-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
     

  1.   (reply to 7286)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/gfx/ - Graphics Manipulation
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 781 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

We are in the process of fixing long-standing bugs with the thread reader. This will probably cause more bugs for a short period of time. Buckle up.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Anonymous 21/03/12(Fri)17:27 No. 7286 ID: 8db943
7286

File 161556647557.jpg - (182.14KB , 640x360 , 06.jpg )

Anyone know who did these?


>>
Anonymous 21/03/12(Fri)17:29 No. 7287 ID: 8db943
7287

File 161556659151.jpg - (356.29KB , 1469x980 , 0012223003.jpg )


>>
Anonymous 21/03/12(Fri)17:39 No. 7290 ID: 8db943
7290

File 161556716237.jpg - (467.23KB , 1280x720 , 564823.jpg )


>>
Anonymous 21/03/12(Fri)18:04 No. 7294 ID: 8db943
7294

File 161556865931.jpg - (722.46KB , 1469x980 , malk323654.jpg )


>>
Anonymous 21/03/13(Sat)01:29 No. 7295 ID: a34050
7295

File 161559535432.jpg - (619.74KB , 1920x1080 , vlcsnap-00001.jpg )

nejsem si jistý, že jsou nakupované, viděl jsem to na jednom z Janině videa, podívejte se pozorně na její prsa. Podíval jsem se na stejný klip stažený v jiný den a nic jsem neviděl! Někdy tam někdy ne.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/13(Sat)02:23 No. 7296 ID: 43e75e
7296

File 16155986368.jpg - (905.00KB , 1194x1798 , egaffweb.jpg )

Derselbe Kerl?


>>
Anonymous 21/03/13(Sat)12:01 No. 7297 ID: a34050

Hi, can anyone translate that? I've not seen either of those pictures! I have that Eufrat movie so I'll look at that. But I've not seen the other (amateur?) picture. Do we know who is doing them?


>>
Anonymous 21/03/13(Sat)14:01 No. 7298 ID: a09950
7298

File 161564051277.jpg - (863.46KB , 1280x1454 , vysvětlit01.jpg )

Důvod, proč říkám, že jsou skutečné, protože proč tak jemné? Většinu těchto událostí nemůžete vidět bez velkého zkoumání. Ukazovat víc.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/13(Sat)14:34 No. 7299 ID: a09950
7299

File 161564248331.jpg - (669.99KB , 1920x1080 , jan1033427.jpg )

Zkoumám každý janin film.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/13(Sat)16:02 No. 7300 ID: a34050

Ok, so either someone has doctored a copy of their video and then some of us have ended up with them. I have two versions of her videos that I downloaded a while back, and the lines appear in one and not the other. Or. the lines are there and some players just don't pick them up. But then there are two major questions. 1) Why would someone go all the trouble of making something really hard to see and that is very easy to miss? 2) If its real what is it?
Who is she anyway on the clips I have she's just called a "sexy brunette". The other model's video is by BareMaidens but I can't find who she is.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/13(Sat)17:32 No. 7301 ID: 254bd7

FAKE! That's Eurant Mai and the big titted one is Bree Daniels.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/13(Sat)19:42 No. 7304 ID: 8dd6c3
7304

File 161566097451.jpg - (224.18KB , 720x540 , wmv0001.jpg )

Auch ich habe solche Bilder! Ich denke, sie sind korrupt. Dies ist von Met Art Video und dauert einige Sekunden.


>>
Dark_182D 21/03/13(Sat)21:52 No. 7305 ID: 2bbe6e
7305

File 161566875510.jpg - (398.07KB , 1150x1340 , vlcsnap-00002.jpg )

Images that have poor quality like this are easy to fake the question here thats already been said is why go to all the trouble to create something that nobody's gonna see?? I was going to say that Seeing how these have only just been posted, I would say that they were probably faked by the original poster. BUT I've got a load of Brea Daniels Bare Maidens content when I was a member around 2012-13 downloaded directly from them and I've found this on one of my videos. From going through the frames on VLC, whatever it is, is in the video itself for sure and you can see it moving for about 7 to 10 seconds. It looks like two faint beams of light coming out of her tits and move around as she does. You can't see it in the screen caps, but where the two beams finish up near the mountain top you can see a blurry distortion like heat haze. The beams then break up into a crescent shape stuck to her tits, spreads out and disappears. I know for a FACT that other than taking screen caps for this I've not touched this film, and although I can remember watching it at the time I didn't notice it. I might be wrong but she looks like she can see it as well, because she kind'a turns her body away but she's looking up where the beams end. If its not some proper weird shit, I'd be very interested to know who did this and for what reason.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/13(Sat)23:11 No. 7307 ID: 2bbe6e

>>7295
(Translation)
I'm not sure they're shopping, I saw it on one of Jane's videos, look closely at her breasts. I watched the same clip downloaded on another day and didn't see anything! Sometimes you don't.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/13(Sat)23:12 No. 7308 ID: 2bbe6e

>>7296
(Translation)
The same guy?


>>
Anonymous 21/03/13(Sat)23:13 No. 7309 ID: 2bbe6e

>>7298
(Translation)
The reason I'm saying they're real, because why so subtle? You can't see most of these events without much scrutiny. Show more.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/13(Sat)23:14 No. 7310 ID: 2bbe6e

>>7299
(tanslation)
I'm researching every jane movie.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/13(Sat)23:15 No. 7311 ID: 2bbe6e

>>7304
(Translation)
I also have such pictures! I think they are corrupt. This is from Met Art Video and takes a few seconds.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/14(Sun)02:09 No. 7314 ID: d0d355
7314

File 161568417452.gif - (2.37MB , 600x338 , Břehu řeky.gif )

Tady! Nemohu nahrávat déle.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/14(Sun)13:32 No. 7315 ID: 2bbe6e

>>7314
I can just about see a line from her boobs. Can you upload the original clip,(better quality) that looks like a GIF image? Thanks to whoever translated the other posters post...can you continue please?


>>
Anonymous 21/03/14(Sun)13:35 No. 7317 ID: 2bbe6e
7317

File 161572534191.jpg - (114.51KB , 720x528 , pornhq02.jpg )

I've found these, not sure if they are the same, but they look suspect. The Red News one could be a lens flare, but it passes behind the logo when she leans forward and again appears to come from her boobs. Whoever did these spent a lot of time on making their work unseen!


>>
Anonymous 21/03/14(Sun)13:36 No. 7318 ID: 2bbe6e
7318

File 161572536634.jpg - (114.78KB , 720x400 , 578876.jpg )

>>7317


>>
Anonymous 21/03/14(Sun)23:46 No. 7319 ID: 2bbe6e

I've just spend all day downloading Brea Daniels and Eufrat Mai films to look over. I'm on holiday next week so I'm going to see if I can find any more of these weird scenes. If any of you guys find any more please post them here!


>>
Anonymous 21/03/15(Mon)21:45 No. 7320 ID: a09950
7320

File 161584113847.jpg - (428.99KB , 1280x720 , vlcsnap-00003.jpg )


>>
Anonymous 21/03/15(Mon)21:46 No. 7321 ID: a09950
7321

File 161584116560.jpg - (473.95KB , 1280x720 , vlcsnap-00004.jpg )


>>
Anonymous 21/03/15(Mon)22:03 No. 7322 ID: a09950

disturbances only seen in movies and not photosets. I have a clip about 4 seconds long where you can see very faint transparent lines but can't upload it. How can you do that anyone know?


>>
Anonymous 21/03/16(Tue)21:11 No. 7323 ID: 2bbe6e
7323

File 161592547460.jpg - (182.25KB , 576x432 , 002341.jpg )

Szene aus Babe Stadt. Sehr schwer zu sehen, aber die gleiche rote und blaue Farbe in diesem.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/16(Tue)21:14 No. 7324 ID: 2bbe6e
7324

File 161592568696.jpg - (128.71KB , 1920x1080 , xprs4445.jpg )

Wenig Farbe in den Strahlen in diesem Bild, aber mehr Verzerrung kann um den Körper gesehen werden, wo sie sein sollten.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/26(Fri)22:41 No. 7330 ID: 8db943

Boards back up!


>>
Anonymous 21/03/28(Sun)13:35 No. 7335 ID: c73521
7335

File 161693132695.jpg - (301.75KB , 640x1130 , 01.jpg )

Drei Bilder von Bare Maidens. Die erste zeigt diese Lichtstrahlen nur sehr schwach und Sie müssen vergrößern, um zu sehen. Zwei ist vor original Post und Zeigen Strahl des Lichts, aber auch sehr schwer zu sehen. Drei ist auch vor und Sie sehen vier Blase?


>>
Dark_182D 21/03/28(Sun)20:11 No. 7336 ID: c73521
7336

File 161695506457.jpg - (242.26KB , 640x360 , 1263543.jpg )

if you go even further back in this shot you can see there is something there even before you see colours.
In this image you can see a line of broken pixels that extend from her left tit that looks like all the other beam like features.
But the right has like a triangular area of broken pixels that narrows towards her right tit which is being blocked by her right hand. I'd say that this means whatever is causing the image breakup is coming >>from<< her tits, not going to them.?
Look at the magnified image on the bottom picture and you can see this.


>>
Dark_182D 21/03/28(Sun)20:11 No. 7337 ID: c73521
7337

File 161695509674.jpg - (253.94KB , 640x360 , 1263544.jpg )

>>7336


>>
Thomas 21/03/29(Mon)00:32 No. 7338 ID: c73521

I was watching this thread with interest before it went down, and I wanted to contribute, but the site went down before I could. I just wanted to see which way the general consensus went before I spoke up and made myself sound like a complete mad man.
I have been a photographer since 1964 and professional since around 1972. Most of my work has been freelance, with the majority of my pictures appearing in various magazines, and then of course in the late 90's and 2000's on web sites. Although I like to call myself a jack of all trades photographically speaking, I specialized in female nudes, and have worked with some of the worlds most famous and beautiful adult models. As you might have guessed I'm now retired, but still like to keep my hand in and I'm still very active taking pictures.

So enough of my credentials and on to where I think I can contribute to this discussion. I have on occasions during my career photographed scenes that I have not been able to explain "rationally". Form my earliest pictures taken with some fine Pentax equipment to my latest Canon EOS 5D IV, there have always been those pictures that get binned because of a ghost image, dust, lens flares or aberration of the lens or mirror. Most of these peculiarities have not been apparent visually at the time of shooting, but have revealed themselves in either the dark room, or in post processing on the computer.

However, one example, was back in the mid 70's when I pictured a young model (obviously can't give her name) who had never modelled before. Unfortunately for her, although she most certainly had the body, she didn't have the "look" to be a top nude page 3 model, which she wanted to be. However, I was fairly prolific with some much lesser known "adult" publications at the time and her "girl next door" look was more suited to this genre. (remember pornography was far more taboo in the U.K. then)
She only did three paid shoots, two for 'pussy cats' and one for 'Fiesta', but as a result of her unusual ability I ended up picturing her many more times out of my own pocket because of some of the images I captured of her. Some of the pictures I took of her were very similar to some of the pictures posted here. I would say that out of 100 pictures of her 3 or 4 would be unusual, these were usually taken around the same time, but more often than not her pictures were quite normal.
I actually discarded many images early on where annoying lines and odd distortions appeared to be either emanating from, or surrounding this this young model, and I would put them down to the above optical defects or chemical deficiencies within the film at the time of developing. The interesting thing of note which I find fascinating now, and confirms what I saw back then is that in these modern pictures you can see blues, reds, and greens in the features. In all my images (obviously pre-digital) all these shapes were in varying degrees of greys and whites. Even in my colour images these lines were a very pale greyish white, no colour at all, which would make perfect sense as the C41 we used at the time probably wouldn't be able to show those very faint details in such colour.

Because these things only occurred with this particular model, I suspected that what I was seeing was actually "there" and not a product of the film, as the lines and such only appeared around her and not around any of the other models. At the time I was photographing probably 15 to 20 different models a week for hours at a time, so you can imagine how many pictures I'd taken. Not one of them produced a single picture like hers. What would the chances be of taking positively thousands of pictures of different women only to have these features show up with only one of them? In the intervening 45 years I have to this day not had one single model who has given me pictures like her.
I can remember at the time (mid 70's) we in the U.K. had an unknown mysteries series on ITV (can't remember the name of it now) where they would discuss pictures of ghosts, U.F.O.'s, and the Loch Ness Monster. I can clearly remember at the time wanting to send in some of my pictures, but obviously not being able to as all my mysterious pictures had a naked woman in them!! But it did make me wonder if there was some ghostly spirit attached to this woman, or indeed if she herself was "out of this world" perhaps!!

Alas, I shared what I had photographed with a good friend at the time - the only friend and person I could trust, he managed to convince me that this woman wasn't an "angel" (yes I suspected it!) and what I was seeing was either not even there because he couldn't see it, or it was simply defects in the film. Remember this is the 1970's, you couldn't share things on the internet with others, it was a very closed society where images of a naked woman surrounded by strange shapes wouldn't be shown or accepted publicly. As a result all my pictures of her were lost in my huge clear out sometime in the 90's, and despite spending several hours last weekend in my loft I can't find any of those pictures.

I sort of forgot about this strange time in my career until I saw the original posters image. Seeing that and these other pictures has not only brought all those memories back, but now convinced me that there are some women out there that radiate this light/energy from their bodies which is obviously invisible to the eye but not the camera. Whether these particular pictures are real or manipulated I have no idea, but what I see here is identical to what I saw back in the 1970's, and I know for a fact that I didn't "create" those images short of just taking them. The one thing I do regret that I can't understand to this day why I didn't do it at the time was to actually show her the strange pictures of her I took! I never once mentioned the lines or fuzzy pictures I took of her and never explained why her pictures never got published. Thank you to those who have posted their images here, its made an old man feel not so crazy anymore.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/29(Mon)13:33 No. 7339 ID: c73521
7339

File 161701763762.jpg - (446.97KB , 1908x2208 , 1268732.jpg )

Mám 3 kopie tohoto videa a pouze jedna ukazuje tyto detaily. Podívej se na ty žluté čáry. Seřadí se s prsy. Ale jiné čáry (černé) se také vyrovnávají s prsy, ale mají jiný tvar Proč jsou tyto?


>>
Anonymous 21/03/29(Mon)16:37 No. 7340 ID: c73521

>>7338
Hi Thomas i'm from the U.K. also! Did you ever hear of any of the other photographers in the 70's finding strange marks on their images? I'm finding it hard to believe that this phenomena is only just coming to light now, and nobody else has reported seeing anything.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/29(Mon)16:40 No. 7342 ID: c73521

>>7339
((Translation for this post by the way))
I have 3 copies of this video and only one shows these details. Look at those yellow lines. They line up with her breasts. But other lines (black) also align with breasts, but have a different shape Why are these?


>>
Anonymous 21/03/31(Wed)00:47 No. 7343 ID: e238da
7343

File 161714446076.jpg - (1.56MB , 2346x960 , 0068.jpg )


>>
Thomas. 21/03/31(Wed)23:23 No. 7346 ID: eaf886

>>7340
Hi, I'm fairly sure that other photographers saw similar things. But like I said, I often put these things down to the photographic processes involved at the time and/or lighting. Since going digital I haven't come across one model who has caused these strange features. Of course I'm retired now and don't have the opportunity to photograph (in the business) anymore, but I sure would love to photograph both the models shown here as they obviously hide some secret that we know nothing about.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/02(Fri)12:02 No. 7347 ID: eaf886
7347

File 16173577449.jpg - (1.22MB , 1532x1752 , HAlphaedit01.jpg )

found another one. You need to run the screen shots through photoshop or other imaging software so you can adjust the RGB and other levels to fetch out the colours. Non of the rays were visible, and I mean NOTHING was visible in the actual moving scene except for one instance when the model walks back the opposite way after the bridge shot and her tits were really bouncing, you could see a slight linear distortion in the trees and water that lined up with her walking. I'm on that one now, but these are the ones I've done. If some guy is creating these then he's been doing it since at least the 1970's?? Why??? ...and why have we only just stared finding them????


>>
Anonymous 21/04/02(Fri)12:02 No. 7348 ID: eaf886
7348

File 161735776653.jpg - (1.18MB , 1536x1758 , HAlphaedit02.jpg )

>>7347


>>
Anonymous 21/04/02(Fri)12:05 No. 7349 ID: eaf886

>>7347
...Oh and I've boxed what looks like a plume of smoke or something in that beam. Don't know if it's associated with it of if its something unrelated, but looks like it aligns exactly in the beam to me?


