62 replies to this topic

[iamdee1]

skeptik19, on 13 October 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

you're an *******

Hey Skeptik,

Don't take too much offense.

Sometimes the non believers are what keep us believers from believing everything that gets posted.  There will be times, you will appriciate their skeptisism.

More than once, they have caught someone scamming.

Edited by iamdee1, 13 October 2011 - 05:01 PM.

[Mike G]

iamdee1, on 13 October 2011 - 04:51 PM, said:

Hey Skeptik,

Don't take too much offense.

Sometimes the non believers are what keep us believers from believing everything that gets posted.

Heh, I guess I was the target of his colorful language. Truth is, I am not a non-believer.

It is a bit odd though that for proposing we keep a clear head and be cautiously analytical here, the sole person taking offense is someone who has self-branded themselves as being a "skeptik". Although, this is not surprising given that it is they who have produced the item in question. Another instance where we see the ability to think objectively and logically diminish once there is some personal/emotional investment.

After observing a few of these typical, cyclic type conversations where a compressed, altered (in size, at least) image is presented as the sole evidence in spite of multiple requests from others that the original photograph be made available, while at the same time the OP offers little more to the conversation than the prerequisite "no" to any proposed explanation and/or outright flaming, I'm of the opinion here that the OP in this case is figuratively (and possibly quite literally)... blowing smoke you-know-where.

Edited by Mike G, 13 October 2011 - 05:45 PM.

[Taita]

Mike G, on 12 October 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:

How did I know!  


You'd think I'd been doing this for a long time or something....

Was a bad guess is all.
Look more closely, isn't possibly smoke. A smuge however is entirely possible. Watch the forensic shows, smoke can't do what is in the photo.
Several have nailed it. Wasn't that hard a catch to a photographer. In this case was a very good smudge with sunlight  at the best agle to highlight it.

[iamdee1]

Mike G, on 13 October 2011 - 05:41 PM, said:

Heh, I guess I was the target of his colorful language. Truth is, I am not a non-believer.

It is a bit odd though that for proposing we keep a clear head and be cautiously analytical here, the sole person taking offense is someone who has self-branded themselves as being a "skeptik". Although, this is not surprising given that it is they who have produced the item in question. Another instance where we see the ability to think objectively and logically diminish once there is some personal/emotional investment.

After observing a few of these typical, cyclic type conversations where a compressed, altered (in size, at least) image is presented as the sole evidence in spite of multiple requests from others that the original photograph be made available, while at the same time the OP offers little more to the conversation than the prerequisite "no" to any proposed explanation and/or outright flaming, I'm of the opinion here that the OP in this case is figuratively (and possibly quite literally)... blowing smoke you-know-where.

My apologies Mike, I thought you were a skeptic but on the same note, I never like to see anyone called names for speaking their mind, so I thought I would come to your defense.

[Mike G]

iamdee1, on 13 October 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:

My apologies Mike, I thought you were a skeptic but on the same note, I never like to see anyone called names for speaking their mind, so I thought I would come to your defense.

I appreciate it, Dee.  

[iamdee1]

Mike G, on 13 October 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:

I appreciate it, Dee.  

Anytime.  We can all discuss what we believe without name calling unless ******* meant you were a genius, then I would be cool with that.

Edited by iamdee1, 13 October 2011 - 06:31 PM.

[Evo]

Please post the EXIF data just to verify it was not manipulated. The distancing seems somewhat strange on the photo. Otherwise, it is a little odd for smoke to split that way. If it was not manipulated, then this photo will just be labelled as unverifiable because we could not tell whether or not this smoked was caused. The only way to be sure its an anomaly would be to show the other pics you took and see their time stamps. It would also require a certain amount of pics.

[_Only]

Am I the only one who oddly is more annoyed by accusations of photoshop play, more than actual photoshop manipulation? It's become the battlecry of forums, usually by the ignorant.

(Not directed at Evo. Maybe directed at an earlier poster. The type who's only contribution to the discussion is more or less, "photoshopped".)

I've seen lots of similar pictures as this one. Also seen someone re-create the effect on another thread with this similar question by the OP. They used smoke.

