Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


Memory Grove, SLC, UT


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#16    SLSeeker

SLSeeker

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:04 Feb 2013

Posted 05 February 2013 - 05:15 PM

View PostChrlzs, on 05 February 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

Before answering the content - can you verify you are NOT the OP?

I will verify I am not the OP, nor do I personally know the OP.
If anything it seems that the OP's story is off a bit. The "he" that took the picture is actually a "she".
The "she" I am referring to doesn't know what the "thing" in the picture is, but actually gave it a nickname, and joked that it was "her" demon.

The reason I visited, and ultimately posted in this forum in the first place is because I knew of the original images and happened to think about them the other night. I honestly wondered if anyone had ever come across, or posted about these specific pictures on any forums like this one. I wondered if the original photographer may have, and if not I considered pulling the images from their facebook page and posting them. I read OP's story and created an account to see if these were the photos, and thy were.

Quote

So much wrong in one post...
First up, why are you here?  Are these your images - if so, why didn't you say so?  Or did the OP invite you for backup?  Usually when this sort of 'cavalry' arrives, let's just say they are almost always .. er .. closely related..

These are not my images, nor did I ever claim they were. I do not know the OP, and as I said the OP's story is off just a bit.

Quote

Second, why didn't you (and the OP) simply give a date for the images?
And why, given the ridiculously-simple-to-add details in these tiny images, would anyone need a ghost app or an IPhone?
Third, these images, even the first, are indeed 'tampered with' - they have been re-sized and re-compressed, for a start.  So the comments about the OP not knowing much about image manipulation, come from someone who has the same (or less) knowledge.
Fourth, the image is clearly NOT the original and contain no exif data, so why tell us to look at it?
Fifth, 'pulling the image up in photoshop and manipulating', even assuming the readers here all have Photoshop (I do, and it's a legal copy - is yours?) will tell us nothing whatsoever about such a small and low quality image.

I am unaware of the specific date the photos were taken, I believe they were taken sometime around the early fall of 2007. I'm not sure why the OP didn't post any info associated with the date. Like I said, seems a bit off.

The reason I referred to the "ghost app" is because of Moonie's comment:

Quote

Just so everyone knows, the OP's last (now erased) thread was an OBVIOUS hoax. It was made with a ghost app, I believe. It wasn't subtle in any way, it had a ghost girl in it that was crudely slapped into the pic.

The first image to my knowledge has not been re sized. The other 3 photos were manipulated to increase the visibility of the anomaly. All 4 photos seem to be taken from the original photographers facebook page.

The more I respond to your reply, the more I'm starting to notice that it seems you really didn't read my original posting. I stated that I know the source of the image, not the OP. The OP clearly stated that they did not take the photo, nor did I claim so. Yes, as I said before, the original photographer has hardly any knowledge of photo manipulation. Here, I'll clarify my statement. The original photographer does not possess the skill or knowledge to manipulate an image to the point of fakery or hoaxing. The original photographer can apply a few filters, re size and crop images in Photoshop (Please note that I did not state that I own a legal, or illegal copy of Photoshop. Also,please forgive me, I haven't taken the time to validate the original photographer's copy of Photoshop therefore completely invalidating any aspect of my statement). That is the extent of their knowledge. The original photographer is not the OP. I stated that, the OP stated that.

Yes the exif data is tough to pull, and I assumed that anyone that would thoroughly criticize these images would have pulled in data. I'll post the image which is still on the original photographers facebook page.

Quote

So, in summary, pretty much everything you posted was wrong, and the image is not genuine.  I also doubt that you or the OP are genuine either, given one hoax already and the words:

????

'Gah', indeed.  Sounds an awful lot like a troll/hoax to me.  So, post the original image inc. exif, also post the images immediately before and after it, give details of dates, times and also tell us about how your friend gave permission to post the image, and what reasoning was behind the methods used to manipulate it..  Then I'll happily apologise for the implication.

I'm really surprised by the tone in which you responded to my initial post. I posted as much detail as I could. Feel free to ask me relevant questions about the image, source ect and I'll answer as best I can.

-SLSeeker

Attached Thumbnails

  • 180254_1867391211015_5401596_n.jpg


#17    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 5,333 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 06 February 2013 - 04:05 AM

View PostSLSeeker, on 05 February 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

I will verify I am not the OP, nor do I personally know the OP.
If anything it seems that the OP's story is off a bit. The "he" that took the picture is actually a "she".
The "she" I am referring to doesn't know what the "thing" in the picture is, but actually gave it a nickname, and joked that it was "her" demon.
It seems strange that your first post mentioned none of this - indeed I read it as you knowing and supporting the OP, not the person who took the images.  The fact that the OP seems to know someone who DIDN'T take the picture but is claiming to have done so surely should have raised a large red flag to you?

Quote

The reason I visited, and ultimately posted in this forum in the first place is because I knew of the original images and happened to think about them the other night.  I honestly wondered if anyone had ever come across, or posted about these specific pictures on any forums like this one. I wondered if the original photographer may have, and if not I considered pulling the images from their facebook page and posting them. I read OP's story and created an account to see if these were the photos, and thy were.