>>
Anonymous 21/04/02(Fri)13:47 No. 7350 ID: eaf886
7350

File 161736402278.jpg - (822.76KB , 1536x864 , HAlphaBRG.jpg )

...This is the one from the clip. I've not been able to pull anything out with the same techniques I did with the last pictures, (colour) but if you look really carefully and use the models nipples as a guide you can see where the image distorts the trees. I thought that the other model was also giving off these beams, but I've not found anything that I can definitely say is hers, it all seems to be coming from the one with the bigger tits.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/02(Fri)18:26 No. 7352 ID: eaf886
7352

File 161738077769.jpg - (164.61KB , 720x540 , 06.jpg )

Dies wurde auf einem anderen Eufrat-Video gefunden.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/03(Sat)00:42 No. 7353 ID: eaf886

I've been tolling the chan boards for years now and I dont think ive come across a thread as interesting as this tbh. I've seen some of these movie clips and I've never seen anything wrong with them but I generally just wank to them and never notice details anyway. Would be interseting to know whats going on specially if this has been known for years.


>>
Dark_182D 21/04/03(Sat)16:35 No. 7354 ID: eaf886
7354

File 161746052090.jpg - (513.57KB , 960x1472 , linias1.jpg )

Hey German guy, you must have read my mind! I've managed to download a load of Eufrat A videos to go through. They are pretty shitty quality and you have to use A LOT of imagination to see stuff but I'm trying the red/green/blue trik to see things and its kind'a working. In the first picture you can see how all that disturbance is going in front of the camera man just looks at the stripes on his shirt completely un touched. Ive done the visible lines in red and areas of blurred pixeling in yellow to show wierd shit. If you notice all the picture to the left of the yellow line that arcs thought her tit is blurred and rippling?


>>
Dark_182D 21/04/03(Sat)16:39 No. 7355 ID: eaf886
7355

File 161746078351.jpg - (205.38KB , 960x720 , linias2.jpg )

>>7354
Second one is one I sketched on (drew over the original and can't be arsed finding where this is in the movie again) But you can see a 'W' shape that was traced out in miss matched pixels fuck knows what that is but I assume its related with the other lines and stuff as it and they are the only things out of sync with the rest of the picture.did the visible lines in red again.


>>
Dark_182D 21/04/03(Sat)16:46 No. 7356 ID: eaf886
7356

File 161746120715.jpg - (544.49KB , 960x1462 , linias3.jpg )

>>7354
Last ones best and the most fucked up. You can just make out the lines coming from her tits but they look like they are surrounded by some sort of fuzz? and then you got two circles again! They've got to be coming off her tits, ones centred right through the line coming off her left tit and the other looks like it draped over her knee? everything inside that circle over her knee is blurred but not on the one to the right! Doe anyone have a fuckin clue whats going off here?


>>
Dark_182D 21/04/03(Sat)16:48 No. 7357 ID: eaf886

>>7356
Oh and the best bit....this video is called Linias...Spanish translation LINES!!???


>>
Anonymous 21/04/04(Sun)19:54 No. 7358 ID: eaf886
7358

File 161755887499.jpg - (1.16MB , 1260x1756 , HAlphaEdit01.jpg )

>>7348
Tried all sorts to get this one looking better but if you look to Marilyn's right you can see one of those arcs, looks like it encircles that whole side of her body. Only really shows up when you play with the yellows and contrast.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/05(Mon)03:16 No. 7359 ID: eaf886
7359

File 161758541653.jpg - (231.68KB , 1946x714 , vlcsnap-00003.jpg )

>>7355


>>
Anonymous 21/04/05(Mon)19:38 No. 7360 ID: 0864e1
7360

File 161764433329.jpg - (250.54KB , 960x540 , vlcsnap-00007.jpg )

I've found one!! One of the code fetish movies where Teneka in on the starship Enterprise! it lasts for about 4 or 5 seconds where you can see all round her boot and the floor shimmering as well as what looks like rippling down around her arm on the floor and step. Now that's some weird shit! No good with computers but you can see it in this vlc screen cap!


>>
Anonymous 21/04/07(Wed)10:02 No. 7362 ID: 59cb7d

>>7361
One of other posters said that you couldn't see anything unless they were photographed meaning your eyes are unable to detect anything out of the ordinary. Even most pictures don't. Not saying I fully believe they're genuine, but that would explain why no one has seen it before.


>>
Dark_182D 21/04/13(Tue)00:31 No. 7397 ID: c9e4e0

A load of my posts have disappeared along with other peoples and I'm wondering if the thread got too long?
I have some news and about research I'm doing and don't want it to get cut?....Should we start another thread?


>>
Anonymous 21/04/14(Wed)23:25 No. 7400 ID: c9e4e0
7400

File 161843554215.jpg - (2.74MB , 3134x2090 , wowpic.jpg )

All is not as it would seem!


>>
Anonymous 21/04/15(Thu)23:09 No. 7401 ID: c9e4e0
7401

File 161852096639.jpg - (195.27KB , 720x576 , vlcsnap-00003.jpg )

>>7400
I've got the original image of this and you can't see anything in the copy I have, but lowering the reds and upping the blues and yellows as well as trial and error with the levels very very slightly, you can see this. Because these images are proper hi definition its amazing how much detailed structure comes out!
Whatever they are they are definitely coming from the tits and appear to mover as a whole. i.e. they don't spray everywhere like a hose, more shine like the beam of a torch. My guess because they become more visible under blue light that they may contain oxygen/nitrogen from the body?? But I can't guess what the red from the nipples is???
Check this picture out I got from last week, I was gonna post it and got side-tracked. But you can see the only part of the two beams you can see are passing above the strong studio light to the lower left. No other part of the beams can be seen, that would say to me that there has to be particles in those beams for light to refract/reflect though??


>>
Dark_182D 21/04/16(Fri)20:46 No. 7402 ID: c9e4e0

>>7401
Yeah, if you see my earlier posts where she is in them woods you can see other distortions going on around her tits that don't have any colour to them. They lasts only seconds when you see it in the film, but you have to split each frame down, go through each frame, and then each pixel on that frame to pick out the distortions. Even then I've then had to try and slightly enhance what's there in order to make it visible.
For example, I'm currently working on one of her movies and have split one 10 second scene, it contains 103 separate frames! Now this 10 second clip might not contain anything unusual, as it appears that these beams don't show up all the time, and are probably sporadic. I've done a couple of other clips and spent hours on them only to find fuck all! But the thing is, it really does appear that the lighting has to be right in order to see anything in the first place.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/17(Sat)23:56 No. 7406 ID: c9e4e0
7406

File 161869660391.jpg - (332.01KB , 1449x1126 , trg_frm_294.jpg )

Another couple of frames here, I'm currently using a friends astronomical O3 and H alpha filters to view some of these frames and they give them an almost 3D quality to them. Unfortunately they wreck the original colour and require re processing to fetch out both the colours in the beams and the original colour of the background. However, you can still (just) make out the colours.


>>
Dark_182D 21/04/20(Tue)23:02 No. 7407 ID: c9e4e0
7407

File 161895252114.jpg - (554.49KB , 1920x1280 , 20496.jpg )

Ok so I've managed to find a Reality Kings film that features both Bree Daniels and Eufrat Mai fucking in the same film!
I've only got 11 minutes into the 34 minutes of it but haven't caught anything yet. As far as I can tell this is the only film that they did together, does anyone know of any others??


>>
Dark_182D 21/04/20(Tue)23:17 No. 7408 ID: c9e4e0
7408

File 161895347148.jpg - (336.21KB , 2560x956 , clp23.jpg )

.....But the film I've just finished showed up something interesting. Again I had to pass the images through a narrow band filter that enhances the colours of the beams. Then I mess around with the RGB on the black and white image to make the features really stand out. The beams appear like they are spluttering or going on and off and never properly form. Plus, the beam on the right tit sends out at least two of these weird ring like distortions that remind me of smoke rings that travel down the beam and spread out as they go. Interestingly, she covers her right tit with her hand while these rings are rippling away from her and the beam just shuts off completely and disappears.

My theory here is that her tits are being squashed by her t-shirt, plus you can see that on the darker part of her left tit which is producing the dodgy beam is partially covered up by her t-shirt. I think that is what's causing the beam to fail.

Does anyone have any theories as to what we are actually seeing here?


>>
Dark_182D 21/04/22(Thu)23:40 No. 7409 ID: c9e4e0
7409

File 161912764524.jpg - (188.16KB , 1396x540 , gate01.jpg )

... So I've been busy today finishing looking at the RealityKings film featuring Eufrat and Bree and can say that neither of them showed any activity at all during the entire film..Apart from what they were supposed to do!! Which is odd as they are both known to show these strange features. Moving on to another set of clips this time for a site called "2Punish" I managed to get this image after enhancing it in RGB mainly pulling up the yelllows had the best results.
Anyway using the H alpha filter you can now see that the beam on the right breast goes under (i.e. the 2Punish) watermark, which means whatever that beam is, it was in the film BEFORE the watermark was placed over it!!


>>
Anonymous 21/04/23(Fri)09:10 No. 7410 ID: 31a8d7

I saw something like this a few years ago with a model the name of whom i can't remember now. But i'll try to find her again and post some pictures.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/25(Sun)12:55 No. 7411 ID: 8db943
7411

File 161934814341.jpg - (476.86KB , 1438x1078 , 03.jpg )

>>7352


>>
Thomas. 21/04/25(Sun)13:21 No. 7412 ID: 8db943

>>7408
Hello Dark, the image you have shown here is fascinating. It makes absolutely no sense in the respect that apart from the supernatural, there is no explanation for what we see here.
If we discount the supernatural (which I wouldn't count out as I'm as open minded as the next guy) but look for a rational one, I think we are only left with two options. One, is that all this is fake and someone spent what must have been hours placing subliminal features into videos and pictures that can't be seen most of the time, and as you have stated, need to be seen through filters to actually draw out the colours and features. I have a very hard time with this as yes these images could have been faked, anything is possible in photoshop, but my own personal experience with images exactly the same as this way back in the 1970's long before photoshop tells me this is a GENUINE phenomenon. The second option is one I'm taking more seriously. Our bodies interact with and influence the planets magnetic field and vice versa. So I believe this is some sort of interaction between these women and that magnetic field. We've called our planet "mother earth" since ancient times - probably before that. I think the link to some women's bodies and the actual connection to the planet is more literal than we really understand. However, how that actual "interaction" occurs is still beyond me. All we know at the moment is that at least three women on the planet radiate very very faint beams of light from their breasts, and produce rings that distort the scenery around them. very puzzling.


>>
Dark_182D 21/04/25(Sun)22:19 No. 7413 ID: 8db943
7413

File 161938199986.jpg - (227.68KB , 720x540 , mrk_0132.jpg )

>>7304
No Anonymous your movie isn't corrupt because I have the distortions in my movie also. This is a very interesting sequence actually because it shows what I think is the break-up of the beams. Your picture shows the actual break-up when the beams become crescent shaped and not connected to her tits anymore. This picture is interesting because it comes from earlier in the sequence and shows the beams passing to either side of the photographer who appears oblivious to them.


>>
Dark_182D 21/04/25(Sun)22:27 No. 7414 ID: 8db943

>>7412
Hi Thomas,
Yeah, I think you could be onto something there as that would be the only explanation, other than something biological??


>>
Dark_182D 21/04/25(Sun)22:32 No. 7415 ID: 8db943
7415

File 161938273960.jpg - (793.01KB , 1017x1928 , mrk_0143.jpg )

I thought I'd show these two images that I've run both through the H-3 filter and then fiddled around with the RGB's. Looking at the original images you really cannot see anything in them the features as so faint. It's only after passing them through the various filters that these "beams" become visible at all. Even then you'll notice on these two images that I've had to lean heavily on the blues (whole picture has blue tinge) just to fetch out the beams.


>>
Dark_182D 21/04/25(Sun)22:34 No. 7416 ID: 8db943
7416

File 161938284458.jpg - (390.17KB , 1344x756 , mrk_0144.jpg )

.....and a third. Nothing seen in the original film, but when procesed this is what shows up! Notice a distortion off to the upper right in the bushes!!


>>
Anonymous 21/04/30(Fri)23:36 No. 7417 ID: 8db943

Něco nového?


>>
Dark_182D 21/05/01(Sat)16:28 No. 7418 ID: 8db943
7418

File 161987928750.jpg - (361.59KB , 900x2760 , run2.jpg )

>>7406
I'm currently just finishing going through Eufrat A's two videos and I've come across a strange feature around 20 to 25 seconds after these images.
From what I'm seeing here the two beams of light seem to widen out into two round bottomed plume type things. Very thin beams are emerging from her nipples (you can only see the right tit) and go into the bottom of the plumes. It almost like something is being injected into the plumes from her nipples, and you can see the contact point glowing which actually shows up well if you mess around with the levels.
The plumes appear to made up of the same material as the beams and look like they are being sustained by the thin beams coming from her nipples. It looks like the narrow beams break up inside the plumes as you can see one sort of snaking around where her right thigh is. I still don't have a clue as to what I'm seeing here. I think your idea Thomas is very valid and nothing in these images would disprove your theory....as far as I can tell anyway.


>>
Thomas. 21/05/02(Sun)11:35 No. 7419 ID: 8db943

>>7418
Yes thank you for the back up there Dark! I've been trying to find the young model who I originally photographed back in the 70's. Obviously she has been married and no longer uses her maiden name (which I knew her by) Don't know what I'd say to her anyway. I looked at this particular model Eufrat but as far as I can see she hasn't done anything after 2019 so I guess she maybe quit modelling. I think the the other lass is still in the industry but what do you say to them??


>>
Dark_182D 21/05/02(Sun)22:33 No. 7420 ID: 8db943

>>7419
I've thought about contacting Brea but apart from the fact that she has about 10 Facebook accounts you'd be lucky to get the real one, plus. (A) Like you say, what exactly do you say to her? And (B) She's going to think you're completely mad, which I think we are anyway! Even if she knew what her body was doing she wouldn't admit to it. And saying that, if she knew, do you think she would still model with risk of being found out?
The thing I'm finding more puzzling is the lack of other women showing these strange beams. Although I obviously can't go through every single model and porn star, I've looked at many and non of them are like these two. So what's so special about them? One's American and the other Hungarian - Czech? They're both quite tall at 5ft, 7in and 5ft, 9in. Tit's aren't the same though with Brea's being larger. Nothing to say why they are like they are?


>>
Dark_182D 21/05/03(Mon)02:36 No. 7421 ID: 8db943
7421

File 162000221138.jpg - (568.13KB , 1534x1630 , puls4.jpg )

Just completed another sweep of material with this being the best that I managed to clean up using the filters. Again, nothing can be seen in the original movie (or pictures which may not have been done at the same time I guess)
But these beams appear about the same time that she is climaxing, maybe maybe not significant? But her tits rock around quite a bit during this time, and from what I can see the beams move similar to a beam of light and don't bend or curve as if they were made of gas or liquid. I just wish I had the time to break down each frame and clean up and filter each one to re-create the segment that these beams appear in so we could study them in real time instead of just frames like this.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/03(Mon)11:11 No. 7422 ID: 8db943

So that's why i get electric shocks off my girlfriends tits!


>>
Thomas. 21/05/03(Mon)13:13 No. 7423 ID: 8db943

>>7422
Maybe not as silly as it sounds. Its obvious that your girlfriends body can discharge electrical energy via her breasts, so it would be reasonable to assume that that energy could be dissipated to the atmosphere under the right conditions?
The questions here would be, how is that achieved, how much energy is needed to produce these beams, and why do so few women seem to produce them? Unfortunately, if I'd had more about me back in the 70's I'd have taken more time to try and collect as much data about weather conditions etc when I photographed that young lass, as it may have played a big part in explaining why she produced those beams of light also.


>>
Cadey 21/05/05(Wed)18:58 No. 7424 ID: 8db943

Personally I first thought this was bullshit. beams of light coming form porn stars tits you gotta be having me on. but reading Thomas account what happened to him in the 70's that like 30 years before i was born so how fuckin old is he?? But anyways, I can sort of believe him. but i've still got a problem with why nobody knows about it


>>
Dark_182D 21/05/07(Fri)23:32 No. 7425 ID: 8db943
7425

File 162042315896.jpg - (0.96MB , 2008x1024 , flushedit0012H.jpg )

>>7314
Ok well I've been busy on and off the last few days but I've managed to find this section of the Bikini Heaven video that this guy upped back in March.
It's a good clip as she produces these beams as far as I can tell at least twice in the 11 minute clip.
The GIF that the original poster put up only lasts 7 seconds from beginning to end. The beam appears very very faint at first and then as she bends down it's almost like emptying a bottle with the beams becoming brighter (relatively) before shutting off with a degree of turbulence and what could possibly be one of those ring type features.
The second event begins almost exactly 2 minutes later and lasts at least 8 seconds before the camera pans into Eufrat and her tits pass out of the field of view. When they come back into view about ten after that the beams appear to have gone again.

In these images I've done the full filter and RGB mess about. In the original frame you have to look very very carefully to see anything at all. (In the actual normal speed clip you see nothing!) In the O3 image, I've shifted the colours towards the blue end of the spectrum again to fetch out the structure. You can see a very faint arc surrounding the right hand portion of her body, and a disturbance in the beam coming from her left tit up in the leaves on the tree to the right of her. In the last (black & white) image I've pegged out both the reds and yellows and that really shows some detail!
The ring appear to be expanding away from her tits and it's leaving small trails back to them. It looks either like some sort of optical effect(because it round) Thomas might know more about that?? Or it could be some sort of pulse-shockwave???
The feature up in the trees appears to be a similar event, only it appears to be bending the beam around in the middle into a swirling motion.

