Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Pictures that can't be explained


LucidElement

Recommended Posts

I came across these pics on the internet let me know what you think. The first one is interesting because peoples first thought is photoshop but as they point out in the article, it was before the days of photoshop which makes it more fun to examine. Here is a list of links if anyone wants to talk about some of them.

http://rightbrainnews.com/13-pictures-that-cannot-be-explained/4/

http://rightbrainnews.com/13-pictures-that-cannot-be-explained/7/

http://rightbrainnews.com/13-pictures-that-cannot-be-explained/23/

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fun, but yes they're all pretty well explained.

Battle of LA :ph34r:

I used to see the more believer related side of the arguments, but these days, I'm skeptical for a very good reason.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carnivorfox said:

Just because Photoshop didn't exist doesn't mean they couldn't fake a picture. The Hook Island Sea Monster photos have been debunked (see Darren Naish's excellent article on the subject here). While the photos are impressive, the "monster" was actually a series of tarpaulins buried in the sand. The Freddy Jackson photo could easily have been a double exposure, similar to Mumler's hoaxed spirit photography. The Battle of LA photo was heavily retouched for publication in the newspapers, meaning that the UFO's are actually just contrast artifacts. All of these can be very well explained.

Even Heuvelmans realised the hook Island creature was a hoax. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LucidElement said:

I came across these pics on the internet let me know what you think. The first one is interesting because peoples first thought is photoshop but as they point out in the article, it was before the days of photoshop which makes it more fun to examine. Here is a list of links if anyone wants to talk about some of them.

http://rightbrainnews.com/13-pictures-that-cannot-be-explained/4/

http://rightbrainnews.com/13-pictures-that-cannot-be-explained/7/

http://rightbrainnews.com/13-pictures-that-cannot-be-explained/23/

 

For the Battle of LA you need to know that the published photo was heavily retouched to enhance the drama.  This was normal back in those days but compare the retouched to the original, unretouched, below,  and you'll see that the bright area is just a convergence zone of all the light beams with some smoke from the AA shells in the zone and around it.

http://framework.latimes.com/2011/03/10/the-battle-of-l-a-1942/#/0

unretouched

fa_248_battlela1_970.jpg

 

retouched

fa_248_battlela1a_970 retoiuched.jpg

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that of all of them, the Babushka lady is the only one that doesnt have a meaning (regarding the lady herself)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:32 AM, LucidElement said:

I came across these pics on the internet let me know what you think. The first one is interesting because peoples first thought is photoshop but as they point out in the article, it was before the days of photoshop which makes it more fun to examine. Here is a list of links if anyone wants to talk about some of them.

http://rightbrainnews.com/13-pictures-that-cannot-be-explained/4/

http://rightbrainnews.com/13-pictures-that-cannot-be-explained/7/

http://rightbrainnews.com/13-pictures-that-cannot-be-explained/23/

 

 

I got popup that also activated buzzer on my cell from these links. Is it them or my device?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:10 AM, The Narcisse said:

All photos can be explained.

The photographer rationale is harder to explain.

The observer effect also shares a spot here of influence.

No, not all photos can be explained (away) but all will be understood some day aka explain (about).

Try the mirror skill.

Edited by I hide behind words
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Merc14 said:

For the Battle of LA you need to know that the published photo was heavily retouched to enhance the drama.  This was normal back in those days but compare the retouched to the original, unretouched, below,  and you'll see that the bright area is just a convergence zone of all the light beams with some smoke from the AA shells in the zone and around it.

http://framework.latimes.com/2011/03/10/the-battle-of-l-a-1942/#/0

unretouched

fa_248_battlela1_970.jpg

 

retouched

fa_248_battlela1a_970 retoiuched.jpg

I see big hands from above.

Blisters from the dark remix.

To explain it is from the living we call the "dead".

Not UFOs but dead do battle life. They offer miracles as someone there or here and all points needed a reason more. This is it for them.

Edited by I hide behind words
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hook Island monster is a well-knownhoax although a giant tadpole is kind of a fun idea to kick around

Can someone tell me about the picture with the faceless figure hanging from the ceiling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 4/18/2017 at 9:46 AM, Timonthy said:

Fun, but yes they're all pretty well explained.

Battle of LA :ph34r:

I used to see the more believer related side of the arguments, but these days, I'm skeptical for a very good reason.

What is your theory on the Battle of LA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2017 at 9:47 AM, Carnivorfox said:

Just because Photoshop didn't exist doesn't mean they couldn't fake a picture. The Hook Island Sea Monster photos have been debunked (see Darren Naish's excellent article on the subject here). While the photos are impressive, the "monster" was actually a series of tarpaulins buried in the sand. The Freddy Jackson photo could easily have been a double exposure, similar to Mumler's hoaxed spirit photography. The Battle of LA photo was heavily retouched for publication in the newspapers, meaning that the UFO's are actually just contrast artifacts. All of these can be very well explained.

The Freddy Jackson picture is just interesting to me. His face right behind another teammates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LucidElement said:

The Freddy Jackson picture is just interesting to me. His face right behind another teammates.

