How is this possible?

It's lens flare. It's not caused by the hair, it's caused by all the scratches and oil that accumulate on your average cell phone camera.

File: 01d898090400d2d0e78519cddc55d7257b41e9cbf0.jpg (105KB, 642x478px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 642x478px

>>2893884
You're a fucking retard. Top left is from glare on the internal lens assembly on your shit camera phone.

>This is /x/ related
You're retarded.
>For those wondering the story, the gist of it is a woman was out deer hunting and after the forest goes silent (completely silent)
You're retarded
> she sees a figure jumping across the trees with some sort of invisibility cloak on.
You're retarded
> It looked like the same type of invisibility the Predator used in the movie Predator.
You're retarded
>This doesn't seem too ludicrous considering that the government has experimented with invisibility
You're retarded
> I'm curious to hear your explanations.
You're retarded

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	642
Image Height	479
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2893886
I don't think it's considered good form to openly pick on and bully the mentally deficient, anon. You should feel pity for this confused delusional creature, not make fun of it. Tнeч миsпт кпoш, ηχση θειφγ 44_7#43/53 ;^)

>>2893885
that doesn't explain how she was able to take a clear photo right before and after the incident. literally within that same minute the camera worked fine for both the before and after photos but why would this one photo come out distorted?

>>2893886
oh great. another faggot who can't say anything but "you're retarded". Don't you have a Pentax thread to be in?

>>2893895
> You should feel pity for this confused delusional creature, not make fun of it.
I have a co-worker who has this problem. If you give him any space he'll start to talk to you about harmful magnetic bursts from the sun that will fry your internal organs if you sleep on a coil mattress, and will show hundreds of pictures of cloud formations on his phone that 'prove' UFOs and invisibility fields. He's a security expert for a large tech company and very good at what he does, but it's amazing to me that he actually believes this stuff. In person I'm nice to him, but I've always wanted to really sit him down and ask him how the fuck he can believe all of this stuff.

But this is online so I won't be nice, like cmon are you fucking kidding me with this teenager tier spookie conspiracy shit?

>>2893895
>mentally deficient
>uses a tripcode on a website for anons

kek

>>2893896
>why would this one photo come out distorted?
Because they moved the camera and the sun reflected off of the internal lens construction you fucking retard.

Let's break this one down:

Either a.) the sun was glinting off of the lens assembly which gave a glare effect on an old camera phone lens from 2007 or
b.) it's evidence of a government conspiracy to hide invisibility cloaks from the general public, [source: I heard this copypasta on /x/ about some lady seeing an invisibility field (seeing something invisible, right.)]
>Don't you have a Pentax thread to be in?
I shoot Nikon like a true faggot.

>>2893899
sounds fair. but why would the resolution be lower than what the camera was capable of producing at the time?

>>2893902
>why would the resolution be lower than what the camera was capable of producing at the time?
Who knows. Could be OP is an idiot (likely) and had his resolution settings changed between days, or that he was shooting on an ancient shit phone that had buggy software.

Or, you know, government conspiracy to cover up invisibility cloaks by going in and messing with your blackberry's resolution, because we definitely know that if a government had invisibility cloaking technology the first thing they'd do with it would be messing with idiots by tinkering with their camera's resolution and overlaying lens glare artifacts on the lens.

>invisibility cloak hacks blackberry and reduces resolution

>>2893884
>The phone used to take the photo was a: BlackBerry Pearl 8130
>The phone used to take the photo was a:
>The phone used to take the photo
>The phone used
>to take the photo
>The phone
>the photo
>phone
>photo
>phone
>photo
>phone
>photo

>>2893884
More likely than not, the phone camera just lagged from having a shit OS and took the photo late and just ended up capturing whatever it was pointed at a few seconds after
Upload the full size images of the 4 in that for anybody itt to take this more seriously