Again more questions rather than answers!


>>
Anonymous 21/05/09(Sun)14:07 No. 7426 ID: 8db943
7426

File 16205620561.jpg - (170.69KB , 769x540 , vlcsnap-00001.jpg )

Vidíš v tom věci?


>>
Dark_182D 21/05/10(Mon)09:48 No. 7427 ID: 8db943
7427

File 16206329097.jpg - (161.77KB , 1528x540 , vlcsnap-00001a.jpg )

>>7426
I most certainly do anonymous well spotted!
Although the image is obviously a webcam image and really poor, you can still see details here.
Both beams from the breasts can be seen as well as the beam from the right breast hitting the wall!


>>
Anonymous 21/05/16(Sun)00:55 No. 7441 ID: c3f368
7441

File 162111934753.jpg - (272.57KB , 1280x720 , 098.jpg )

Ich fand mehr von ihr, obwohl ich nicht sicher bin, ob sie die gleichen sind wie alle anderen


>>
Dark_182D 21/05/18(Tue)22:55 No. 7442 ID: 4b45a9

>>7441
Yes my friend it is the same by the looks of it! I'm very busy at the moment so haven't got the time to do my usual on it. Have you got the name of the film so I can look over it?


>>
Dark_182D 21/05/23(Sun)12:03 No. 7445 ID: fd276c
7445

File 162176419856.jpg - (257.43KB , 1280x720 , 162111934753.jpg )

>>7442
Had some time so ran this through the filters, and indeed she's producing beams! Although very very faint on the visible image they're quite clear with the Olll filter and the blues pulled back.


>>
Dark_182D 21/05/31(Mon)13:19 No. 7454 ID: c2524e
7454

File 162245998484.jpg - (1.40MB , 2706x1544 , group1.jpg )

Didn't have time to filter any of these images but I did enhance them. You can see in picture (1) ring-like distortions around her tits that appear in some of the other images of her here. But, because of her body angle, you're sort of looking at them edge-on. Also if you look carefully you can see what look like dome-shaped features that align with her nipple angle probably 20 - 30cm away from her tits and are connected to them by that same distorting type feature. They look like they've been ejected out of her tits but the image is too fuzzy anyway to be sure.

In picture (2) you can clearly see beams now appearing out of her tits in this enhanced image. (although again totally invisible in the original image) This capture is about 15 seconds after picture 1 and I really want to filter this one because I think the beams will show up really well with the O111 filter.

Picture (3) is weird. No beams in this image, in fact in the previous and following frames there aren't any beams that I can see visibly. But individual frames show very strong distorting perfectly aligned lines heading away from her nipples. These come and go and are seen in some frames and not others. Picture (4) just shows the angle and visibility of the lines.

What I think I'm seeing here in Picture 1 is the initial appearance of the beams of light. If what Tom says is true about them being possibly associated with electromagnetic fields and such, it might be like a kind of outburst from the body? I'm pretty sure the domes are the tops of an mushroom cloud type shape that is ejected from the tits for whatever reason.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/01(Tue)23:14 No. 7455 ID: 34a47a
7455

File 162258206771.jpg - (262.82KB , 966x768 , Rebecca01.jpg )

Sie hat einen anderen gefunden, deren Namen Rebecca ist. Sie ist Woodman Mädchen, aber nicht mehr finden.


>>
Dark_182D 21/06/11(Fri)22:16 No. 7460 ID: 3057fa
7460

File 162344257111.jpg - (241.98KB , 966x770 , Rebecca03a.jpg )

>>7455


>>
Dark_182D 21/06/13(Sun)15:24 No. 7466 ID: 3057fa
7466

File 162359066287.jpg - (459.41KB , 1950x1110 , 01.jpg )

Ok, so I decided to scour the Woodman website to find this Rebecca but while there I found this woman. What is amazing about her is that you can actually see visible distortions coming off her on the actual casing video shot by Woodman himself! I tried to show a clip of this via WebP and GIF but the site say's both files are too large and I can't reduce the quality as you don't see the distortions. I can't remember what her name was but if you can find her video you will see these "waves" coming off her tits without any enhancement.
Once I ran her through the filters I could see why her distortions are so clear. These images are taken in different lights, (1) is purely visible. (2) Has been through the Olll filter and raised blues on the spectrum, which makes the colours visible. (3)+(4) Is the same, but now I've played about with the RGB's and you get to see sooooo much more detail to the expense of the original image.
You can see two very indistinct beams coming out of her tits that appear to punch through two sets of what I call "bubbles" that are radiating out and away from her tit's. You can actually see where the beam passes through the outermost bubble as it causes rings to form in that area. The bubbles I'm assuming must be spherical in structure and expand in all directions. What their relationship is to the beams I don't know but they appear to be pulses of energy that occur at regular intervals. (maybe heart rate?)
As the "bubbles" expand they leave glowing trails on the inner surfaces of them that lead back to her tits. This gives the bubbles an almost explosion type appearance. Only the outer edges of the bubbles are visible I guess because you are looking through a thicker amount of material and I can't say at what speed they are expanding.
This model is worth looking at some more, however, I don't know what her name is or if she did any more modelling after this. What is clear though is that she exhibits the very same traits as Eufrat and Brea Daniels.


>>
Dark_182D 21/07/20(Tue)15:09 No. 7512 ID: 94d1b2
7512

File 162678656877.jpg - (821.91KB , 2070x1180 , proj23_LD-001.jpg )

o3 filtered and blue enhanced.


>>
Dark_182D 21/07/20(Tue)18:46 No. 7513 ID: 94d1b2
7513

File 162679956137.jpg - (241.07KB , 950x1140 , prjct_230_34.jpg )

Nearly all of the images I'm working with show no features unless you run them through the H alpha band and then mess around with the RGB's. I end up getting distortions like in this image. Let me know what you get Tom, I think your email is still down because it keeps coming back "unable to deliver"!


>>
Dark_182D 21/08/08(Sun)13:29 No. 7522 ID: cf2ba0
7522

File 162842219575.jpg - (412.03KB , 2476x1462 , 01.jpg )

Having the same trouble again Tom! You might get this in your emails but I thought I'd post it here as it's a good image in that there isn't much in the way of a complicated background to ruin the detail. There are at least two shock wave type features which I'm surmising are spherical bubbles radiating away from her tits. But I think this is the first time you can clearly see these rings as well as plumes.
The visible image was as usual completely devoid of any features and it needed the usual running through various filters to fetch out the detail.
There must be several different elements involved in these features as they don't show up in any one of my filters, and I have to place one filtered image over the other to show the final images.

I'm still at a loss as to what is going on. Whatever energy is being ejected from her body is only visible at certain wavelengths of light. The distortions seen in some of the images say to me that it's either heat (as it looks like heat haze) or like you suggest magnetic. I'm still checking other models and have now gone through hundreds, but have only found a handful who show these features. I'm currently working on the one in the garage Tom and I'll post it here if your emial's not back up. take care mate.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/14(Sat)04:57 No. 7534 ID: 02d9ab

It's simple.. kill the Batman


>>
Dark_182D 21/08/15(Sun)22:35 No. 7535 ID: 89ad3f
7535

File 162905973642.jpg - (444.42KB , 1210x1357 , 01.jpg )

I found this after my hard drive crashed on my other computer from a video she did years ago. Quality is not so good but the beams don't seem to be affected too badly with older 280P quality. Again they show up better when you mess around with the RGB's and levels. From the footage itself, the features last for at least 7 seconds but again are completely invisible viewing at normal frame rates and visible light.


>>
Dark_182D 21/08/15(Sun)23:17 No. 7536 ID: 89ad3f
7536

File 162906227822.jpg - (415.52KB , 1940x1106 , omcb.jpg )

This is the one I've been working on the last few weeks. It's from one of her later movies and is at 1080P quality. It's fascinating in that if I hadn't just picked this scene at random I might not ever have found this beauty! Looking at the movie you can't see anything at all, not even any small distortions (which you can just see sometimes)
Anyway, I just processed this one and washed it with the usual narrowband (N2) filter and it - JUST - showed the beams coming out of her tits. This is probably the dimmest I've ever seen these, not sure if it was the lighting or something to do with her, but they only really stand out when again the levels and RGB are messed about with.
Also now you can start to clearly see other structures that were even fainter than her beams. The ring-like features have been seen before and appear to be showing multiple pulses that are obviously being ejected out of the body as they are connected to string-like features that trace back to the nipples.
What I wouldn't give for some sort of magnetic detector type equipment to see if what is showing up here really is electromagnetic or something. Wouldn't be any use of course because she retired years ago, but there are other women out there we just have to find them.


>>
Thomas 21/08/17(Tue)23:40 No. 7540 ID: 775e10

Hello Dark, emails down again and I've sent you a load of frames from her Klaman video. I've spent hours staring at these so I hope you can find something on them! Take care.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/23(Mon)16:57 No. 7548 ID: 006ece
7548

File 16297306315.jpg - (515.76KB , 1500x1000 , 023.jpg )

У мене є більше цієї дівчини


>>
Dark_182D 21/08/25(Wed)22:57 No. 7549 ID: 775e10

Candice Brielle? Thanks anonymous I've looked at hundreds of other women but only found half a dozen who display these features. I can add another one.


>>
Dark_182D 21/08/25(Wed)23:01 No. 7550 ID: 775e10
7550

File 162992526425.jpg - (472.11KB , 2590x1818 , vlcsap-00005_jpg.jpg )

>>7359
Just found this frame that I did at the same time as this one. I've not run any of this particular film through any of the narrowband filters yet but expect that they should be pretty spectacular when I finally get time to get round to them!


>>
Anonymous 21/08/29(Sun)17:44 No. 7558 ID: 775e10
7558

File 163025184950.jpg - (337.53KB , 1824x954 , rget22_45.jpg )

>>7318


>>
Dark_182D 21/08/31(Tue)16:27 No. 7559 ID: 494a34
7559

File 163042003268.jpg - (156.99KB , 1104x806 , 50cddac035debbca1b070900-49536.jpg )

>>7558
..... And another from the Red News series, again not showing any detail until it's passed through the filters and adjusted.


>>
Dark_182D 21/08/31(Tue)23:51 No. 7560 ID: 494a34
7560

File 163044666155.jpg - (737.45KB , 1352x964 , fltr001.jpg )

So, here I've done a half scan of a picture I found on the net (does anyone know who the girl is?) The image on the left is the actual image and as you can see there is nothing unusual about it. But the image on the right has been sent through my H alpha and O111 filter, and you can just about see the colours in the beams. The bottom half of the image has not been through the grating to show the comparison. You can see the top half of the picture has verticle lines down it, this is the filter grating which I usually blend out in the finished image, but I've left it in this one. I've not done the usual RGB mess around with this image as it didn't seem to make any difference to the finished image. (probably too dark)

The secondary effect of running the image through the filter grating is that it creates pixels that appear of different colours to the original image.
If left alone this makes the finished image look all wrong, so I manually decrease these colours by about 20% in light areas and 9-13% in dark ones and the result is a fairly convincing distortion within the beams. Now I must add this distortion or colour 'shift' is actually there, I'm not placing anything in the image that isn't already there, but without my manual addition of this, you wouldn't see this feature at all. The beams themselves are almost invisible at the best of times and require filters and RGB workarounds, but the 'distortion' features are fainter still. I know for a fact that this is why these have never been seen up until the advent of digital photography.


>>
Dark_182D 21/09/13(Mon)19:26 No. 7573 ID: 94f974
7573

File 163155401370.jpg - (697.55KB , 1871x2207 , clrfram_0221.jpg )

I'm working on trying to find some way of making the pixel correction on the images faster. Currently, its taking me several hours to enhance and correct a quarter of a 750kb image! Even then I've only got time to correct where I believe any distortion appears so I could be missing a lot of information in the outer peripheries of images as I've just not got time to look at them.
However, in these two offerings, I've managed to find some interesting features. In the first, I've caught features from one of Eufrat's bondage scenes. Now I don't know if the scene itself brought about one of these outbursts from her, but the fact that her tits are under some pressure may have something to do with it. The interesting thing with this image is that the usual red and blue beams that appear out of her tits are strangely absent but appear as distortions once the pixel correction is done. There are also two very strong distortion lines that appear to cover a 150-180 degree arc around her tits with the upper one probably produced by the right tit and the lower one the left. Again, they look like ripples in water and obviously come from her tits and radiate outwards.


>>
Dark_182D 21/09/13(Mon)19:35 No. 7574 ID: 94f974
7574

File 163155451058.jpg - (1.25MB , 2448x1636 , Brea standard.jpg )

This second image is of Brea Daniels during the Bare Maidens shoot. These were really good images to mess with as they are super high resolution and the colours are rich and easy to run through the filters. I overdid the blue filtering on the last image slightly but need to lean heavily on it as the structure that you can see in the image didn't show up well under any other light. It looks like she's blowing two huge extended "Bubbles" out of her tits! The beams go straight through the middle of both of them and they obviously taper back towards her tits. I have no idea if they are associated with the ring-type structures or if they are phenomena all of their own. On the right hand 'bubble' you can see the beam passing through the top of it and it looks like the bubble is trying to wrap around the pole as though one of them may be spinning. I don't think I've noted anything spinning so far so this might be first.

I'm currently still working on one five-second clip from one of Eufrat's movies where I'm trying to piece together individual frames, highlight and filter them so that I can put them together back into a five-second clip to see what these beams look like in real-time rather than in a still image. It's taking much, much longer than I thought and I'm wondering if a five-second clip will be worth it. However, it's a segment where her tits are really bouncing and go through 17 full bounces so it should be worth the while despite its short length. Watch this space.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/14(Tue)11:06 No. 7577 ID: 94f974
7577

File 163161041134.jpg - (445.76KB , 891x1286 , 2015-08-20 at 11-29-05.jpg )

I got this off YouTube years back. I think it was something to do with shares and stocks as I was into that at the time. Can't remember the video, but I saw this towards the end as the presenter walked down some stairs. It was unusual enough for me to record it off YT because I thought it looked super weird. I can remember thinking that she had something going on behind her that was causing the background to shimmer. It only lasted a few seconds and disappeared quickly. But after looking at the video again I could just make out two trails coming from what I thought was under her arms, but I guess this could be coming from out of her boobs? But they didn't look like the beam type things reported here as they seemed to just stream around the sides of her as she walked forwards like in hr wake.
The video itself was lost when my hard drive died a while back, but these images were saved to my cloud. Don't know if they will be helpful to "Dark" ?


>>
Anonymous 21/09/14(Tue)11:09 No. 7578 ID: 94f974
7578

File 163161057561.jpg - (331.51KB , 1283x676 , 2015-08-20 at 11-33-36.jpg )

>>7577
Just found this picture in another folder but its not clear sorry.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/15(Wed)14:58 No. 7584 ID: 54ee14
7584

File 163171072633.jpg - (327.60KB , 1439x1080 , 2 (1).jpg )

mi dispiace di non poter parlare inglese. Guardo la mia vecchia collezione Alison Angel e vedo questo.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/15(Wed)14:59 No. 7585 ID: 54ee14
7585

File 16317107432.jpg - (362.13KB , 1439x1068 , 2 (2).jpg )

>>7584


>>
Anonymous 21/09/15(Wed)14:59 No. 7586 ID: 54ee14
7586

File 163171075518.jpg - (295.33KB , 1283x957 , 3.jpg )

>>7584


>>
Dark_182D 21/09/16(Thu)14:09 No. 7587 ID: b6fd90

>>7584
Hi Anonymous, thank you for uploading those images of Alison Angel. I can remember her from years ago I don't have any of her work but I'll run your images to see if there is anything on them. Because of the quality of the video, it will be hard to prove any real distortions from the failings of poor resolution equipment though. I'm just about to do them now though as I've just finished a fascinating Brea image, and need to find as many women as possible that show these features.


>>
Dark_182D 21/09/16(Thu)14:23 No. 7588 ID: b6fd90

>>7577
Again Hi Anonymous. Now those images are amazing! I would really love to know who she is as you can clearly see those distortions are not part of the film. These images remind me of the model in my #7466 post where you can actually see her distorting the air around her on the Woodman casting movie.
However, this woman appears to begin to release the disturbances just before she gets to the top of the stairs but has stopped producing them by the time she reaches the bottom. That's got to be about 3 to 4 seconds I'd say, and by the looks of it, the disturbance has an almost expanding sperical appearance to it like you're looking through a bubble.
Although you can't actually see it coming from her tits the fact that the distortions start around her shoulders or underarm area and then expand out around behind her suggests to me that they came from there. It's another woman producing something strange out of her body apparently with no knowledge of it happening at all but it's caught on camera. If you can find out who she is and where I can get my hands on the video I'd be really really grateful! Thanks for this.