Which can be easily replicated using the old photographic technique of double exposure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2017 at 7:19 PM, Merc14 said:

For the Battle of LA you need to know that the published photo was heavily retouched to enhance the drama.  This was normal back in those days but compare the retouched to the original, unretouched, below,  and you'll see that the bright area is just a convergence zone of all the light beams with some smoke from the AA shells in the zone and around it.

http://framework.latimes.com/2011/03/10/the-battle-of-l-a-1942/#/0

unretouched

fa_248_battlela1_970.jpg

 

retouched

fa_248_battlela1a_970 retoiuched.jpg

so if battle of LA was a hoax what exactly happened? There was no artillery fire at all?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, LucidElement said:

so if battle of LA was a hoax what exactly happened? There was no artillery fire at all?

No it happened and several people died a(heart attacks and car wrecks) and property was damaged.   Just a few days before a Japanese submarine surfaced and fired on a factory (three months after Pearl Harbor) and everyone was on edge.  The night of the "battle" alerts were issued and batteries were manned and then a radar got a hit on something 120 miles at sea (radars were very primitive at the time) and then someone saw something and all hell broke loose.  It was basically one big panic as nothing was there. 

The famous picture was a retouched image, something commonly done at the time to bring out the contrast, and the retouch just happened to look like a flying saucer....sort of.  When the saucer craze started a decade later that photo resurfaced and was shown as evidence of alien craft in our skies. 

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LucidElement said:

so if battle of LA was a hoax what exactly happened? There was no artillery fire at all?

In effect, you had a whole coastline of itchy trigger fingers and one Chicken Little who lit the fuse. 

Imagine you're expecting, not just fearing but actively expecting thr Japanese to attack. And then you hear gun fire from South of you. Obviously you're not on high alert. Maybe you even see where they're firing. What do you do? You lend your fire to their effort. It krept up the coast because of each firebase taking up the call and firing at something they've caught, or think they've caught in their search lights. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The website was good.   I liked how they gave more realistic possibilities.   Most of those type of sites only claim the least possible.

 

 

 

Edited by Myles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2017 at 9:32 AM, LucidElement said:

I came across these pics on the internet let me know what you think. The first one is interesting because peoples first thought is photoshop but as they point out in the article, it was before the days of photoshop which makes it more fun to examine. Here is a list of links if anyone wants to talk about some of them.

http://rightbrainnews.com/13-pictures-that-cannot-be-explained/4/

http://rightbrainnews.com/13-pictures-that-cannot-be-explained/7/

http://rightbrainnews.com/13-pictures-that-cannot-be-explained/23/

 

 

I have read and seen denunciations of all.

The Hook Island monster was presented as a trick from my first seeing it in the 80s as a kid. Its only recently new interest has arisen and im not sure why. The photographer of the HIM has quite a shady rep for hoaxes and fakes but all that could be coincifendal though unlikely.

 

Next is the infamous Freddy Jackson. This could be 100% real. It could be a spirit...BUT...putting ghostly faces of recently deceased was a thing they did in those days. Creating them as memoriams and due to heavy Spiritualism and its immense popularity it would not be unheard of to do so. It would also be fairly simple. I ask though 1) is that "ghost" actually this Freddy Jackson at all AND is this a double exposure aka do we have a plate or negative of the picture at all because i dont recall seeing one or hearing of any ORIGINAL and furthermore i find it odd but possible thst since i was 5 i was fascinated by ghosts and the unexplained. Why didnt i hear about FJs ghost? Why do i have no memory of the famous image prior to the internet? But i just couldve somehow never bought a book with it in. If it is true that FJs ghost pic wasnt found or whatever until the 90s or 00s then, like The Falling Cooper Body, we must simply say its either a fake or intentionally done by the photographer and everyone un that squadron was aware 

Finally The Battle of LApicture was touched up to appear like an object is there and it is not in the original as well as the lack of seeing impacts of any sort and instead people died from the shelling. Again all that could be lies and cover ups as well but it seemed to me even with an OBJECT it appears to be intersecting lights.

I am not trying to just tear apart these unex pics. "I want to believe", i did once. As i age and dig deeper i find my beliefs in the fortean collapse as the lies and hoaxes all become apperant. I desperately search for that which will bring that sense of wonder and magic into this world again

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 9:26 AM, Black Monk said:

disturbing-19.jpg

I have seen this pic in many ghostly photo lists, the backstory is that the ghost is the little girl's mother who died sometime before the photo was taken. Even if its just a case of pareidolia, it pretty impressive how it really does look like a person on their hands and knees.

On ‎4‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 8:38 AM, The Russian Hare said:

Hook Island monster is a well-knownhoax although a giant tadpole is kind of a fun idea to kick around

Can someone tell me about the picture with the faceless figure hanging from the ceiling?

This one?

toypookgoo705.jpg.992d6e738f041686e7ffb0048aee4699.jpg

Shouldn't we set up one of these threads in the ghost section of the forums for these kinds of pics?

Edited by AustinHinton
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.