10 Mysterious Photos

#3
I think at least one of those photos has been debunked - the "Tadpole"-photo. I think he admitted it himself. Not sure though.

The "Astronaut"-photo had been examined by the best photo analysts at Kodak, and they said they didn't find any trickery.

The dead soldier-photo I also think was examined. It is the one guy who died, and for it beings some sort of double exposure I find it quite amazing that he would be at that direct spot and also be somewhat covered by the man in front of him. Photo taken back in 1919. No photoshop back then I think.

I haven't checked up the rest. Some I've heard about, others not.

Hesssdalen phenomen - there is no doubt about it's existence and that it is unexplainable at this point.
"The Falling Guy" looks quite insane. I dont know if it could be some sort of double exposure and that they turned the film upside down when they put it back. If not - then it's a ghost;)
 
Last edited:
#4
The last one, with Elisa Lam, is mysterious. Not sure it has got so much to do with photographs though.
She did act strangely before anding up inside that water-tank.
 
#5
The last one, with Elisa Lam, is mysterious. Not sure it has got so much to do with photographs though.
She did act strangely before anding up inside that water-tank.
Yeah I remember that when it happened. I don't know but she could maybe be suffering of some sort of psychological problem. The way she act when she went out of the elevator doesn't look really rational. It looks like she petting an invisible dog or something. I don't think we can rule out suicide by drowning. But I have to add that I don't know how the crime-scene looked like. If the opening, or door to the tank was locked etc, which could indicate that someone either forced her in there, or placed her unconscious body there to drown,
 
#7
The "child with the astronaut" has been explained some time ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solway_Firth_Spaceman
Well, that "debunking" was a load of bollox, I think.

According to Sheffield Hallam University journalism lecturer and writer David Clarke in 2014, the "spaceman" is most likely Templeton's wife, Annie, who was present at the time and was seen on other photographs taken that day. "I think for some reason his wife walked into the shot and he didn't see her because with that particular make of camera you could only see 70% of what was in the shot through the viewfinder", said Clarke. Annie was wearing a pale blue dress on the day in question, which was overexposed as white in the other photos; she also had dark, bobbed hair. It has been argued that, when using photo software to darken the image and straighten the horizon, the figure increasingly appears to be a regular person viewed from behind.[3][4] Of its impact, Clarke said: "[P]eople will still be talking about it in another 50 years."[3]
 
#8
#9
Take a closer look, here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread896175/pg1
See also the comments, where moro photos and details are pointed out.

Or here:
http://debunkedmyth.blogspot.it/2013/07/the-solway-firth-spaceman.html

The "spaceman" clearly looks like someone's back and the arm/elbow position looks unnatural unless you realize it's seen from the back.

At the second photo, were we can see the mom and her dress, he says; "Notice also that the dress is a very light blue, that will wash out to white in the bright light." Then why would it show as blue there, when she was in full bright sunlight, and just in the first photo?

Also, the mom has an armless dress, and one can see that the "astronaut" look like he is wearing clothing over his arm, and it are of the same colour.
And what about the "helmet"? Did the mother had one?

Well, either way, it's and interesting photo in the sense that it got us talking about it. ;)

PS: What about the "Falling Guy"?? :)
 
#13
The picture with the hanging man... raises of couple of questions

1) if you remove the man from the picture the photo appears very unusual. Why aren't the subjects at the centre of the image? It seems as if the photographer was more interested in leaving space on the left side, or at least include the table at all costs in the picture. Kind of a strange idea given that the subjects are supposed to be the two ladies and the children.
Maybe the original also had extra empty space on the right side, and it was cut later?

2) The hanging man looks really odd. There's a zipper (or just buttons?) on his shirt suggesting that his chest is facing the camera. And yet if you turn up the image level there's no face at all (creepy!). It looks like the back of a head. Also there's very little color difference between what looks like the neck and the head and hair. Especially if you look at the side where it is still hit by the flash.

familygathering.jpg

Could it be a stuffed puppet? In general the shape of the body and arms look proportionate and "credible".

Also strange, the subjects in the photo do not project any visible shadows, meaning that they're probably very close to the wall. The man instead seems to be projecting a shadow, especially from the arm on the left side. Which is very strange because that's the arm less exposed to light and the shadow is very much off-axis.
Unless it's not a shadow but the blur effect of the arm swinging?

In any case the position of the hanging body suggests a front facing position, but the head doesn't. Which doesn't make it more real (I think it's a hoax) but certainly more creepy :eek:
 
#14
View attachment 450

What about looking at "the space between"? Instead of viewing it as something hanging down, it could be a child (a small girl in a light-coloured dress) standing, with her back to the camera, and reaching up. Possibly either hugging an adult or trying to hide in a hanging curtain.

As for the off-centre composition, the candles on the table seem to be an important element of the event, and were included as a feature. The distribution of the light from the flash is pretty well centred, so if this was once a larger picture subsequently cropped (which I doubt) then the centre would remain as it is now, still in the centre.
 
#15
What about looking at "the space between"? Etc.
Actually, I don't think that helps. There's something wrong with the lighting in the shot. Typically with the use of flash there is a thin black outline around one edge of the subjects, people, table etc. Here the visible shadow is very thin. Yet around the top left corner there are apparently multiple shadows, and very wide ones at that. It might suggest a double exposure (who knows what was the other shot, it may have been a mistake). Or simply a deliberate hoax. Something isn't right for an ordinary single photograph I think.
 
Last edited:
#16
Yes, the man seems to have been added later.

The problem with the double exposure is that the 2nd shot should result "transparent" unless the background from the previous shot is fully black.
In this case there is light behind the right side of the "hanging man", but the transparency is not visible.

The hands also look unnatural. The hand on the right is not even recognizable as such.
 
#17
The hands also look unnatural. The hand on the right is not even recognizable as such.
Possibly that appearance - which tends to look 'ghostly' even when one knows the explanation, was the result of a long exposure shot without flash, where the hands were moved during the exposure.

If the final picture was made from the combination of two negatives at the printing stage, all ordinary logic regarding transparency and so on is lost. For example the first negative could be selectively masked so as to leave a blank area, and then add the second negative again with selective masking. If the mask is held between the lens and the paper, it wouldn't leave any sharp outline an thus would not be obvious. Even traditional photography had its share of such manipulation, for example adding clouds to the blank sky of an otherwise interesting view.

If there was a full trail back to the original negative(s) it would help, but all I've seen is a fairly low-resolution jpg.
 
Top