>>
Thomas 21/09/17(Fri)12:27 No. 7589 ID: 5180e9

>>7573
Dark I've tried sending those last frames but I'm getting 'mail client unresponsive again! Does that mean it's at your end?


>>
Dark_182D 21/09/17(Fri)15:45 No. 7590 ID: 5180e9

>>7589
Hi Tom, yep no worries. I've been off this week so I've managed to do some of the Brea Daniels lakeside images. I'm going to up them here tonight once I put them all together and make them a manageable size. Just wait until you see these!! Some very, very strange features on these images. Check around 11pm.


>>
Dark_182D 21/09/17(Fri)16:11 No. 7591 ID: 5180e9
7591

File 163188788121.jpg - (410.66KB , 3794x944 , 163171075518.jpg )

>>7584
As for your images Anonymous, the really poor quality of the film meant that obtaining colour from them was just about impossible. However, one very small segment of what looks like a beam coming off her right tit can be seen. It lines up perfectly with her nipple and while I can't say I see anything coming from the other one I'd say that one small segment proves that she too produces these beams. Distortions in all the images could be coincidental because the resolution is so low, but the beach scene shows linear features that align well with her tits. In the last close-up one on the beach, I'm only confident about the area immediately on her tits, that looks fairly distorted but everywhere else might be might not be it's hard to tell. But have we got another candidate? I'd say from the shower scene alone definitely. She's probably retired now, I haven't seen her on the net since the 2000's so I don't think we'll ever get to look at any HD stuff in any detail.


>>
Dark_182D 21/09/18(Sat)01:35 No. 7593 ID: 701215
7593

File 163192170229.jpg - (2.02MB , 3624x2308 , Tls_002wrk5.jpg )

Ok, so this image has taken weeks to process. Because it's high resolution you can imagine the pixel count and how I've had to re-assign colours to very small blocks of the area. Anyway, it was pure luck how I came across this amazing picture. Even though it would appear that Brea was pretty active during this entire picture set up in the mountains the fact that I processed this particular image was just on the off chance as after I'd thoroughly inspected it for beams I never saw anything, something just told me I need to forget checking it pixel by pixel and just run it through the filter. Even after I hit it with the H-alpha there was basically nothing there that stood out. Usually, at that point you see two beams quite clearly if they're there, but because I didn't see anything I was going to bin it. But I just thought about using the O3 just in case. Then I just saw something going through the trees in a 'V' shape, really faint though. So I messed around with the RGB's and levels and boom! This is what appeared as if by magic! They're possibly the clearest most impressive beams I've seen so far, but more importantly, the left had one is complete!! I can't say for any certainty but I'd guess that beam has to be about 30 - 40ft long? But what is truly amazing is what's at the end!! I've looked at this for hours and can't work out what I'm looking at. At first, I thought I was looking at something similar to the #7574 image I worked on the other day, but this is way different because the beam ends in this plume and doesn't go through it like in the other image. If you look at the expanded image bottom right you can not only see that weird spinning vortex thing where the beam meets the plume but you can see two very straight lines that meet at a point near the far end of the plume. Some material looks like it's spinning around these lines in a corkscrew pattern..honestly, I've never seen anything like this in my life! As soon as the computer finished stacking and processing the original image my mouth hit the desk. Unfortunately, I'm missing the last 10 to 15ft of the right-hand side beam, if you could see that it would basically be right overhead and you'd see more detail in that. I'm soo open to suggestions at what we're looking at here. It's obvious Brea can't feel those beams and I'm pretty sure she can't see them as they're effectively invisible at normal wavelengths of light. I just wish there were more folk studying this, it's a new phenomenon that apparently nobody knows about apart from us.


>>
Thomas 21/09/19(Sun)00:47 No. 7595 ID: f789ec

>>7593

That's STUNNING Dark!! What makes me think is when this happens in an enclosed space what happens then? Both those beams are, what, 10 meters long? then you have a 3 or 5-meter long plume after that. Does the room fill up with some sort of gaseous material, or is it some sort of material we don't know about? When I photographed that young woman back in the '70s and 80's I didn't notice anything at the time. The only time I noticed anything was in post-processing when these strange lines turned up all over the prints. It's almost like these things are ghosts or something, invisible to the naked eye and only appearing through filters and processing. In your last email, you said that you were working on something tricky? Any closer to completing this? Or was this it?


>>
Anonymous 21/09/29(Wed)22:16 No. 7603 ID: d976ef
7603

File 163294659369.jpg - (872.09KB , 2035x1333 , 02.jpg )

Hoe zit het hiermee?


>>
Dark_182D 21/10/04(Mon)12:07 No. 7604 ID: 8c2e69

>>7603
Hi Anonymous, can you please tell me where you found this picture? From what I can see here we have yet another model producing these beams but I have no idea who she is.


>>
Dark_182D 21/10/04(Mon)12:12 No. 7605 ID: 8c2e69

>>7350
On a side note for anyone who's been interested in this post. Thomas the other contributor here and retired photographer has found the model pictured here who was also firing these beams of light from her tits. He hasn't spoken to her yet but has contacted her agency. Hopefully he'll be able to book her for some shoots perhaps.


>>
Dark_182D 21/10/05(Tue)15:30 No. 7609 ID: 87525a
7609

File 16334406508.gif - (1.37MB , 800x1200 , 01.gif )

Well in my quest to find more women who appear to show beams of light coming out of their tits I've just come across a VERY unexpected candidate. I'm NOT a Britney Spears fan, in fact, she's got to be one of the most annoying celebs out there I think. But I was reading an article about the battle she's been having with her father and there was a picture of her walking with some bodyguards. It was a high res image so I saved it to the computer and ran it through the filters to see if anything showed up.

It's very rare that I've been able to pick up any colours with women wearing clothes but every now and then I think I've been able to do it with Brea Daniels and Eufrat Mai.
Normally I don't remove the image stabilization because its colours I'm looking for not motion. But seeing how I needed to get every bit of information from the image I removed it on this occasion purely by chance. I found absolutely no colours around Miss Spears but what I DID find was motion!
Unstabilized stabilized images look very grainy and sharp because all the smoothed out imperfections can now be seen of course, but I noticed in the unstabilized image extra bits of pixel blocks. I still hadn't noticed any movement in the image but decided to lay it over the stabilized image to see if the blocks were visible in the smoothed image. That was when I saw the motion. Making a simple GIF file of the image flipping between stabilized and unstabilized images resulted in what you see here. Although the images move very slightly on the whole (due to the unsharp image) you can clearly see that there is far more obvious movement around her tits, hair, and trailing over her shoulders. In fact, her tits look like they get bigger, although I'm sure this is an optical effect rather than they are actually growing in size as I think someone would have noticed. As we've seen, women that produce these beams also distort the area around them so this explanation works.

Anyway, I had to try and confirm that this wasn't a one-off or some other sort of optical feature so I looked for more pictures of her. Turns out she was photographed that day from several different angles! So, I got another high res image of her this time from the front and a little later in time I think (few seconds) Again the image is utterly AMAZING! Everything in the image stays completely still with the only motion detected being around her tits, shoulders, hair and the people in the background. I'm convinced that the fact that her tits appear to swell in this image too is because the camera is looking through a sphere-like structure that is acting as a lens. (See diagram) I think it's obvious that her dress is restricting what would be two beams of light and instead she is blowing out two small "jets" of material that are causing the distortions and eventually the plumes that trail behind her! I've already managed to show that Brea can fire these beams out to around 30 or 40 feet before they break up into plumes, so the fact that they appear like this in a fully clothed woman isn't hard to believe.

I would LOVE to get some genuine pictures of her naked as all the one's I've found are either fake or they don't show anything. If I could get my hands on genuine pictures of her firing these beams like the other women we've seen I could properly confirm her as being like Brea and Eufrat. But saying that I think this evidence confirms that the woman certainly isn't "normal". (as if we needed that evidence!)


>>
Dark_182D 21/10/05(Tue)15:31 No. 7610 ID: 87525a
7610

File 163344068082.gif - (1.10MB , 642x1200 , 02.gif )

>>7609


>>
Dark_182D 21/10/05(Tue)15:33 No. 7611 ID: 87525a
7611

File 163344080487.jpg - (1.30MB , 3114x1296 , 03.jpg )

>>7609


>>
Thomas 21/10/06(Wed)12:09 No. 7612 ID: ff7c14

>>7609
Hello dark, So that's who you've been working on and wouldn't tell me about!!? I must admit I'm a bit old to be a fan of the young lady but from what I heard of her I'm probably as surprised as you that she appears to be special. The question I have is that I think most of the women we've been looking at have had natural breasts, and with Britney being American - and famous - can we be sure that hers are also? Would that indeed matter??
I think the fact that there is clearly movement around her breasts area and trailing back over her shoulders and then fanning out behind her strongly suggests that whatever it was, was coming from her and not say out of a vent in the floor etc. However, another reason for this cannot be ruled out and I think we need more evidence just to be sure. If you'd like me to work on this while you take care of the other project you were working on just let me know. I'm good while the weekend so can spend some time on her.
With regards to the model in post #7347 my contact has been in touch with her and she does indeed still model on an amateur level and could be booked. She's local to the area she was photographed in so it would be a journey for me as I'm quite a distance from there. He hasn't said anything to her and I think if I did book her it would be wise not to say anything to her about why we want to photograph her!

Let me know what you'd like me to do, email or Whatsapp.

all the best, Tom.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/17(Sun)13:57 No. 7618 ID: f789ec
7618

File 163447186395.jpg - (222.59KB , 800x600 , csd44555087.jpg )

gefunden in meiner alten Sammlung von Amateuren, die ich nicht kenne.


>>
Dark_182D 21/10/27(Wed)12:07 No. 7620 ID: 6f71ef
7620

File 16353292313.jpg - (297.32KB , 1070x1682 , Test A.jpg )

So it seems like I'm averaging every three videos of Eufrat A I run through the filter system I get results, and have come to the conclusion that these "events" that she and a few other women go through occur very roughly once every 30 to 45 minutes and last for probably around a minute. I'm pretty sure it's some kind of electrochemical process, although I've been leaning more towards electromagnetic perhaps. It's the appearance of the "plumes" at the ends of the beams that puzzles me as they appear to interact with the atmosphere much like smoke or steam which I don't think would happen with something that was purely electrical?
Whatever, I'm presenting another fascinating image of Eufrat that was amazing to process as there truly was NOTHING to see on the original video, but when I put it through the various filters lines, squiggles, and strange clouds appeared all around her.

In picture (1) I've done the usual H-alpha washing as well as adjusted the RGB levels. I had to lean heavily on the blues in this image to show anything at all, but interestingly with little blue added (which is what I usually do) again nothing showed up. It wasn't until I put on what I thought would be too much that the beams really started to show up and even then the one coming from her right tit was still very dim. Absolutely no other structures can be seen in this image which I consider to be the deepest image I've taken so far.

In picture (2) I kept the H-alpha information and added the O3 which allowed me to take the RGB's even lower and keep the detail. It was like these weird features just came out of the picture and I'm sure they're not just features of the shading as they are too compact, linear, and well defined. Obviously, the quality of the original image is lost but features like the beams themselves really stand out.

Picture (3) is the deepest I could go with this frame and although the image of Eufrat has gone the other features are so clear that now I can trace around the swirls and clouds to try and make more sense of it.
I think what we are seeing is the result of her moving around. In picture (1) you see only the brightest (if you can call it that) part of the features which are the beams themselves. But what you don't realise is that her tits are always moving and she is too. If these "beams" are coming out of her body then anything getting in the way of them is bound to cause a break in them etc. I'll post another image I have of Alison-Angel this afternoon I did a few weeks back when we found out she produced these weird beams also. It looks even more jumbled up than this one and shows beams pointing off in all different directions!

The fact that she has stuff wrapped around her shoe in some sort of gaseous fluidic state says to me that some sort of static electricity is working here. I was talking with Tom about what we think this stuff is made out of and we agreed that it had to contain some sort of gas for it to interact with the atmosphere but in order to get it to travel in a straight line for at least 30ft (see #7593) some sort of electromagnetism is probably working too. Whatever it is it's something nobody has seen, reported, or studied before.


>>
Dark_182D 21/10/27(Wed)12:17 No. 7621 ID: 6f71ef

>>7618
Thanks for that image anonymous, unfortunately, its too small for me to run though my filters and get any useful information out of it. Do you have better images of her? And indeed who is she? Its obvious that she's producing beams and you can see a little distortion where they line up with her tits. The pavement behind her looks well fucked up too, like its waving all over the place!


>>
Dark_182D 21/10/27(Wed)19:00 No. 7622 ID: 6f71ef
7622

File 163535401757.jpg - (697.83KB , 2174x1450 , 139a.jpg )

Ok so here's the processed pictures of Alison Angel, I did these a few weeks ago when the other member brought her to my attention. It was the first time that I did a deep filtration of the image and I've now done other images that I've done previously and very similar features show up in them also.
I'm sure they are the result of the motion of the models and show up in both still images and movies. In Alison's case, you can see at least five of these beams (she sure hasn't got five tits!) so unless there is another model missing from the images these beams HAVE to belong to her and were just produced at different times. Also, you can clearly see that all the beams radiate out from where she is stood so it's a slam dunk for me that all that mess is produced by her. Again washed and adjusted RGB image top left so you can just see what you can't on the original film.


>>
Scott 21/10/28(Thu)13:15 No. 7624 ID: c75e27
7624

File 163541972839.jpg - (614.51KB , 1556x1037 , DCM201510041310_7D.jpg )

I took a picture of my gorlfriend a few years ago. To cut a long story short we was out walking in Woodsville NH and after having yet another fight nothing serious she stormed off back to the car. I took a picture of her as she went, I was annoyony like that. Anyway, did think anything of the picture it ended up on my computer with all the other crap I took at the time. We split up two years later. Wasnt until I saw this thread that I had a look through my old pictures of my past g/fs. Didnt find anything with the ones who were naked (dont ask) but saw blue lines on this picture. It might be something to do with the light but have a look anyway. She was a psyco bitch but she had a fucking perfect ass!


>>
Dark_182D 21/10/28(Thu)22:43 No. 7625 ID: f789ec
7625

File 163545381764.jpg - (555.80KB , 1556x1037 , 163541972839.jpg )

>>7624
Hi scott, Thanks for submitting your ex's picture, I'm hoping that we get more people interested in this weird phenomenon. However, I've had a good look at the image and run it through both my narrow-band filters but apart from the features you've already mentioned I haven't found anything unusual in it.
At the distance the two features appear to be from her body, I would expect to see quite a lot of material between her and them. I've gone through every procedure that I do with other women but nothing stands out, I'm pretty sure they're coincidental lens flares.
So I'd have to say that your ex is quite normal, unfortunately...... although she might not have been to you!
Thanks again for the picture and stick around!


>>
Thomas 21/10/30(Sat)13:56 No. 7627 ID: 394ec3

Dark check your emails ASAP please!!!


>>
Dark_182D 21/12/11(Sat)15:20 No. 7630 ID: f789ec
7630

File 16392324173.jpg - (244.81KB , 768x1152 , 1.jpg )

So after a few weeks of really heavy work, Tom put me in contact with a photographer in China of all places who he has been talking with. He goes to organized photoshoots for amateur photographers and has some of his pictures published on Asian sites. Tom didn't tell this photographer about our research but asked him if he had pictures that were "out of the ordinary". He sent Tom a couple of pictures that he said he kept because he couldn't really explain why they appeared the way they did.

The first picture was of a model that he photographed a few times in the Hong Kong area. Several of the photographers have commented how this one particular model is known for causing problems with the guys' cameras! Now he didn't say it had anything to do with strange colours or anything coming out of their tits, but she apparently can cause camera shutters to jam, batteries to drain, and cause strange distortions in the images! It's actually a well-known fact about her ability to do this and joke about it with her!!

Now I have no idea if these images are genuine as I've obviously had nothing to do with its original downloading. But I can see a very definite distortion to the right of her back in the water.


>>
Dark_182D 21/12/11(Sat)15:46 No. 7631 ID: f789ec
7631

File 163923397822.jpg - (1.73MB , 1580x3296 , 01.jpg )

The story behind the second picture is that it was the first time that he noticed a distortion in the image. He found it strange enough that he went back later on the same day and took another picture in the same place to compare it with his original images.
He said that 7 pictures showed that the scenery behind the models was being pulled down behind them with this one being the most severe. He said he didn't notice anything at the time or during the entire 3 hours that they were with the women.

Again he didn;t mention anything to Tom about strange beams of light or anything like what we have seen here. But I ran both this picture and the preceding one through the various filters and found that although that picture didn't have anything unusual about it, the one with two models I'm sure does!