OK, but as I said, it seems strange that you didn't mention any of this in your first post - you can hardly blame me for being a bit suspicious in a world full of sockpuppets..

Quote

These are not my images, nor did I ever claim they were. I do not know the OP, and as I said the OP's story is off just a bit.

That latter sentence is how I would have started my initial post, if I was in your shoes...

Quote

I am unaware of the specific date the photos were taken, I believe they were taken sometime around the early fall of 2007. I'm not sure why the OP didn't post any info associated with the date. Like I said, seems a bit off.
The reason I referred to the "ghost app" is because of Moonie's comment:
OK again - my main concern is with the OP, then..

Quote

The first image to my knowledge has not been re sized. The other 3 photos were manipulated to increase the visibility of the anomaly. All 4 photos seem to be taken from the original photographers facebook page.

Well, I'm curious as to what camera or phone has a native image size of 600 x 450 pixels..

Quote

The more I respond to your reply, the more I'm starting to notice that it seems you really didn't read my original posting. I stated that I know the source of the image, not the OP. The OP clearly stated that they did not take the photo, nor did I claim so.
That's a fair criticism - but given the thread was started by the OP, one generally assumes someone who leaps to defend an image is defending the OP.  In this case it seems not, and you are in fact raising some major issues about them - as I said earlier, it was strange that you didn't do that from the start.

Quote

Yes, as I said before, the original photographer has hardly any knowledge of photo manipulation. Here, I'll clarify my statement. The original photographer does not possess the skill or knowledge to manipulate an image to the point of fakery or hoaxing. The original photographer can apply a few filters, re size and crop images in Photoshop (Please note that I did not state that I own a legal, or illegal copy of Photoshop. Also,please forgive me, I haven't taken the time to validate the original photographer's copy of Photoshop therefore completely invalidating any aspect of my statement). That is the extent of their knowledge. The original photographer is not the OP. I stated that, the OP stated that.
Thing is, aren't we just talking about some small points of light?  Anyone who has used Paint will be aware of how to add something like that..

Quote

Yes the exif data is tough to pull, and I assumed that anyone that would thoroughly criticize these images would have pulled in data. I'll post the image which is still on the original photographers facebook page.
Pointless, I'm afraid - posting it here automatically strips the exif.  That's not how you do it, and frankly this sort of stuff should involve the original owner of the images, not you or the OP making various unsupported and conflicting claims..

Quote

I'm really surprised by the tone in which you responded to my initial post. I posted as much detail as I could. Feel free to ask me relevant questions about the image, source ect and I'll answer as best I can.

I apologise - perhaps I'm a little jaded after dealing with trollish behavior elsewhere.  I'm afraid I have no further questions - the image doesn't seem to warrant it, and I don't wish to pursue this further if the owner isn't prepared to engage with the conversation.  Posting such imagery without permission from the owner is not appropriate imo, and may even be a copyright issue.

I'm out of this one.

There are answers out there, and they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?' - Tim Minchin ('Storm')
My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - me
The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - me

#18    SLSeeker

SLSeeker

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:04 Feb 2013

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:35 PM

View PostChrlzs, on 06 February 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

It seems strange that your first post mentioned none of this - indeed I read it as you knowing and supporting the OP, not the person who took the images.  The fact that the OP seems to know someone who DIDN'T take the picture but is claiming to have done so surely should have raised a large red flag to you?

[/size]
OK, but as I said, it seems strange that you didn't mention any of this in your first post - you can hardly blame me for being a bit suspicious in a world full of sockpuppets..


That latter sentence is how I would have started my initial post, if I was in your shoes...


OK again - my main concern is with the OP, then..


Well, I'm curious as to what camera or phone has a native image size of 600 x 450 pixels..


That's a fair criticism - but given the thread was started by the OP, one generally assumes someone who leaps to defend an image is defending the OP.  In this case it seems not, and you are in fact raising some major issues about them - as I said earlier, it was strange that you didn't do that from the start.


Thing is, aren't we just talking about some small points of light?  Anyone who has used Paint will be aware of how to add something like that..


Pointless, I'm afraid - posting it here automatically strips the exif.  That's not how you do it, and frankly this sort of stuff should involve the original owner of the images, not you or the OP making various unsupported and conflicting claims..


I apologise - perhaps I'm a little jaded after dealing with trollish behavior elsewhere.  I'm afraid I have no further questions - the image doesn't seem to warrant it, and I don't wish to pursue this further if the owner isn't prepared to engage with the conversation.  Posting such imagery without permission from the owner is not appropriate imo, and may even be a copyright issue.

[size=4]I'm out of this one.

Yes, you're right. I hardly mentioned any details in my first post. The reason being that I was on my cellphone, which isn't the most user friendly device when it comes to typing anything more than a text message or a tweet.

I did speak with the photographer on Sunday, and they did confirm that the original photo was not doctored or manipulated. I asked her if she still has the original image on disc, which she stated she does and is attempting to locate.


#19    *Frank*

*Frank*

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 391 posts
  • Joined:10 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:51 PM

Never to be seen again.

There was a SIGNATURE here. It's gone now.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users