84 replies to this topic

[scowl]

Helen of Annoy, on 10 January 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

it’s Olympus VG-110, still new but I had very similar “toy” Olympuses before and never caught anything like that before. Still working fine, no glitches of any kind. As I already explained and re-explained. No, it can't leak, it's digital camera.  

It can leak. In fact an expensive DSLR that Canon just released had a light leak in the design.

Quote

One: not the first photo in the row. Photos taken before should show more condensation. Or if the condensation has been forming while taking photos, the anomaly should be more visible in later photos.

Condensation can form and evaporate quickly.

Quote

Second:   I really stood in the same spot, took photos with the same routine, same flash, same ambient lights, no cars, no light from the house. Nothing changed from photo to photo, not even the angle or height at which I kept my arms.

Nothing changed that you saw. You might be mistaken as observers often are.

Quote

Third: or a fairy really close to the lens... snowflakes were obviously close but there was no significant wind, I was under roof (that sticks about half metre out, more than enough to stay dry in calm air) and the snow was rather wet and “heavy” (that’s why it looked so good on trees, it was sticking to everything). So snowflakes were not erratically flying like dry snow sometimes does in the wind.

That you saw.

Quote

I’d notice if a wet, big snowflake is now a drop on my lens. That would also show in later photos.

Not if it quickly evaporated.

Quote

A snowflake relatively close but not on the lense would not create such effect, it creates effect of compact white blotch, as seen in all photos in that row.

Could you please post an example of this?

Quote

Also, such relatively close snowflakes would, again, be there in all other photos and, again and again, would show in other photos.

Not if one stray snowflake somehow got near the lens. That would explain everything.

Quote

Since you took million photos, at least few hundred were in the snow.

No, snow is rare here. Most of my photography is indoor sports. My outdoor photography is during the spring and summer.

Quote

How many times a snowflake has created effect matching my anomaly? I would love to see it, for the sake of giving some practical weight to a theory.  

Unfortunately I don't have any cameras similar to your Olympus. All my cameras are 35mm with physical shutters. You can hold onto your theory that you've taken a picture of a paranormal incident if you need to.

Quote

Scientific explanation has to be proven, I won’t write something off based on relatively new phenomenon of scientific superstition.

Similar photos (the well-known "orb" photos) have been nothing more than something close to the lens being lit up by the flash. There is nothing in the photo that suggests anything else. You can testify that nothing was near the lens when you took the photo but you can't know for certain and the photo indicates that you're wrong.

[ouija ouija]

It came back to me! There are snowflakes between the 'apparition' and the camera, so the 'apparition' can't be something on the lens. Plus: the flash shows up on the camera-side of the 'apparition'; if the 'apparition' was on the lens it would appear dark on the camera-side(nearest to the photographer).

[Helen of Annoy]

scowl, on 10 January 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

It can leak. In fact an expensive DSLR that Canon just released had a light leak in the design.

This was not an expensive Canon, this is cheap Olympus.
And it has no leak. Thank god. What's cheap for you is treasure for me... apparently, not only camera-wise but also anomaly-wise

Quote

Condensation can form and evaporate quickly.

Yes, but see the part of my post about July. Also why this particular anomaly happens so rarely? If it was just condensation, it would be all over photo albums, like the notorious orbs are.

Quote

Nothing changed that you saw. You might be mistaken as observers often are.

Let’s not drag this to desperate level. Nothing changed, let’s look for convincing physical explanation that doesn’t require belief factor.
You can easily check my statement by examining the photos. If I'm not reliable source for you, technology is.  

Quote

That you saw.

I might be blind, but my camera isn’t.

Quote

Not if it quickly evaporated.

Good argument for something that happened in July, but weather that allows water to evaporate instantly would not create condensation. Or snow. This happened around Christmas, in area where Mediterranean and continental climate meet and create all kinds of wonders, but drops of water vanishing instantly in snowy winter night would be a miracle.

Quote

Could you please post an example of this?

Both photos from the OP. See the little blotches all over both photos? These are snowflakes under flash.
(Questions like this make me start losing saintly patience I’ve choose to display in this thread.)

Quote

Not if one stray snowflake somehow got near the lens. That would explain everything.

No, it wouldn’t. Not to write a whole essay on snowflake structure and how it wouldn’t look like this anomaly at all. There are too many empty spaces between the “bones”, close objects can and often do create blotches, this anomaly is not compact and it clearly is not a close snowflake, dandruff, finger, or any other close object.
Take a look of any photo with object close to the lens and you’ll maybe understand the huge visual difference between a fuzzy but compact blotch and my anomaly.
Also, a desperate explanation could be a light, tangled and bent fiber of sorts, but it wouldn't be semi-transparent with more compact "body" and so on, again, not to write whole essay. (I was a bit surprised with some visual concepts in this thread... then I found comfort in thought that it's probably just people don't taking a proper look.)

Quote

No, snow is rare here. Most of my photography is indoor sports. My outdoor photography is during the spring and summer.

How inconvenient  

Quote

Unfortunately I don't have any cameras similar to your Olympus. All my cameras are 35mm with physical shutters. You can hold onto your theory that you've taken a picture of a paranormal incident if you need to.

Just like I generously invite you to stick to your need to live in already fully explained world.

Quote

Similar photos (the well-known "orb" photos) have been nothing more than something close to the lens being lit up by the flash. There is nothing in the photo that suggests anything else. You can testify that nothing was near the lens when you took the photo but you can't know for certain and the photo indicates that you're wrong.

If this looks similar to an orb... anyway, see the line above: if you need...  