This for me links what this photographer pictured with what we have seen here and also for me confirms that there are at least another two women on the planet displaying beams of light coming from their tits. The difference here though is that they also appear to be influencing an area towards their backs, which is something we haven't seen in our pictures.
Tom is going to keep in touch with this photographer as he is searching his database for more images.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/09(Sun)13:46 No. 7634 ID: 608fe3
7634

File 164173241258.jpg - (648.96KB , 1441x1080 , SCNCAP02322020108.jpg )

>>7354
Das weiß ich seit vielen Jahren. Dieser Film hat viele Funktionen, denn hier können Sie Ringe sehen, wenn Sie genau hinsehen.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/19(Wed)00:28 No. 7638 ID: fbdcfd
7638

File 164254849219.jpg - (1.63MB , 2756x2016 , ICARGI23_34_2311.jpg )

I.S. wird immer versuchen, gerade Linien gerade, runde Dinge rund zu machen. Das Entfernen zeigt das wahre Bild. Es gibt keine Möglichkeit, den Stabilisator vollständig anzuhalten, selbst um die Arbeit der Digitalkamera auf diese Weise auszuschalten.Hier entferne ich die Stabilisierung vollständig, es war einfach mit dieser Kamera, da es sich um eine alte handelt. Sie sehen, alles ist für ihren Rücken sowie eine um ihre Brust herum. Ich bin froh, dass Sie viel davon sehen, wie ich es seit Jahren getan habe.


>>
Distortions Dark_182D 22/01/19(Wed)13:06 No. 7639 ID: fbdcfd
7639

File 164259399146.jpg - (610.84KB , 2708x1322 , ST345_773.jpg )

Thanks for the posts anonymous! Yes, I've been noticing the distortions on some of the images for a while now although I thought that they were all associated with the beams coming out of the model's tits. The recent images I was sent by Tom suggest that something is going off around the back of models who display these beams!
The only problem I have with the images both you and I have posted of Eufrat in the carpenter's shop is that the quality of the film is so poor that I can't be 100% happy that all the distortions are coming from her even though we know she's fully capable of producing them. The camera appears to be hidden and has a slight "fish-eye" to it which itself causes distortions. However, those cameras were very easy to re-code and recover unstabilized information. I've also looked at several other Jan Vels videos using this same camera (I assume) and I've seen similar distorted images (although not as pronounced) with other models who on studying further have displayed no beams whatsoever during their careers! That said, I'm pretty sure the images of Eufrat around 2006-7 are genuine events as like I said, she's got form.

Whilst talking about her I've noticed another strange feature that shows up when you remove stabilization from the images. Up to now, I've been searching images using various array of filters and adjusting the RGB levels, it's only recently that I've been removing stabilization but what is now showing up could explain how the beams are formed in the first place.

In this image of Eufrat, you can see in the normal image no features show up which is quite normal. Under the narrowband filter beams just faintly begin to appear again which as we know is normal. Adding in the oxygen and H-alpha wavelengths makes the beams even more clear. But up to now, that's as far as I've gone with the images and with the exception of the strange "rings" that appear to radiate outwards from the body along the axis of the beams nothing else appeared on the images.
But if you look at the last image here which has all the filters added AND the image stabilization removed, you can see that not only do the rings appear around the very areolas of her tits but her rib cage appears under her skin!! I'm currently working on other images I've already done to see if this feature appears on those also just to confirm that this image is not unique. At the moment as far as this image is concerned it would appear that the rings like the beams themselves do indeed originate from inside the breasts and that something is going on probably inside her body causing her rib cage to glow while all this is going on!!

What I can't work out is why the rings and glowing rib cage only show up when the stabilization is removed and not when I apply the filters? The only solution I can think of is that both these features are motion centred and not chemically activated. Even more weird shit to think about!!


>>
Dark_182D 22/01/22(Sat)12:17 No. 7640 ID: df4c4f
7640

File 164285022534.jpg - (346.98KB , 2713x763 , SLISLI_77_3.jpg )

A quick update. I've just finished work on this! Notice what look like light blue flames around her areola that only show up in the narrowband and fully filtered images!!


>>
Dark_182D 22/03/25(Fri)01:54 No. 7645 ID: 60eeaf
7645

File 164816965357.jpg - (407.69KB , 1030x768 , Hhagrating+4.jpg )

I got your message Tom thanks, I don't think we need to say anything Tom. Besides making us look like we're bonkers we don't know how she'd take it. Let's just get the meeting first and see how we go. I've got a friend who works at University who said he can lend me a thermal imaging camera but it's bloody expensive and she would deffo suspect something if she saw me pointing THAT at her!! Again, let's see how we go and take it from the first shoots.

I've been busy again the last few months and not had much time to scan and process images, but I did find this model a few weeks back which I guess dates from the 90s' judging by the style and the fact that the image seems to be scanned from film. Does anyone know who the standing model is? Tom, this has got to be more your era do you know her? I've tried to use google and Bing image search but come up blank. She's unusual because she has neither large tits nor conspicuous areolas, something all the other women seem to have. That's probably why her beams are so faint, coupled with the fact that the image quality isn't what I'm used to.


>>
Dark_182D 22/03/25(Fri)02:45 No. 7646 ID: 60eeaf
7646

File 164817270762.jpg - (401.09KB , 1920x1088 , Comb1.jpg )

Also, I completed this just before I got called away for work. It's a scene from Eufrat's film "Rich little Bitch". I pulled this scene because not only was it a wide shot so that any beams could be easier to see, but also because the strobing lights could help with picking out colours too. It turned out to be the case on both counts, but I actually go more than I could have imagined! All four images are the same scene but filtered in different wavelengths. I deliberately nudged the scene on as a blue strobe flashed in the scene and did all my work from there figuring the blue hue would help me later when I adjusted the RGBs.

There are three other beams in this image along with those of Eufrat. Two belong to I'm pretty sure the same woman off-screen bottom right and I estimate she must be at least 9 meters away. One beam is only partially visible and appears in between a group of people dancing in the lower-left corner. But what is interesting with her other beam is that the right one (closest to Eufrat) has a very definite bend in it right where it passes over Eufrat! Now I have a theory on this. Eufrat's own beams are very faint, blurred, and cone-shaped because her tits are rocking pretty violently up and down her body. Obviously, they are bouncing around so much they've gone from beams to cones on the image.
Now if we're right and this is all about static electricity, then could this other beam passing over the top of Eufrat be being affected by Eufrat's body or beams? Like a magnetic attraction type thing?
The only thing to junk that theory is the fact that there is another apparently random beam passing directly across the room. This beam does however appear to go over the heads of everyone suggesting that whoever it belongs to is either stood or is reclined backwards slightly. With images, this faint, judging distances is almost impossible so I can't tell if this stray beam would be affected by the others crossing the room or how close it is to Eufrat herself.

The interesting thing though is that this scene only focuses on Eufrat, the woman she's fucking, and the blonde who is getting fucked on the sofa. Only those three women are naked. The camera never pans over to the other two women who must be at least topless. A strange and (if I hadn't seen the beams) puzzling fact.


>>
Unknown Model Thomas 22/04/11(Mon)00:56 No. 7648 ID: d8c8b3

>>7645
Dark she's called Emma Caesari. She was a big page 3 model back in the 90s' but I never got to photograph her as most of her shoot offers were down south. (as many were)
From speaking to one of my friends who did photograph her he was sure she had surgery at some point. He's going to look through his collection and see if he has some original negatives of her to send me. It's almost 30 years later though so don't expect miracles :{

Tom.


>>
Another One? Thomas 22/04/13(Wed)23:50 No. 7649 ID: d8c8b3
7649

File 164988661812.jpg - (527.01KB , 1542x1000 , 13423DD119.jpg )

Dark, your email is rejecting my jpg. or png. files again!

I've heard from Mr Tan again this morning and he sent me these two pictures. His story was that he was sent to a university in Sichuan province to take pictures of an English lecturer. Most of the pictures he took were fine all except five which exhibited varying degrees of distortion. He says that when he took the pictures he didn't notice any distortions either when he was looking through the viewfinder (image too small I guess) or when he lowered the camera. One or two of the students did complain about the heat in the room (warm) so this could have been a factor. However, he said that on a closer study he saw that the distortions were not only limited to the rear of the lecturer but it was also closely centred around her back.

The thing that I've noticed is if you look at the image on the left (normal) the carpet looks fine. But the carpet on the distorted image to the right looks lumpy and blurred in places, especially in a ring around from her feet around to her back. I can't see any beams or out of place colour in either image, what do you think?

All the best. Tom.


>>
Emma Cesari Thomas 22/05/06(Fri)14:14 No. 7650 ID: 7e301f
7650

File 165183926866.jpg - (830.88KB , 2164x1510 , emmacopy.jpg )

After searching through literally piles of my old film portfolios from the 90s'(the boxes were at the far end of the loft and I had to remove 7 others to get to them!) I found that I apparently did shoot a test set of Emma back in August 1996! I cannot for the life of me remember her (don't ask me how!) Anyway, unfortunately, the other 32 images I shot are badly damaged after a roof leak we suffered back in the 2000s some time, 16 of them have managed to become completely welded together! This is the only image I can offer that isn't damaged as it was right at the bottom of the pile under another set of another model!
I can, however, remember the location which was in a converted workhouse in Leeds, the studio setting was great but everything smelt of axle grease and rusting steel! It never got any better from what I can remember.
I've blanked out her actual name and address obviously but thought I'd show the rear of the picture to show its authenticity. As you can see I gave her a score of 87% which is pretty average for the girls back then (I was pretty critical in my assessment of models!)
Anyway, see if you can get anything from this. Goes without saying that because I can't even remember the model I certainly can't remember seeing any beams of light coming from her. I was by this time well aware of the phenomena but I guess nothing struck me at the time as it ended up in my "also-ran" box.


>>
Thomas 22/05/06(Fri)14:16 No. 7651 ID: 7e301f

>>7650
By the way. I probably do have the negatives (I never threw anything away) but please don't ask me to find them as there are simply thousands of tubs!!!


>>
Dark_182D 22/05/07(Sat)17:31 No. 7652 ID: 9904d1
7652

File 165193750051.jpg - (668.82KB , 2284x1612 , 1g2fs002.jpg )

Hi Tom,

Thanks for that!! Now we at least have one picture for a known good source in which to test. I tested a load of the Emma pictures a few weeks back when I had more time but I ran into A LOT of image quality issues, and say about 90% of the pictures that I was able to test were just too far gone (colour wise) to be able to get strong responses from.
I'm finding the mid-2000s early stabilized images the best to work with as I'm able to remove stabilization and filter the colours much more easily on this era equipment than any of the earlier or later ones. IT's for this part that I'm currently working on many of Eufrat's material as this dates to that era.
But back to Emma. I'm posting the best image that I've been able to work on and I've actually found two interesting things. (1) I found an image of Emma that is quite hard to explain and I attach it here. The image has already been "enhanced" by someone else apparently but I was still able to process it in the usual way. But what I found were these very very narrow very faint beams emitting from the very centre of her nipples. Unlike the ones emitted by the nipples and areolas, there is no red and blue colouring, just red. In fact, the colour is so subtle and dim it almost looks grey/black. I'm pretty sure it's a genuine feature and not a result of the previous enhancement as both lines follow direct paths leading from the nipples.
(2) It would appear that she had breast surgery around the year 2000 and with that, all activity with her breasts stopped. I've not been able to find one image where her breasts are producing beams after her boob job. So I guess whatever or wherever these beams are coming from surgery stops them.


>>
Dark_182D 22/05/07(Sat)17:33 No. 7653 ID: 9904d1
7653

File 165193760394.jpg - (115.01KB , 754x548 , emma 4 (2).jpg )

Very subtle beam on the left breast, but nothing on the right even after heavy filtration.


>>
Dark_182D 22/05/07(Sat)17:37 No. 7654 ID: 9904d1
7654

File 165193784127.jpg - (335.01KB , 1294x1000 , BsswIyt8_oa.jpg )

Beams only just sowing after leaning heavily on the blues in the visible image, but clearer with O2 and Ha.


>>
Dark_182D 22/05/07(Sat)17:53 No. 7655 ID: 74829f
7655

File 165193882211.jpg - (466.88KB , 1024x1348 , Spreadend.jpg )

This last one was probably the worst one of all as I hit it with the narrowband and messed with the colours and found nothing. It wasn't until I hit 00.34 with O2 and 1.16!! with the H.a. that the beams appeared. Any other setting and they were just too faint to be seen. I think a combination of poor picture quality and the fact that Emma has extraordinarily small nipples and areolas make finding good quality images of her beams near impossible.


>>
Emma Cesari Dark_182D 22/05/24(Tue)12:16 No. 7656 ID: 7a4d88
7656

File 165338740263.jpg - (590.45KB , 2164x1510 , Initial render(2).jpg )

Sorry for the delay Tom but I've had very little time in order to be able to use the spectrometer at work as it's been used almost constantly for the last few weeks. Plus I have to use it surreptitiously if you know what I mean they aren't cheap!
Anyway, I finally got around to completing a few images this weekend including your picture of Emma. I wish I could have better news, but I've hit this image with absolutely everything and I can't see anything in it. The quality as far as I can tell isn't as bad as some of the images that I've managed to pull features from, so I can only conclude that either she wasn't active at this time, or the beams were so faint I just couldn't pull them out of the image. From what I've seen of this model not only are all of her pictures taken with much less high tech equipment than we have now, but her nipple/areola combination is probably the smallest we've seen so far also. It's a double-edged sword I guess, not helped by the fact that she had her tits messed around with later on in her career so the better images of her are ruined by the fact that she no longer produced beams after the surgery.

Sorry for that!


>>
Distortions Dark_182D 22/05/24(Tue)17:39 No. 7657 ID: d849ff
7657

File 165340678051.jpg - (321.39KB , 1444x1086 , BRKM_54rf24.jpg )

However!

On a better note, I also did more scans of Eufrat in her shoot with Luca Helios. Now for some reason, the cameras of the mid-2000s are just fantastic for producing pictures that can have the information contained within them extracted easily.
So, we have three images of her standing in a doorway the first top left is the original image, but even in this when you see it in real-time you can see very subtle distortions as the camera stabilizes the image. The second image (right) has the stabilization removed, I've not applied any filtration to it. You can CLEARLY see that the background is distorted!! I don't know what camera he is using on this particular shoot but I use a very easy algorithm to remove the stability. I've also washed it with the N2 filter to fetch out the beam as these are completely invisible otherwise. You can clearly see that the walls in the doorway are bowing slightly inwards towards Eufrat.
We've already noted this on other images but I've gone one step further with this one in that I've drawn lines on the mean "bow" axis of the doorway (yellow lines) as well as the upper doorway arch as it appears to be being pulled down. I found that all the lines cross at one spot near her navel! (white star) That discovery was something enough and I figured that the navel is sort of in the middle of your body so it would make sense that this would be a focus for something. But during lunch, I had a bit of a eureka moment when I started thinking more 3 dimensional. Returning to the image I drew lines through the beam axis of the nipples (white lines) and sure enough, they both meet EXACTLY in the white star with the other lines!!!!

It makes perfect sense because she is standing just in front of the doorway and all the distortions are behind her, as they are in all the other pictures I've shown earlier. I figure that if you look at her tits from above and either to the left or right of her so that you can see her front and back you'd see a converging line passing through her nipples, that then goes through her body and meets either on her spine or just outside of her back. This theory works when you look at the last picture (bottom right) where she is crouching down and showing us her side view. You can see again that the wall directly in line with her back is bowed outwards towards her! Of course, trying to work out why this only appears AFTER the image has been destabilised and indeed what it actually is, is yet another mystery. Any ideas I'm open to them.


>>
Dark_182D 22/05/27(Fri)16:41 No. 7658 ID: e2e5dd
7658

File 165366246533.jpg - (196.52KB , 634x787 , MBCA.jpg )

With regard to my last few posts, I found a picture of Eufrat looking from above in order to measure the angle at which her nipples point. You can see that in a normal standing position her nipples point at an angle of around 45 degrees. I've placed a white oval to represent where the limits of her torso are and then used this to calculate where the two angles from her nipples drawn backwards through her body would meet.
I estimate that the two lines would meet roughly 4 - 8 inches (10 - 20cm) outside of her back. This spot would always be moving and can vary in and out as her tits are fluid, but as a standard resting point, this is where they would align roughly on average.
This is where I've been seeing distortions after removing image stability, whether these two features are connected remains to be seen but I'd like to bet the distortions are connected in some way to everything else that I've seen.


>>
Anonymous 22/05/28(Sat)16:55 No. 7659 ID: 298297

il pourrait s’agir d’extraterrestres. J’ai toujours pensé qu’Eufrat était rayonné du ciel !!


>>
Dennis 22/05/29(Sun)15:54 No. 7660 ID: 4cf683

>>7659
Oder könnte es so etwas sein?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zo0txTYKDo

Wir wissen so wenig über den Planeten oder unser Gefühl mit ihm, vielleicht interagieren einige Frauen (oder Männer?) mit ihm?


