answers my question.

Just to clarify for all who are reading this.

You did not make the effort to get all the facts before making the thread and to make up for that you lied about certain parts and figured no one would notice. Also you are not sure where you took the picture from.

That is the answer I was looking for.

As for this explanation you are looking for. Well, I suggest you read the thread because all the explanation you could possibly need is right in front of you.

It is not a double exposure because a digital photo can not be double exposed. Only film can. It could be photoshpped however the consensus in this thread is that it is a reflection through a car window.

I agree with that. As had been pointed out numerous times you can clearly see a persons shirt and the lettering on it.

You want an explanation that is "good enough for you"? The explanationn lies within your thread and that is good enough for anybody. Even you.

peace and love

[edit on 3-6-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

okay what year was this photo taken?

[edit on 3-6-2009 by spiracy]

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


well have fun with that. if a guy came forward and said he had evidence that would put the worst criminal away for crimes you couldnt even imagine, would you not belive him because he couldnt remember what shirt he was wearing when he gathered the info? or exactly where he was? i know i wasnt behind glass, and in the repsonse of mine about recalect was to give the benefit of the doubt, not for you to just point and say, liar, liar, i asnwered the questions as they were posed to me. and when this thread was started i was sure there was a serious reason why i didnt use phone. so go being yourselfe and peace and love

reply to post by spiracy


within 3 years i believe. over 2 years ago.

okay so we are looking at around 2005-07.
Does anyone know much about the picture quality of mobile phones back then or if Nokia was able to do email?

Oh yeah with the phone you have now could you upload a pic of this broken phone?

[edit on 3-6-2009 by spiracy]

I have full belief in alot of things (which have not been determined as fact here on earth) but this just stinks! lmfao

From not knowing if he could see the 'artifact'...not knowing if he was inside a car or not at the time...not being able to positively say whether the camera still exists or not etc...etc...(i've most likely left some out...I somewhat got bored by the second page of B.S)!

At absolute best this looks like some kind of reflection taken from inside of a car...in reality I believe a little Photoshop has been used here!...what I do not understand is for what reason?!

Enough said and enough seen!...

reply to post by Myendica


So you want me to give you the benefit of the doubt?

I can not do that. You have contradicted yourself twice and for that reason I can not do anything BUT doubt you.

You are correct. I think you are hoaxing. You have given me no reason to believe otherwise. All you have done, is contradict yourself more and more.

You admitted yourself that you lied in the OP because you did not have all the facts and you "did not think it would be scrutinized". Well you were wrong.

What can you say do even suggest, that this is not a hoax? What can you say now, after you have said both that you did not have the camera and you do have the camera? What can you say after you said both, you do not recall where you were and you do recall where you were?

What can you possibly say that woould make any of us want to give you the benefit of the doubt?

reply to post by spiracy


i have found the semi broken phone and am going to try and purchse the data chord required to upload photos from the phone, so that hopefully tomorrow, i should be able to provide a new picture from the original source. it will have whatever data about the picture im sure that is required. the picture i have uploaded so far has been emailed (2years ago) to my computer, saved to a disk, then transfered to another computer, so some of the information isnt there.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


enojy your time and thanks for your posts. i feel as if i defended myself from you well enough and dont mind what else you could say.

In all fairness, I noticed that no one asked you what you think it is. Do you have any take on what this might be? You said you are a skeptic, so I would assume that you do not think its a ufo or anything to that affect.. Whats your take?

Originally posted by KaginD
In all fairness, I noticed that no one asked you what you think it is. Do you have any take on what this might be? You said you are a skeptic, so I would assume that you do not think its a ufo or anything to that affect.. Whats your take?

Very fair observation! What do you think it is M?
What are your views on this phenomena?

reply to post by Myendica


That is fine and great but could we get a picture of your semi broken phone? I don't care about you uploading the original or not i think it would be just the same picture.

reply to post by Myendica


Yeah but this doesn't exactly seem like a fascinating shot of beautiful clouds.... you even got a pole in the shot.

Something smells here...

reply to post by Myendica


In case you hadn't noticed, gimme is a moderator and hoaxing is against the rules at ATS. If he determines you to be dishonest as I have myself.. you could be facing more than just your thread closed. but that is up to the all powerful ones.

reply to post by KaginD

Originally posted by Myendica
when i first saw it, it felt as if we were on a laptop of computer screen of someone driving a vehicle. you see a face in top left that looks like its wearing a glass helmet, and their arm swings down to the bottom and right holding a shifter. and the "lettering" looking stuff is behind him on the wall of his vehicle. that is how i first perceived it before trying to be skeptical.

the skeptical side says its as follows:

you take a picture, you dlete it, you take a picture you dlete it, eventually when you take a picture, the deleted is somehow still there in little pieces.

If we could get a picture of the broken phone we would be able to look it up by looking at the model number. We already know that it is a nokia. If he had a phone that could email pictures 2-3 years ago it only makes sense that his new one would be able to do the same. we could also see if it was able to send email and if it took pictures of that quality at that resolution.
Just a simple picture of a broken phone is all it takes.

also my friend has a nokia that is about a year old and it does not take pictures like that.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by spiracy]

you've got more chance of seeing a picture of Jesus being re-born than any evidence from this guy!