It is time we politely agree that we disagree about my anomaly.
If you think of something else, please do drop by and let me know. I will not only admit you’re right, but also congratulate you if you find convincing explanation that consist of more than "it must be you being wrong".    

ouija ouija, on 10 January 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

It came back to me! There are snowflakes between the 'apparition' and the camera, so the 'apparition' can't be something on the lens. Plus: the flash shows up on the camera-side of the 'apparition'; if the 'apparition' was on the lens it would appear dark on the camera-side(nearest to the photographer).

Thank you for actually taking a look at that photo.  
I wouldn’t post it if I wasn’t quite sure it’s something interesting. Nothing more or less than something interesting and I'm glad it intrigued you too

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

scowl, on 10 January 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

It can leak. In fact an expensive DSLR that Canon just released had a light leak in the design.



Condensation can form and evaporate quickly.



Nothing changed that you saw. You might be mistaken as observers often are.



That you saw.



Not if it quickly evaporated.



Could you please post an example of this?



Not if one stray snowflake somehow got near the lens. That would explain everything.



No, snow is rare here. Most of my photography is indoor sports. My outdoor photography is during the spring and summer.



Unfortunately I don't have any cameras similar to your Olympus. All my cameras are 35mm with physical shutters. You can hold onto your theory that you've taken a picture of a paranormal incident if you need to.



Similar photos (the well-known "orb" photos) have been nothing more than something close to the lens being lit up by the flash. There is nothing in the photo that suggests anything else. You can testify that nothing was near the lens when you took the photo but you can't know for certain and the photo indicates that you're wrong.

Why do you seem to be so anxious to prove that it must be something prosaic, I wonder? I've noticed this tendency from a lot of people; there seems to be an almost evangelical desire to insist that everything must be something prosaic. I wonder why that might be.

[Helen of Annoy]

Lord Vetinari, on 12 January 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Why do you seem to be so anxious to prove that it must be something prosaic, I wonder? I've noticed this tendency from a lot of people; there seems to be an almost evangelical desire to insist that everything must be something prosaic. I wonder why that might be.

While I could be wrong, it’s my personal opinion that any religious need comes from universal human desire for stability, security, predictability of existence. (Obviously, I see hardcore scepticism as just another religious system. It has no god, but it has dogma, and what cemented dogma it is.)
I’m not different, I’d love to have one firm frame within which everything is explained (through god or physics). Unfortunately or fortunately (still pondering about that) I’m not a good follower. There’s always something so interesting at the side of the beaten path. The upside is that I make my way through bramble and pop up back at the path, before others have noticed I’m missing

The other possibility is that some people are disappointed with “the supernatural”, in a sense that they feel not helped or betrayed or are simply frustrated with elusive nature of not entirely or not at all material phenomena, so they express their bitterness through challenging the very existence of anything that is not pure matter and mechanics.

A part of me too is a child disappointed with disinterested gods, frustrated observer that knows only I don’t really know anything. See, I just went into bramble again

And there's the lowest motive for ultra-scepticism: since materialism is dominant in modern science, some people feel backed up enough to go around and scoff at anyone that is not sticking to current scientific gospel. The fact that science does change its conclusions and even the concepts, almost daily, doesn't bother them, because they are not looking for answers, they are looking for domination.

Edited by Helen of Annoy, 12 January 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[ouija ouija]

Lord Vetinari, on 12 January 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Why do you seem to be so anxious to prove that it must be something prosaic, I wonder? I've noticed this tendency from a lot of people; there seems to be an almost evangelical desire to insist that everything must be something prosaic. I wonder why that might be.

Firstly, I see absolutely NO anxiety in any of Helen's posts(have you actually read through the entire thread?); secondly, this post of yours smacks very much of a sadness that the world appears so commonplace and dull to you ...... I think you envy others who recognise the unusual in life. Thirdly, no-one else has come up with a plausible explanation for what appears in the photo ...... and don't forget: Helen was there when the photo was taken

[markdohle]

Helen of Annoy, on 15 December 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

Yes, I know, I kind of answered my own question but besides being an anomaly, what do you think this is?
It was taken a week ago, it was snowing, obviously, but I've put a completely ordinary photo taken few seconds apart to show you what the photo was supposed to look like.

Looks like one of the ghost from "Casper" LOL.

peace
Mark

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

ouija ouija, on 12 January 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

Firstly, I see absolutely NO anxiety in any of Helen's posts(have you actually read through the entire thread?); secondly, this post of yours smacks very much of a sadness that the world appears so commonplace and dull to you ...... I think you envy others who recognise the unusual in life. Thirdly, no-one else has come up with a plausible explanation for what appears in the photo ...... and don't forget: Helen was there when the photo was taken

Oh no, i wasn't talking about Helen, i was talking about the people who are anxious to right it off as something mundane.


Write? Write, perhaps.

[ouija ouija]

Lord Vetinari, on 13 January 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

Oh no, i wasn't talking about Helen, i was talking about the people who are anxious to right it off as something mundane.


Write? Write, perhaps.

I'm so sorry ..... I feel really silly !

[Helen of Annoy]

ouija, don’t feel silly, I was repeating through the whole thread that I will accept convincing physical explanation so it’s just a communication glitch, since LV wasn’t referring to my invitation to mundane but to scowl’s insisting on mundane.

And nothing happens for no reason, so you should know I really appreciated “Helen was there when the photo was taken” because after materialist interrogation even I get into temptation to start thinking if I was there or the guys who are so sure I must be wrong about the whole event.

Edited by Helen of Annoy, 13 January 2013 - 07:31 PM.