>>
Dark_182D 22/06/12(Sun)00:03 No. 7675 ID: f789ec

>>7659
>>7659
Hi Anonymous and Dennis! Yeah, it's an interesting idea as I've found processing her images fascinating. I didn't know who she was until I started looking at what some of the other guys before me posted. As far as I can tell she certainly is unique as you can see from some of the other women that are posted here. But she appears to possibly be the most prolific producer of these strange beams. Although I'm sure she and the other women aren't "alien" I can't rule out what Dennis suggested about their possible interaction with the Earth's magnetic field. As that video suggested, we don't know all the facts when it comes to our planet so interacting with it in some way I could easily believe. What is harder to understand is why has nobody studied this before and why are only women seemingly affected? Much as though I've not wanted to, I've actually looked at images of men too to see if we are capable of producing beams too. So far I've found absolutely NONE! From what I can tell this is only a feature of women and so I can only conclude that it's something to do with their tits as these really differentiate men from women.
However, I'm now finding that if I really push my stabilization algorithm I'm seeing distortions near the back of Eufrat while she's producing these beams. While the distortions appear to move AWAY from her body at the front, the distortions near her back are moving TOWARDS it. So it looks like whatever is going off is moving through her body! That kinda' says it's an electromagnetic type thing, with her body acting like some sort of "bar magnet" possibly? Maybe women have a chemical thing going on that reacts with the earth's magnetic field and the strange beams we've seen are some kind of aurora?? I'm working on a short clip from one of Eufrat's bondage videos and you can really see the distortion near her back when you get rid of the stabilization. I'll try and post it tomorrow but I've got about 50 frames to get through and stack.


>>
Strange distortions around Eufrat's back. Dark_182D 22/07/05(Tue)12:10 No. 7703 ID: 6001ef
7703

File 165701580697.jpg - (356.39KB , 1448x1092 , ST.jpg )

Ok, so I FINALLY managed to get some time on the SAM and look at the Eufrat bondage images. The interesting thing about these images is that there is no colour seen in any of the images. From the two examples I'm showing here it's obvious that she is producing the beams because when I get rid of the image stabilization distortions become evident in front of her body, particularly in the second image where she is tied to the front of a truck. It would appear that her tits are aimed at the steps leading up to the cab and the material leaving her right tit is spreading out all along that area. The left tit is actually aimed in the gap between the cab and the trailer and no emissions from this can be clearly identified (although the area down near her pussy may be material from this.)

However, the most interesting part about this image is what's going off at the back of her. Thanks to the straight angles of the trailer you can see that it appears to bend inwards towards her back in the de-stabilized image as do the whip and the guy's face! I've added yellow arcs to all the areas I can see bending in the image, and although they don't appear to point to any one specific spot if you draw lines through her nipples as I did in post #7658 above, they converge in an area where the arcs seem to roughly congregate. Also, the actual "bending" of the main image seems to follow the natural curve of Eufrat's back which she shows off well in both examples shown here even in the second one where she is standing more upright.

Again, in this image, no colour can be seen coming from her tits even after heavy processing, but distortions can be seen not only immediately in front of her body thanks to the horizontal bars in the fence, but what also appears to be a shadow of it in the de-stabilized version on the floor!! Again a pulling-in of the image can be seen behind Eufrat with even the path behind her appearing warped slightly even in the stabilized version! An interesting thing to note is that the rope to which her left arm is tied remains completely static and is not affected by whatever is going off behind it. This helps to verify that whatever distortion is back there, is beyond the rope and does not extend to the sides of her body.

I'm convinced that the beams and the strange distortions behind her are linked even though they sometimes appear together and sometimes not. The missing colour in the beams I have no explanation of as I've run these through SAM and really leaned heavily on the filtration. The actual quality may play a part although I've tested some of Eufrat's earlier movies such as the well-known "Lineas" and "Klaman" movies which are worse quality than these but still got good colour.

I've written to several people who might be able to help with what I've found but I think they think I'm mad even when I send them credentials of the machines and programs I'm using. Whatever, the study goes on.


>>
Strange distortions around Eufrat's back. Dark_182D 22/07/05(Tue)12:10 No. 7704 ID: 6001ef
7704

File 165701584584.jpg - (411.29KB , 1452x1096 , comb.jpg )


>>
Thomas 22/07/24(Sun)15:26 No. 7706 ID: 2f9f95

Check your emails Dark


>>
Anonymous 22/07/26(Tue)23:04 No. 7707 ID: 9022e7

i saved this thread because this sounds really really weird.

any update on all of this? or any other website to check?

this deserves a subreddit


>>
Dark_182D 22/07/31(Sun)14:53 No. 7718 ID: ec555e

>>7707
Hi Anonymous,
As far as I have seen there is NOTHING on the internet about this phenomenon. The other main contributor here Thomas (an actual now retired professional photographer)and a guy in China are the only people who have come forward to say that they have seen strange things when photographing some women.
I thought initially that these images were CGI that's why I was interested in studying them. My job entails working with equipment that can split images into different wavelengths, look for elements, add/remove stability etc. But I only get VERY brief periods where I can use them. Getting caught with porn images on government machines would see me instantly dismissed as you can imagine!!

I'm pretty sure that most porn photographers don't study their images in such detail and as we've seen Thomas said that he put most of the disturbed images he saw when photographing a model back in the 70's down to processing errors as I'm sure most photographers would. (makes sense)
But in reality, this subject is obviously so "out there" that most people are going to think you're nuts claiming that women shoot beams of light and energy out of their tits, that I'm sure this is the only place on the net you're going to see this.

At the moment, both myself and Thomas are convinced that what we are seeing with some women is an interaction between them and the planetary magnetic field. We still don't understand the planet and its interaction with the magnetosphere and for sure it HAS to interact with us on some scale. However, that's about as far as either of us is willing to comment on that at the moment.


I was going to update this week but I almost got caught processing the last lot of images and lost them panicking to clear the computer screen! So there is an update pending.
I also found the location in Derbyshire where the two models posed back in post #7347 - 7348 and took several images to see if the beams were related to the location rather than the women. I can confirm that no discrepancies were found. I also tried to contact the model involved but received no reply (I think she has retired now) But even if I had been able to contact her I doubt I would have had the balls to tell her that I have pictures of her firing beams of light out of her tits! Can you imagine how long that conversation would last???!!!


I'm continuing to speak with Tom via email and share ideas and hypotheses and if anything comes up I'll be sure to post it here.


>>
Strange distortions around Eufrat's back. Dark_182D 22/08/08(Mon)18:51 No. 7723 ID: 2d135b
7723

File 165997749410.jpg - (1.25MB , 2036x3052 , PRD_4432lli8.jpg )

So I finally got an afternoon where could use the official equipment for my own devices. I lost a load of data two weeks ago when I was nearly caught and it kinda put me off for a few weeks. Anyway, I've been trying to examine these distortions that are popping up around the back of women while they are shooting beams out the front. What I noticed is that they are present even when beams don't appear. In this first image of Eufrat (1) the usual processed image is completely devoid of anything unusual. (2) Put the image through the narrowband filter and remove the stabilization and quite surprisingly there are still no beams to be seen. I tried everything with this image and I'm pretty sure that there are absolutely no beams coming from her tits.
However, in that image, you can see blurring across the entire image (due to the removal of stabilization) but it is worse in some areas than in others. Particularly if you notice the bush in the curve created by Eufrat's back, it almost appears to be doubled in places where entire leaves appear to be replicated. That is movement in that part of the image alone. Now it could be caused by a breeze, but it only affects the bush in that area and not bushes in the general area.
You can also see some strange arcs cutting through the image, these are picked out in image (3) Unlike the arcs we've seen before which are associated with the beams, these arcs appear to be random and despite drawing lines through them to try and source them back to a single point as you can see the yellow circles (where the lines cross) don't seem to have any particular radiant. The only thing that can be assumed is that they originated from her body as all the circles are clustered around her.
In image (4) I've added pixel counts, that is the total number of misaligned pixels there are in that area. Yes, this took me days to complete but shows that although the average (which should be around 2-3) is pretty much uniform across the image there are very high numbers in the area already mentioned and strangely out in front of her tits which is strange as there are no beams there.
It might be a factor that this image and the proceeding one were the only frames that contained any activity and that Eufrat wasn't very "active" that particular day. Whatever at least it shows that the distortions behind Eufrat still show up despite a lack of activity around the front.


>>
Beautiful image Dark_182D 22/08/08(Mon)19:16 No. 7724 ID: 2d135b
7724

File 165997900093.jpg - (462.19KB , 1194x1604 , Bre_link284_1297.jpg )

I'm posting this image because although it's not really what I'm studying at the moment, it was so WOW that I had to post it.
It's taken from one of Brea Daniel's Bare Maiden picture sets. Again the image is totally unremarkable until it's passed through the narrowband filter by which time you can just start to see the faint beams of light coming out of her tits. As we've seen in earlier images Brea can send these beams out to a distance of 40ft or more where they end in plumes (#7593) However, she only produced very faint beams that do not show up using regular techniques so catching these is a big win.
You can see apart from the beams attached to her tits there are other lines and features off to her left (our right) that appear to be remnants of older beams shot at an earlier period. Now again we've seen these features before and they pose more questions rather than answers.
If they are atmospheric artefacts do they "blow away" or dissolve in the wind? Or if like I and some others feel they are magnetically driven are they held captive in the planetary magnetic field? That would explain why these lines appear to be able to remain in place even when the woman has quite obviously moved.
Whatever they are these beams are still perplexing me as to their origins and why some women appear to produce them almost continuously and others nothing.


>>
Anonymous 22/08/11(Thu)11:00 No. 7726 ID: 6aecf1

Why was my post deleted?


>>
Announcement!! Thomas 22/08/15(Mon)17:28 No. 7727 ID: 5e45fd
7727

File 166057733837.jpg - (559.97KB , 2272x994 , img_234_34.jpg )

Over the last 6 months, both Dark and myself have been looking into the possibility of hiring a model with the intention of trying to find one who produces these beams of light. I know Dark has already mentioned the model who was pictured in post #7347 but we never heard back from her. Eufrat retired a decade ago, and Brea Daniels would cost too much for us to either travel to the U.S. or have her come to us. Ideally, we wanted someone at least in Europe or better still in the U.K. who wouldn't be too much to hire. The plan was NOT to tell whoever we found (if we found someone) what the shooting scene would be for as we didn't want to look like idiots. There were also the model's privacy and personal feelings to consider if we were to disclose findings to them.
As it has turned out I put out feelers (I still have contacts in the photographic world) and was contacted by an old friend who I have discussed this subject with before. Turns out that he knows a model who very occasionally has a reputation for causing his cameras and other electrical devices to "play up" during shoots. Apparently, he has known this model for years (She's in her late 30s) and he says he will often get static shocks from her when she's naked!! This does happen from time to time with models but how many of us think anything about it? Anyway, he said she is very cool and would probably be very interested in helping us.

Several months later my friend, Dark and I arranged a meeting with this model in Birmingham as she lives both here and on the continent. We told her exactly why we wanted to photograph her (on the advice of my friend) and were quite surprised at how accepting she was. She knew nothing about herself that she would consider to be "out of the ordinary" apart from being told about her ability to screw up electrical equipment, which she took to be purely coincidental. Nothing suggested that she was anything other than a very normal, very attractive woman.
Our first shoot was on the 4th of April in a fairly remote part of Wales near a fairly famous waterfall. We wanted to ensure that we were first of all not spotted by anyone and we wanted somewhere open around rocks or water as these seem to be the best areas to see this phenomenon. It was actually quite a cool day with a stiff northwesterly breeze. Dark had bought a modified Canon 5D Mk3 that had its IR filter taken out to see what we could capture with that, while I used my R6 and had my 7D as back-up.
Our model was as they usually are very professional, posing in various poses so that we could get very clear images of her breasts. She even without prompting got herself wet from the freezing water to see if it would make her more "conductive"!
Of course, we were not expecting to see anything in our standard pictures and we were very interested in viewing the modified images from the 5D.
We had a full 8 hours with this model including travelling to and from Birmingham which didn't work out cheap. In fact, including the equipment, we bought just for this shoot as well as the model we spent around £2300!! Luckily she was over visiting friends as she actually lives now in France or it would have cost us even more!
So, that aside we were able to process our modified images almost immediately but were hugely disappointed as nothing unusual showed up on these. It was over two weeks later that Dark was able to run the first lot of images through his works machine (we took 3458 images in total!) The first five hundred turned up absolutely nothing unusual and we very much doubted that this model was nothing other than quite normal. However, last week he managed to run another 200 and despite not finding any beams, he did find something that immediately confirmed something we've seen before but have up until now not looked at very closely.
The images produced here are of our model and were the 743rd and 889th images (or roughly 45 mins apart) of her. From what Dark emailed me, neither of the normal N2 and H alpha wavelengths will show these circles as they will show beams and other structures, but if the O3 and heavy RGB levels are played around with, split and then combined these circles show up. We have seen these on many other occasions but have put them down to "lens flares". In many images, they appear very faint as they were not what Dark was looking for. But in a strange coincidence, Dark was looking at another model called "Brittany Marie" just recently and came across this phenomenon again. Unlike lens flares, these circles appear to line up perfectly with the breasts and are often seen touching the nipples. Now they still could be something quite innocent, but on the day when we took these images, it was very dull and certainly didn't have any strong sunlight to produce such flares. In fact, you'll notice that in the first image if the sun was present it would have been towards my back in the second image, we were under a considerable overhang and heavily shaded. These circles if associated with the model make no sense at all and neither I nor Dark can give any suggestions as to what they are.

Dark will this week post many of the images he has already processed and thankfully kept over the last two years for everyone's scrutiny. If anyone has ideas or thought's on these please feel free to speak up. These are the only features that have so far come out of our own investigations with our own equipment and our own model. Dark still has over 1500 images to process on this shoot so we're hoping for more discoveries, but for now, have a look at these and see what you think.

Tom.


>>
Thomas 22/08/15(Mon)17:30 No. 7728 ID: 5e45fd

>>7726
Hello annoymous, neither I or Dark would deleta a post it might have been the mods if there are any. feel free to repost if you can.
Tom.


>>
Discoveries made with our model. Dark_182D 22/08/17(Wed)13:15 No. 7729 ID: 84a7e7
7729

File 166073494584.jpg - (1.18MB , 2568x1440 , BB064.jpg )

So I guess Tom has explained everything about what we have been up to for the last six months. Firstly what an experience!! I've never worked with nude models before (Tom is an ex-fashion and nude photographer) in fact I don't get to see proper tits at all so this was a real treat for me :)
Anyway, the day went really well considering we didn't see anything, my modified 5D was basically useless, and the model didn't ruin any of our equipment.
I was amazed I could get some of the images processed almost immediately with the 5D but these turned out to be useless. It was over a week later that I finally manage to work on some of Tom's pictures. Unfortunately, despite doing everything I could to spot unusual details (I even saw things that weren't really there eventually!) I couldn't find anything wrong with any of the images aside from the fact ********* had a cracking pair of knockers!

It wasn't until the images shown in #7727 that I realized we had got something! I've processed probably over 100 images (mostly Eufrat) that appear to contain some sort of lens flaring. I showed this to Tom last year in a few of the images and we both agreed that they were obviously flaring images that were only showing up under the various light filters I was using at the time. Because these things appear almost perfectly circular and are very dim it was obvious that's that what we were looking at. I ditched loads of images like this but kept some just in case.
It wasn't until we saw these images of our model that we realized that these couldn't be lens flares. Tom is a pro photographer, believe me, he took every precaution to avoid flaring (he's got this special hood that goes on the front of the camera) and he guaranteed me that the images I sent him could not possibly be lens flares. Looking at them now it's obvious that they aren't as they appear to line up with her tits perfectly. As Tom said lens flares usually trace out from the bright light source and will often repeat the flaring across the entire image. In these images and all the pictures I'm going to post there are only TWO!
It was funny because last week I had been looking at a new model called Brittany Marie. One of her images I took from a poorly shot video shows her surrounded by what would be (if it were visible) a fine blueish mist. There are the remnants of beams, what looks like a faint blueish band that traverses the bushes behind her and more importantly two of these what I'm now calling "Bubbles" around two to three feet (1 meter) away from her! Now the thing is if I process the images like I normally do any beams, plumes, etc show up quite clearly, but these bubbles don't. They are even fainter than the things that you can't see already! I have to mess around with just about everything, particularly in the blue channel and then "Boom" you see them. Adjust up or down just a little and they disappear!

Now that we've had time to study them in more detail you can see that they are spherical in shape not flat. If you eliminate the stability you can also see that they distort whatever is behind them. They appear to look just like "soap bubbles". However, I got Tom to photograph some soap bubbles with his granddaughter so that I could run them through SAM. He took pictures of large ones, small ones, sunlit ones, dull day ones, close to the camera, and far from the camera, every type you could think of. Every single bubble you could see in a picture was visible through the entire visible spectrum, ones you couldn't see because of the background camouflaging them, again you couldn't see with any of my techniques that reveal the "bubbles" in our pictures.