Edited by Jerry Only, 14 October 2011 - 09:32 PM.

[iamdee1]

Jerry Only, on 14 October 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

Am I the only one who oddly is more annoyed by accusations of photoshop play, more than actual photoshop manipulation? It's become the battlecry of forums, usually by the ignorant.

(Not directed at Evo. Maybe directed at an earlier poster. The type who's only contribution to the discussion is more or less, "photoshopped".)

I've seen lots of similar pictures as this one. Also seen someone re-create the effect on another thread with this similar question by the OP. They used smoke.

Did it look the same as this one?  The smoke making an archway idea really bugs me.  

Could be like someone explained, a bug or dirt on the lense or something else but don't know.

[_Only]

iamdee1, on 14 October 2011 - 11:56 PM, said:

Did it look the same as this one?  The smoke making an archway idea really bugs me.  

Could be like someone explained, a bug or dirt on the lense or something else but don't know.

Wasn't that exact shape; that would be one for the books. But it did go every which way. A slave to whatever the atmosphere tells it to do, that smoke.

[Ryu]

iamdee1, on 13 October 2011 - 04:51 PM, said:

Hey Skeptik,

Don't take too much offense.

Sometimes the non believers are what keep us believers from believing everything that gets posted.  There will be times, you will appriciate their skeptisism.

More than once, they have caught someone scamming.

Yeah, how horrible to be forced to read different views on the same subject.
Wouldn't this place be so much better if we all just nodded in agreement to make everyone feel better so they don't ever have to consider other options?

Yup, us horrible non-believers; actually trying to help others consider other angles.

(Oh..by the way I was being sarcastic )

P.S: I was going to suggest photo manipulation of some sort..not necessarily photoshop but possibly staged.
Maybe not intentionally but..whatever.

Edited by Ryu, 15 October 2011 - 12:53 AM.

[iamdee1]

Jerry Only, on 15 October 2011 - 12:38 AM, said:

Wasn't that exact shape; that would be one for the books. But it did go every which way. A slave to whatever the atmosphere tells it to do, that smoke.

Thanks Jerry.  I really like the shape of this thing too.  I've never picked up anything that looked like that on a picture and never had a fire do that either.  

Really unique.  Maybe the O.P. could enter it into a photo contest, he could have a chance of winning something with this one.

Even if it's not paranormal, it is still a really nice picture.  Cool pattern.

[iamdee1]

Ryu, on 15 October 2011 - 12:52 AM, said:

Yeah, how horrible to be forced to read different views on the same subject.
Wouldn't this place be so much better if we all just nodded in agreement to make everyone feel better so they don't ever have to consider other options?

Edited by iamdee1, 15 October 2011 - 01:35 AM.

[Evo]

iamdee1, on 15 October 2011 - 01:15 AM, said:

Thanks Jerry.  I really like the shape of this thing too.  I've never picked up anything that looked like that on a picture and never had a fire do that either.  

Really unique.  Maybe the O.P. could enter it into a photo contest, he could have a chance of winning something with this one.

Even if it's not paranormal, it is still a really nice picture.  Cool pattern.

My thoughts exactly. If this hasn't been edited, then that shape makes it possible, because it would have been pretty darn hard to stage that. Thats why I really want to verify this isn't manipulated - it can make for a very possible unexplained mystery.

[Chrlzs]

skeptik19, on 13 October 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

you're an *******

So.. does that mean you (conveniently) won't be posting the full-size original image, or telling us what the camera was, or in fact doing anything much to help??  Can't help noticing that you completely ignored the question about whether you were smoking..


To iamdee, haven't you looked at HerNibs excellent examples of smoke behavior on the previous page?  Air is randomly *turbulent*, especially outside, even when it seems 'still'.  That's why candles flicker..  But more importantly, smoke is created by a heat source, so it is obviously associated with moving (rising) air.  As the air rises, it creates more turbulence as other air is drawn up and in, and as it hits slightly different pressure regions it swirls about causing lots of tiny eddies and vortices.  Again, look at the images HerNibs posted.



Finally, I wouldn't for a moment suggest that this was edited in, but creating such a trail in Photoshop or other image editor is pretty easy...