Unexplained pic.

[iamdee1]

Smoke and wind can form whatever random shape(s) it wants to at any random moment in time, it's fluid not solid. I don't understand what your point is.

I don't have a point, I am just trying to understand how smoke would cause that shape. I would think smoke would go up and stay up but I'm not an expert on smoke. So I thought I would ask.

Surprisingly, that is how I learn new things.

Edited October 13, 2011 by iamdee1

[Moonie2012]

I don't have a point, I am just trying to understand how smoke would cause that shape. I would think smoke would go up but I'm not an expert on smoke. So I thought I would ask.

Surprisingly, that is how I learn new things.

Smoke goes up, wind blows it down. Wind beats smoke.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Moonie2012

[jaguarsky]

I am not sure what might have caused it, but it is obviouly a camera artifact of some kind, light reflecting off something and either the slight jostling of the camera, the shutter speed, or an object actually moving, like a bug or something being blown by the wind, created the sense of motion in the photo. I get them all the time in low light situations. They are almost as ubiquitous as "orbs".

[iamdee1]

I am not sure what might have caused it, but it is obviouly a camera artifact of some kind, light reflecting off something and either the slight jostling of the camera, the shutter speed, or an object actually moving, like a bug or something being blown by the wind, created the sense of motion in the photo. I get them all the time in low light situations. They are almost as ubiquitous as "orbs".

That sounds logical to me. Thank You.

[skeptik19]

you're an *******

Well, yeah. Did you think you would post that pic and get handed an award for providing proof for the existence of ghosts or something? Of course it and you will be questioned.

[iamdee1]

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 October 13, 2011 by iamdee1

[Mike G]

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 October 13, 2011 by Mike G

[Taita]

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]

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]

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]

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 October 13, 2011 by iamdee1

[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 October 14, 2011 by Jerry Only

[iamdee1]

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]

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.

[Bendy Demon]

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 October 15, 2011 by Ryu

[iamdee1]

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]

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 October 15, 2011 by iamdee1

[Evo]

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]

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...

[iamdee1]

Yes, I did look at Nibs picture and I do understand how it could be done with the wind. But even if this one isn't paranormal, I still like it.

[Orcseeker]

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.

Well I will come to the aid of the OP due to the demeaning comment made by Mike G. As I have also been personally targeted by this fellow who suggested I was schizophrenic. Where in this case he implied the OP is claiming this to be an example of a ghost (after receiving the reply there was no fire) where he simply put this up for analysis and was not implying that this was paranormal. Even throwing in a ridiculing comment.

I don't understand where his need to act in this way comes from and the fact he gets away with it. But in a forum where we are concentrating on the case, evidence etc NOT the individual is where Mike G does not adhere to.

Say the OP posts a picture of what he actually CLAIMS to be a ghost. It does not matter on his/her opinion, the image/footage must be analyses with a clear head and with no bias. No ridicule is to be dealt to the OP as it is not the OP we are analyzing, just his/her part of the STORY.

Some people I know who post pictures/footage/stories are producing fake content in regards to their claims but as I said earlier, we are here to analyse and develop our own opinion on the story/footage/picture and present what we believe to be ambiguities, untruths and inconsistencies as problems with the post and information supplied. Not attack the poster.

As for the image supplied by this poster, as what people have been suggesting, cigarette smoke or any kin of whispy smoke from a dwindling fire. Possible light refraction/smudge on the lens. An anomaly in the development on the picture. But this definitely has the characteristics of smoke.

[Bangbang]

you're an *******

He's right though.

[Mike G]

But in a forum where we are concentrating on the case, evidence etc NOT the individual

Mike G... Mike G... Mike G...

That's good advice. I only wish everyone would follow it and would not waste time launching personal tirades against other members, orcseeker. *cough, cough*

Back on topic, you say that you think that this picture shows some sort of smoke. But the OP'ster himself claims that there was absolutely no smoke present when the photo was taken. How does one address that conflict, in your opinion?

Edited October 17, 2011 by Mike G

[Orcseeker]

That's good advice. I only wish everyone would follow it and would not waste time launching personal tirades against other members, orcseeker. *cough, cough*

Back on topic, you say that you think that this picture shows some sort of smoke. But the OP'ster himself claims that there was absolutely no smoke present when the photo was taken. How does one address that conflict, in your opinion?

Oh the voices will never let me forget. XD

Well, someone had to say it. I was simply stating that what I have seen from you during my time on these forums directly conflicts with what is deemed acceptable behaviour. This is not a personal tirade, I have no problem with being insulted over the Internet because really on most terms, it has no grounding.

The other explanations I set before could explain this anomaly in the absense of smoke or fire.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Orcseeker