Whatever these are they are there and are incredibly faint, I'm almost certain they aren't lens flares, they definitely aren't actual bubbles or any other floating object as they don't appear in any of the light images I've processed. What we do know is that there are always two of them either appearing attached to the nipples or somewhere near the model, they distort light and objects behind them, and they only show up at very specific but not always the same wavelengths. Oh while I remember, someone may suggest that they are "orbs". Now I'm not into all that ghost-hunting stuff so whatever these are I'm pretty sure that it's only the shape and the fact that they appear to float that links these two phenomena. "Orbs" in the ghost pictures I'm fairly sure are out-of-focus dust particles and/or rain drops. The fact that orbs can obviously be seen clearly in ordinary cameras rules them out to be anything to do with what we are studying here.

Strangely enough. These "bubbles" are the only things that we can say FOR CERTAIN exist because we photographed them ourselves with our own model. The beams we still cannot confirm as we haven't as yet imaged any with our real-life model, so although we're sure they are real we can't definitively say these actually exist as yet.


>>
Lens flare or something else? Dark_182D 22/08/17(Wed)13:31 No. 7730 ID: dd3b47
7730

File 166073591627.jpg - (1.40MB , 2832x1335 , BB066.jpg )

This was the image that I processed last week around the same time I processed our model's images and saw the "bubbles". The strange thing about this image and what makes trying to identify them difficult is that you can see one of the bubbles in every image here (3) Two bubbles appear in the narrowband image and all three appear in the final one.
Now I would say that the sun is in the right place (behind the model) to cause lens flares, but again two of the bubbles appear right over the model's tits. However, I've not seen one bubble in a visible or a narrowband image, and this one picture is the only one that I've so far processed that shows them.

For me, the jury is out. Brittany does produce beams and bubbles obviously from the last images, but as to whether this image shows that phenomenon I'm not sure.


>>
Skye 22/08/18(Thu)17:04 No. 7731 ID: 007c08
7731

File 166083505543.jpg - (60.06KB , 600x800 , 198072176384.jpg )

>>7728
Yes hello Tomas, my post was deleted somehow. I was wondering if you had ever considered if all these things that were happening could have something to do with ancient beliefs?
Cultures referring to the Eartj as mother nature, or mother Earth. They were signifying the importance of women and maybe they knew about the rays and the interaction between these women and the Earth you have been talking about. I believe that things like ley lines stone circles and barrows have a far more significant meaning than we give them credit for today.


>>
Welcome Skye Dark_182D 22/08/19(Fri)00:10 No. 7732 ID: 866b42
7732

File 166086061483.jpg - (2.11MB , 3840x2160 , BB043.jpg )

>>7731
Hi Skye,
Well yes, both Tom and I are coming around to the idea that there is some sort of interaction between these women and the planet itself. The idea that the ancients may have known about this interaction long before we did cannot be ruled out I guess but for now, we're still trying to understand what is actually happening. I have no formal training to use the computer and device that I use, I would probably be sacked actually if I was caught using it because I can't begin to tell you how expensive it must be. I have to be very careful and it's really very frustrating because I get to "use" it very rarely. If I knew how to use it properly and got the time I could probably make some sort of major discovery!
However, it is what it is and for now, we're just going to have to throw ideas around amongst ourselves. But I'm glad that more people are coming forward and adding their ideas (as you have) as it gives us more things to think about and consider.

So, I said that I was going to publish more of the "bubble" images that I have had for a while so here's some more. The first image I'd already posted images of back in post #7620. Those images were processed in the usual way although I was at the far red end of the spectrum (hence why the colour is so dark) while this image was taken towards the far blue, this was the reason why I disregarded all these images as they just didn't show up with the other features.
This image was captured some 3 minutes after the one already posted. I can remember seeing the bubble at the time because it was perfectly framed inside Eufrat's legs and directly over her right nipple. But because it was so faint I just thought it was a lens flare. I'd seen loads of these by now and just didn't think anything of it.
I've not been able to see anything over on her left side but I suspect that her left thigh is probably resting on her left tit so maybe that's why there's nothing there. Don't forget, these could be as suspected lens flares, we're just going on what we've seen with our model and the fact that these are appearing directly over Eufrat's tits.


>>
Dark_182D 22/08/19(Fri)00:36 No. 7733 ID: 6092cd
7733

File 166086216334.jpg - (1.61MB , 2000x1333 , BB023.jpg )

This next one is one of the Sapphic Erotica groups. Now I can remember thinking at the time that the image quality of all the Sapphic pictures was sweet, very smooth and easy to work with. I have to go back and do more studying with these because I think there is a lot more information in some of these images. Anyway, this one shows two "bubbles" only this time they appear to be not anchored over her tits but floating free. Now we do know that these spheres can break free and "float" away, we saw this with our model that's why we know for a fact that they aren't lens flares. We also know they grow in size right up until they are either destroyed by things getting in their way (hands or other objects) or they break free of the nipple. As far as we can see they do not continue to grow after release and as far as we can tell they travel with the wind. They basically look like and act very similar to large soap bubbles but as far as we can tell, they exist just out of the range that we can see.


>>
Dark_182D 22/08/19(Fri)00:46 No. 7734 ID: 54eb58
7734

File 166086277751.jpg - (1.16MB , 1333x2000 , BB27.jpg )

Another Sapphic image.

This one's interesting because in actual fact there are A LOT of things going on in this one picture. I've combined the usual image with the bubble image the result is an even fainter image of the bubble (directly at the back of the smaller model on the left) But you can also see lines and beams off camera at the back of Eufrat! Whether that was Eufrat herself and they are ghost images like we have seen before, or whether there was someone else there shooting beams around I guess we'll never know.


>>
Dark_182D 22/08/19(Fri)00:59 No. 7735 ID: 6092cd
7735

File 166086357567.jpg - (2.09MB , 2696x2000 , BB030.jpg )

The last one of the Sapphic pictures I'm posting tonight includes the original image which gives you some idea of what the actual image looks like. If you look carefully at the filtered image you can see waves and ripples in the Bubble on her right tit.
In my notes that I made about this image, I commented on the fact that there were no beams in the preceding images, none in this image, or the following images! I didn't even comment that there was a lens flare! I only noticed the fact that there was another much smaller sphere over her left nipple AFTER I came back to this image!

Frustratingly, the images that were taken before and after this one appear to be taken some time apart so anything that happened before or after this image is bound not to be caught.


>>
Anonymous 22/08/19(Fri)14:02 No. 7737 ID: f6404d

Dobrý den, uvažovali jste o něčem podobnémje? Právě se o tom dozvěděli a dokazují, že věci stále nejsou známy.

https://eos.org/features/how-did-we-miss-this-an-upper-atmospheric-discovery-named-steve


>>
Dark_182D 22/08/21(Sun)02:40 No. 7738 ID: 3a4542

>>7737
Thank's for that link Anonymous what a fascinating discovery. I think the fact that this has been known for over 20 years but the scientific community has only just taken an interest is significant. Like Skye said there is still things we don't know or have forgotten about. With regard to what we're studying, it was interesting to read that many of these STEVE phenomena exist just below what "normal" cameras can pick up.
The vast majority of images that I process are just off the ends of the visible spectrum and it explains why the poles at least appear both red and blue.
Reading about things like STEVE makes me more and more convinced that we're looking at an interaction between women and the planet's magnetic field.


>>
Dark_182D 22/08/21(Sun)17:40 No. 7739 ID: bfd1cc
7739

File 166109644216.jpg - (725.02KB , 2028x1528 , BB00230.jpg )

So this next "bubble" picture was taken from one of Eufrat's early movies called "Babe Town". The quality was really bad which I guess helped to disguise the feature I guess and make me believe that I was seeing lens flares. I had only processed picture (2) so only saw the feature on her left tit which looked just like a flare. Of course, Running them at the far end of the blue spectrum then pulls out what looks like a series of bubbles, one growing inside the other. I count at least three on her left and two on her right.

It seems that the deeper I go off the visible scale more structures appear.


>>
Dark_182D 22/08/21(Sun)18:08 No. 7740 ID: 03a3bb
7740

File 166109809310.jpg - (463.63KB , 1280x720 , BB233_01.jpg )

I'm pretty sure I've posted scenes from this movie showing her firing beams, but I remembered seeing these bubbles in a fairly inactive period in the movie. It took me a while to find it again but I did and managed to take a deeper look at it. Again if you take quarter-second screenshots you see two bubbles appear to "inflate" off the very tip of her nipples. They take around 1.5 - 2.0 seconds to form and then detach at drift away roughly along the same lines that the beams take. But then they seem to be influenced by the surroundings, air, magnetic fields, I don't know. It doesn't look like they are ejected or anything when they get to a certain size, it appears in this case that the motion of her tits (swinging) causes them to detach. In this picture, you can see one off her right tit that has a "ghost beam" going through it, one forming on her left, and another drifting off to the right.
What's really interesting in this picture is that not only are there more "ghost" images of beams but she is surrounded by what looks like a white mist. Now everything that looks white is actually blue because I've picked this colour out being the faintest. This "mist" is everywhere! It's in the grass behind her and surrounds all the features that are around her. Again I have no idea what the mist is or where it's come from. All I know is that it's most likely blue and most likely came from Eufrat.
Like I said she was firing beams prior to this the remnants of which you can see to her right, so it's probably earlier ejected material, or something still reacting with her magnetic field.


>>
Dark_182D 22/08/21(Sun)18:14 No. 7742 ID: 03a3bb
7742

File 166109849757.jpg - (881.59KB , 2572x1454 , SAM_20210922.jpg )

Looking back, I never posted those images of her producing beams earlier on so here these are.


>>
Anonymous 22/08/23(Tue)22:46 No. 7743 ID: 3d88ae

What you're describing here is an Aura its well known.
http://www.biofieldglobal.org/what-is-human-aura.html#:~:text=In%20scientific%20research%20we%20have%20found%20that%20the,to%20the%20level%20of%20health%20of%20the%20person.

The breasts are known to change during sex and seeing how many of the scenarios you've been describing here relate to sexual activity its only reasonable to assume that the beasts are going to give off large amounts of electromagnetic energy.

"Breasts get firmer- When your nervous system goes into an overdrive state, tissues swell and blood vessels dilate. This internal reaction affects the breasts the most, causing them to get up to 25% bigger than normal. This enlargement happens during arousal and also after sex. However, this size increase will not last forever: size fluctuates with arousal.
Nipple Sensitivity- When aroused, blood will flow strongly to the nipple and areola area. In addition, muscular tension will result in swelling, goosebumps, and hardness in the breasts. This process is called vasocongestion and is proven to be an important part of reaching climax. Once you start having sex, vasocongestion reprograms your muscle memory, causing your nipples to be more sensitive overall."

That's my take.


>>
Ziess 22/08/24(Wed)12:23 No. 7744 ID: 03a3bb

>>7740

Dieses Bild ist unwirklich! Sie sieht aus wie ein Geist!


>>
Ziess 22/08/25(Thu)23:18 No. 7745 ID: 2bc2cc

Werden Sie weitere der neuen Bilder produzieren, die die Blasen zeigen? Sie sind die faszinierendsten und ich würde gerne sehen, wie einige der anderen Bilder mit dieser Technik aussehen.


>>
Dark_182D 22/08/26(Fri)23:21 No. 7746 ID: 33dbff
7746

File 166154888470.jpg - (1.44MB , 4000x2564 , BB_83(Brea).jpg )

Ziess welcome!

To answer your two questions. Yes the #7740 post is quite stunning but it actually wouldn't have been if we hadn't hired our own model (as described in post #7727)
Thank's to her and our desperation to find SOMETHING of interest I tried the other end of the visible wavelength and the rest is history. Of course, this now means every single image posted here probably has more information in it than we first assumed. The images I processed of Eufrat that you commented on only showed beams (as in #7742) but I processed the one where she looks like a ghost with the new technique just randomly, and all this other stuff showed up!
So yes, there is a lot more I could re-process and publish but the problem is that I've got very little time to use our equipment so I would have to decide whether to go back and re-do all my previous work or focus on trying to find more anomalies one of which I'm currently working on and will hopefully soon be able to confirm.

But here are the rest of the batches that I did a week or so ago. This first one is quite good because I've overlayed the stabilized image and it's given it a kind of 3D effect. If you notice most movement is detected around Brea's tits and within the expanding bubbles. Again more lines and arcs can be seen heading off in various directions. I'm sure both the full picture set and the movie are full of features but again it's time and priorities.


>>
Dark_182D 22/08/26(Fri)23:33 No. 7747 ID: c25c45
7747

File 166154958431.jpg - (780.27KB , 1536x1752 , BB07.jpg )

These pair were very hard to reveal because of the background and the fact that they were extremely faint somewhere around 383nm I think. The reason why I kept the images was that these "lens flares" disappeared at every single wavelength except that specific one. Glad I kept them!


>>
Dark_182D 22/08/28(Sun)13:20 No. 7748 ID: 11b50b

Before I post these last "Bubble" images I thought I would just announce that I have found yet more VERY interesting evidence that I'm sure will support the fact that whatever is going on with these women is very likely to be electromagnetic in nature.

Back in post #7407, I explained that Bree Daniels and Eufrat Mai (two women who are known to produce beams) came into contact once during their careers but despite studying both the movie and the associated images I didn't find any kind of outburst or interaction between the two. In fact, I found absolutely NOTHING in any of the images that would suggest that they were anything other than just normal models.
Well, thanks to my new discoveries with the "Bubble" phenomenon I've taken a deeper look into some of these images and found something absolutely stunning!!

I've been in touch about it with Tom, but as yet I've not heard back from him so I feel that I cannot announce it here until I've shared it with him first. But all I will say is that this opens up a lot more possibilities and again asks more questions about what is happening to these women!!


>>
Bree "Lakeside" frame 1 Dark_182D 22/08/28(Sun)16:00 No. 7749 ID: ad5cc6
7749

File 16616952319.jpg - (436.36KB , 1920x1080 , 01.jpg )

This series of pictures comes from Bree Daniels Bare Maidens' movie "Lakeside". The first image shows Bree as she stands to go into the water. Although the growing "bubble" on her left nipple is very hard to see, the one on her right is clearer and appears to magnify the image of the small portion of cloud behind it in the sky. Bree appears completely oblivious of their presence despite the fact that in the following images they appear to grow in size and detach from her body as she walks down to the lakeshore.


>>
Bree "Lakeside" frame 2 Dark_182D 22/08/28(Sun)16:15 No. 7750 ID: ee5fc4
7750

File 166169610259.jpg - (417.98KB , 1920x1080 , 02.jpg )

.... As she walks down to the lakeshore the "bubbles" grow from golf ball size (4-5cm) up to around 15 - 20cm in diameter. The bubble closest to the camera and attached to her left nipple is almost hit by her left arm as she raises it to sweep her hair out of the way.
I couldn't process any of the images of the bubbles growing in size due to the fact that her tits were swinging about as she walked which made the faint structures disappear as they became blurred. However, in frame (2) they have now separated from her body and are free-floating away from her. Again, the initial path of these appears to be along the line that the nipples are pointing, that is upwards at around 20 to 30 degrees and to the sides by the same amount. This track takes them clear to either side of her body. . .


>>
Bree "Lakeside" frame 3 Dark_182D 22/08/28(Sun)16:33 No. 7751 ID: 20d683
7751

File 166169720956.jpg - (421.11KB , 1920x1080 , 03.jpg )

. . . By frame 3 Bree is around 8 to 12 feet away from where the bubbles are first seen as she stands to walk to the edge of the lake. However, both bubbles can be seen roughly where she initially stood some 3-4ft in the opposite direction from where they were released.
Unfortunately, the movie cuts at this point so their motions after this are not known. However, after looking at the clip you can see that the wind is blowing inshore (off the lake) and this could account for the bubbles moving in that direction.
But would an electromagnetic phenomenon do this? Would something that is electrically charged be influenced by the wind?

Although the bubbles could have been returning to the point of origin (where she was sat perhaps) I feel that their interaction with the atmosphere is more likely. Like the "plumes" described earlier in this thread, these structures appear to interact with it also.

What I am certain of though is that these are NOT lens flares. I'm finding that I'm able to process a frame a few seconds after the first and see the bubbles either growing on the nipple or floating away from the body. Lens flares don't do that.


>>
Dark_182D 22/08/28(Sun)16:34 No. 7752 ID: 20d683
7752

File 166169725061.jpg - (439.98KB , 1920x1080 , 04.jpg )

... Motion of the bubbles.


>>
Ziess 22/08/29(Mon)22:37 No. 7754 ID: 5bed0f

>>7746
Ich habe vor etwa 3 Jahren mit diesem Model auf ihrer Only Fans-Seite gesprochen. Sie erzählte mir damals, dass sie eine naturliebende Person im Freien sei und oft Tage damit verbringen würde, in den Bergen zu campen. Möglicherweise hat sie Bewegung in Richtung ihrer irdischen Seite, wie Skye vorschlägt. Das Bild ist jedoch bemerkenswert. Gut gemacht!


>>
Dark_182D 22/08/30(Tue)11:56 No. 7755 ID: f5475b

Tom, I got it thanks. If you see this you need to swap to Virgin, BT is fobbing you off mate trust me!!
Be in touch.


>>
Stracy Stone aka Bijou. Dark_182D 22/08/30(Tue)23:45 No. 7757 ID: 225557
7757

File 166189594791.jpg - (645.52KB , 3000x2000 , BijouakaStracyStone.jpg )

Ok, so I've been in touch with Tom today and shared my discovery with him. But before I post that I just wanted to show this as I believe that we have yet another woman displaying beams! This model goes by the name of "Bijou" or "Stracy Stone" and posed with Eufrat on a number of occasions.
I did a series of blue-scale passes on several images of Eufrat (who I was actually studying) and came across this one. Because I try to look at as many picture sets as possible I don't study any one particular set unless it's really interesting. I wanted to look for more images in this set but didn't have time so I need to return to this. From the image pulled here, I can only say that there wasn't any other activity (bubbles, beams, etc) in the area around her. Interestingly, nothing showed up in the narrowband pass and only revealed itself in this deeper image. Like I said I've been a little preoccupied with "Bubble" identification so I'll return to her at a later date.


>>
Evidence for electromagnetism? Dark_182D 22/08/31(Wed)21:44 No. 7758 ID: 1d76a2
7758

File 166197507410.jpg - (1.06MB , 1920x2620 , EuBreimg2.jpg )

Ok, so here is my new discovery, I didn't want to share it until I could share it with Tom first.
Back in April 2021 (post #7407) I did a brief study of a series of pictures featuring Eufrat Mai and Brea Daniels. I did this because at the time they were only 3 confirmed women who showed beams. In actual fact, they had only ever worked together once in their respective careers. So this was a perfect opportunity to see if two women who we knew shot beams would have any effect on each other.

At the time I had only got 11 minutes into the 34-minute move but didn't find anything of interest. As I remember, I only processed another 5 or 10 minutes of this before giving up. I also processed 3 of the 515 photo images as I didn't believe that anything unusual was happening here. I chose three images (0240, 0496, and 0498) because they were the only images where the two women were in close proximity (not in 0240) and their tits were completely exposed.
However, nothing was noted in these either and I entered this observation in my post before moving on.

Fast forward to my work last month in the 370-380nm range looking for "bubbles" and as a matter of course I ran the three mentioned images through at that wavelength as they were already on the card.
Now I have to say that I have messed around with the brightness and contrast in the images as I couldn't get a good balance using my usual techniques to show what I wanted to here. This resulted in me having to superimpose the processed areas back onto the original pictures. (hence the light-coloured boxes over the tits) The boxed image has been further processed through Topaz to reduce the blurring and enhance the electrical path.

What these images show is what I believe is a spark between Eufrat and Brea's nipples!! As you can see in the #7407 image (standard beam process) nothing is revealed although something is in fact there. Now I don't know if this "spark" is a normal electrical type static event or something else. I would assume that a static spark would be visible at normal wavelengths, the fact that this is not the case indicates that it is either very, very faint or it is not a "static" spark as such because it is only visible at the very limits of the blue end of the spectrum the same wavelength that shows "bubbles".
The other thing to consider is that I've NEVER seen a static spark this long between two humans! I estimate that the gap bridged here has to be at least 4cm and the only sparks I've seen between humans have been when they actually come into contact. Something else to note is that neither woman seems to acknowledge the fact that they are being zapped by what must be a huge amount of current. Again, could this be something other than a normal static shock?
The arc seems to come from the centre of Brea's nipple and enter Eufrat via the lower side part of hers. (Or vice versa) The annoying thing is image 0496 which is the image of interest was the first image after a scene change so I don't know if this image was the very end of a longer event as the proceeding (which was taken immediately after 0496) doesn't contain anything unusual.

This one image seems to provide evidence that not only women are having some sort of electromagnetic interaction with the planet (and/or objects around them) but also that they interact with each other! I can't process any new images or process the rest of the film with Eufrat and Brea for at least another four weeks which is really frustrating so for now this discovery will have to go on the back burner. I just wanted to share this important discovery because I think it could well be pivotal in our quest into finding out what is going on with some women.


>>
Dark_182D 22/09/19(Mon)08:53 No. 7759 ID: cf2baa
7759

File 166357040582.jpg - (1.57MB , 2416x2313 , SA_073.jpg )

Had three days (supervisor on holiday) to work with some images exploring the 370 - 400nm range here are the results.


>>
Dark_182D 22/09/19(Mon)08:53 No. 7760 ID: cf2baa
7760

File 166357043942.jpg - (288.05KB , 2704x754 , SA_0102.jpg )


>>
Dark_182D 22/09/19(Mon)09:00 No. 7761 ID: 84a7e7
7761

File 166357085842.jpg - (525.08KB , 850x1280 , SA_01121.jpg )

Sometimes it's near impossible to get the stabilized and destabilized images to match up. Here is the result of one of those images.
***NOTE*** The strong returns from the area in rings around Eufrat's areolas. I've seen this in quite a few of her images. In the corresponding visible image, there are small areas around her areola which relate to these brighter areas and are strongly related to the outer bluish beam which also comes from this area.


>>
Dark_182D 22/09/19(Mon)09:20 No. 7762 ID: f6404d
7762

File 166357205131.jpg - (779.13KB , 1872x1460 , SA_0103.jpg )

A result of the several different techniques that I use to reveal the apparently invisible features which are produced by and surround some women. The Narrowband, Hll, and N2 images I've used for so long usually reveal the beams that shoot out from the body and the brighter plumes. But none of these techniques shows either "Bubbles", the static discharges, or the often extensive clouds of material that surround women. Destabilizing images have also revealed strange distortions behind the women that seem to correspond with the beams. I can't even speculate as to what we are seeing here but it's all relative I guess.
In this image, you can clearly see the trees and shoreline behind Eufrat bending in towards her back which isn't apparent in the actual video!
The final image is taken down in the 390nm range and is only visible between 387-390nm. This wavelength shows much more detail in the area surrounding Eufrat. I have to superimpose a worked Oll and H alpha image into the 390 images as the original image at this wavelength shows up almost black and you would have no reference point to see where everything was.
Again, this image poses more questions than answers. Eufrat is producing beams but she also has several "shells" of material surrounding her possibly as a result of producing "bubbles" as in post #7739 however these appear less defined and seem to come from a single source (her body) rather than multiple sources (her tits) as in #7739.


>>
Dark_182D 22/09/19(Mon)09:30 No. 7763 ID: cc7caf
7763

File 166357262325.jpg - (280.32KB , 1200x800 , fga.jpg )

..... And I can confirm that Stracy Stone aka Bijou is also a beam producer. In post #7757 I showed what looked like clear beams coming from her tits and I've found another picture of her with Eufrat in which she is again producing beams. More on both of them later.


>>
Dark_182D 22/09/29(Thu)11:55 No. 7779 ID: 179d38
7779

File 166444534354.jpg - (2.31MB , 2576x1906 , SAO_76-6.jpg )


>>
Skye 22/09/30(Fri)01:42 No. 7780 ID: c6dfdb

Hi There! Some of these pictures are amazing! Do you have any updates?


>>
Dark_182D 22/10/01(Sat)16:49 No. 7781 ID: ec3a8d
7781

File 166463578035.jpg - (1.28MB , 2210x1940 , SA_0233.jpg )

>>7780

Hi Skye,

Yes, I've had the chance to spend more time on our computer thanks to the fact that my supervisor has been away on holiday this last week, and so I have been able to process some amazing images!
Firstly, with regard to the apparent static sparks that appear to jump between nipples as seen in post #7758. Because of their very nature of sticking out, two nipples that get close together will discharge static between the two of them I guess but I'm fairly sure this can only be achieved over a very short distance.
The two pictures shown here are of "sparks" I've found in the same set of pictures. The first one shows Eufrat in close but not nipple-touching contact with another model. The set is accredited to James Bertoni and has the file number CMY04-01. In this image, you can actually see the spark between the model's tits. I've looked at several different images from various sources and in all of the better quality ones you can see this. Now, both models are looking at their tits, or in the direction of their tits so I don't know if they are aware of this and felt a shock or whatever. But when I ran the image through at the lower end of the 400nm range it made the "spark" more brighter and better defined. The accompanying graph is made by myself to show the range that this was taken in. I could not use the original graph from the computer as all results are stored on our server and I have no way of deleting them once there. That 480nm peak put this feature within the human visibility range, so again whether this is one of those mysterious events or just a common static spark remains to be seen. However, I would note that surrounding that spark there is a very faint cloud of material that glows at the same wavelength as plumes seen before that were produced by Eufrat.


>>
Dark_182D 22/10/01(Sat)18:54 No. 7782 ID: 251069
7782

File 166464327276.jpg - (266.61KB , 730x970 , SA_0234.jpg )

So this second image is taken from the same set and is actually the next image numbered CMY04-02. Now this image must have been taken several seconds after the first and from a different angle. This image shows a very clear "spark" linking their right and left nipples. The difference between the two images is that this spark is much longer than either the proceeding image or the image of Eufrat and Brea Daniels in post #7758. This feature is around 4in(10cm) in length.
The corresponding wavelength of 377nm puts this just outside of visibility and explains why nothing is seen in the original images. I was at this time still unsure whether I was looking at simple static electricity or something related to everything else I've been seeing with women.


>>
Dark_182D 22/10/01(Sat)19:42 No. 7783 ID: d2f9e1
7783

File 166464614497.jpg - (1.85MB , 3884x1920 , 100214-093a.jpg )

......However.

This week I continued to work with the images I already had. One of these images was in the group already posted in #7761, I had been having trouble getting the stabilized and unstabilized images to line up in this set for reasons I still don't know. But what I did notice in this set was the entire area around where the two models were posing was very bright at the 370-380nm wavelength. It was like a light mist that showed up only in between those wavelengths. Finally, when I got to image #100214-093 I noticed that the "mist" had become bright enough to be just seen in the N2 range (the range bright enough to render beams)
So, I took this image and ran it through at 374nm then messed around with the contrast and brightness. The resulting image made my jaw hit the floor!

Despite STILL not being able to line the images up correctly an amazing structure appeared. It looked like multiple concentric rings or halo's around the two models which were embedded in all this mist. But the most amazing thing was looking closely at Eufrat's tits. Not only could you see the bright rings surrounding her areolas but you can clearly see two "sparks" coming from her nipples!!! One heads off around her right knee, then heads up the stairs. The visible part of it has to be a meter in length at least. The other heads straight out from her nipple but disappears around her pussy, but you can then see it coming up from her thigh and crossing the lower left of her body, it then briefly re-appears just to the right of the other model's right knee still heading upwards!

Zooming back out of the image you can see that two bright beams (I've started calling them conduits) extend from Eufrat's tits all the way around to what I'm supposing is the other model's tits!!!!!!! The other rings seen in the image are probably "ghost" images of the same conduits that formed earlier. I've noticed these in many of the beam images also. I have tried everything to try and get the images clearer but this is the best I could do. I'm pretty sure the "sparks" that I've been seeing are the same things in this image. If they indeed are, it would suggest that these are much, much longer than your average static shock.

What are they? What do they do? How do they form? Again, more and more questions. I'm posting all the other images I processed at the 370-380nm wavelength this weekend. If anyone has any ideas or thoughts please feel free to share!


>>
Dark_182D 22/10/02(Sun)01:21 No. 7784 ID: 7f7e25
7784

File 166466647037.jpg - (357.79KB , 1168x1752 , SA_0224.jpg )

Just to give you some idea about the range that most of these images are working in I'm including a "standard" image of Eufrat shooting beams that I've processed in the 377nm wavelength. The graph when compared to the other images above is much broader than the others and does occupy some of the visible wavelengths, however, I think because of its very diffuse nature they are only captured by cameras. the actual area that the computer has processed is represented by the line and cross which traverses the beam.
Interestingly, something I only noticed when I enlarged this image is that you can see material spiralling around the outside of the pole in a "barbers pole" type pattern.


>>
Dark_182D 22/10/02(Sun)12:15 No. 7785 ID: 51ca37
7785

File 16647057415.jpg - (413.80KB , 2584x956 , SA0_3342_01.jpg )

So I return to the Met Art Drikins and Linias movies quite a lot because the stability control of this camera is so easy to work with (unlike many others) and it seemed that Eufrat was having a pretty active day as just about every scene sees her throwing out beams and plumes. This might be because she spent a great deal of time completely naked in a wide open space and her tits were largely unobstructed
Again, if like we think that her body is interacting with the planet's magnetic field, it could also be that being outside has a marked effect on women who display these features who knows.
Anyway, this image is part of the same scene I have already covered in posts #7359 #7550 #7657 you can see that those images are nowhere near as deep as the following images as I had absolutely no idea at that time that so much more information could be gained from the images. None of those images were stacked as I do now to fetch out the fine detail.

So, in these two images, the camera has moved away and you get a better view of the area surrounding Eufrat. I think if you even needed an image to show exactly who all this activity is centred on it's this one! There are at least 7 beams all radiating out and away from her body. Obviously, five of those have to be "ghost images" and were produced over a period of seconds. Some of them also don't line up with her tits which again supports the ghost image theory. Why they can still be seen by the camera when they aren't attached to or being fed by her body again I just don't know. As well as the beams there is what looks like an arc of material over on the left of the image, this is probably part of the expanding "bubble" that is blown out around her body from her tits when they first become active. (a kind of shockwave) Interestingly, I've noticed that the beams are the only features that seem to extend outside of that initial bubble.
On the far right there is a very bright spot, now I thought this was part of a lens flare as something like that can be seen in the actual visible image in that area. But it's only visible at that same 377nm wavelength as everything else in this image so has to be associated with it. I now believe it is a "bubble" something I've often mistaken for lens flares.
However, this bubble appears to be connected to a long "ribbon" of material, again extending away from Eufrat towards the edges of the bubble.


>>
Dark_182D 22/10/02(Sun)12:16 No. 7786 ID: 51ca37
7786

File 166470581989.jpg - (444.20KB , 2562x954 , SA0_3342_02.jpg )


>>
Dark_182D 22/10/02(Sun)14:36 No. 7787 ID: ec30c4
7787

File 166471418818.jpg - (2.35MB , 3892x1916 , SAO_100214-049.jpg )

This next image is I think my best yet as it took me two full days to stack and align nearly 150 images! Again, this picture along with the images in posts #7783 and #7761 was impossible to align completely but I think I think it turned out ok.
The benefit of stacking the images is that you can get additional information out of the images. Faint details that you might not see in a single image can be brought out if you stack the same images over top of one another. It is very much like what astronomers do to get pictures of faint stars.

So in this selection, I've put both the original and narrowband images of which only the narrowband image begins to show any detail and that is still stabilized. The final image is bright only in the 373-375nm range and thanks to the stacking and RGB adjustments looks absolutely AMAZING!!
This image was the first taken as Eufrat began to produce her beams, I say that because all the subsequent images contain a light "fog" of material even when both women appear to have stopped producing beams. So this image is probably one of the clearest of the entire set. I still have to go through the movie version of this by the way (there are two of them)

Anyway, as you can see this image contained so much detail. You can see that both women are ejecting material. (I say material as I still have no idea what the beams and plumes are made up of.)
The model on her knees (Bridget) has obviously got her tits pointing towards the wall so this explains why she has a plume and not beams. However, Eufrat has her tits pointing upwards and is producing the most incredible beams from her tits. The inner core appears to be a very narrow shaft of light that emits from the very centre of her nipples in straight lines. Around this is a beam that is the diameter of her nipples, this shows up in the 770nm range which is right at the far red end of the spectrum. I have to get these images separately and stack and align them with the other images in processing. Around this beam is then a much broader fainter one that matched the diameter of her areola. Some spiralling has been seen in this region before and I thought that it was driven by its ejection from the body. But now it appears that outside of this is yet another beam, this time spiralling around the other two! This was seen in post #7784 above but whereas that image contained around 50 images, this one had three times as many. On the left breast this "barber shop pole" extends some 70-80cm before appearing to spin out into a plume, but the right one continues off the screen. Whether these are sustained features or only exist in the early stages of beam formation I don't know and I'm going to have to process some later images to find that out. The other thing to notice that shows up really well in this image is the bright areas surrounding her areolas. This appears to be a very strong area and could well be the source of the swirling of material around the poles. I've also noticed even brighter "spots" of light that are scattered around the rim of the areola (not seen here due to overexposure) and line up well with natural features on the skin of her tit.

The fact that all this activity goes on completely unseen and apparently unnoticed is quite frankly remarkable. Every week now it seems that I'm finding women who display these beams and have absolutely no idea that they're doing it. I'm working with Tom in the hope that we can hire the model we had in the summer again to explore all these new features (one of which she helped us find!) But it cost us nearly £2500 last time in total and I'm not sure I can afford it again which is a real shame because this is really important I think. In the meantime, I'm going to keep processing images and see what else I can find. I feel I'm really getting used to using the computer and equipment now to get the best out of the images, so I'll just keep going.


[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason