One day, long ago and far away, radio talk show host Art Bell was broadcasting from his basement when his surveillance camera captured this image. 
For ten years it remained shrouded in mystery, but now we have the "NEUROSCIENCE VIEW" to explain what that blur really is.
It is a photo of Art's Frontal Lobes lighting up momentarily, an unusually strong electromagnetic burst of energy caught on video camera, which can record this type of thing. It could also be a very brief flash of visible light emitted from his frontal lobe area, too fast for the human eye, but not for the camera. The spikes, which can be easily seen pointing down in the enhanced image, show the electrical energy typically being grounded, like any other form of lightning. Not only this, but you can actually see the location of the AMYGDALA gate switch (small nut shaped bulbous area), lower right hand corner, where the electro-chemical energy comes up into the advanced brain from the lower/inner reptile brain.
There's more. about a third eye, then it concludes with, "This neuro consciousness pathway is confirmed and documented by the historic photograph above."
Wow! All that from a 640 pixel webcam! Although, this image is said to be from 1997, so probably has far less resolution than that. I don't know the standard at the time for surveillance cameras. I do know PhotoShop was available and that effect could have been created by a five year old.
But, perhaps the real question here is why he used a surveillance camera for his basement radio show. Maybe he was a webcam pioneer rather than vessel for historic "electromagnetic neuro consciousness"?
If you prefer to believe the latter, there's a guy who'd like to sell you some perpetual energy.
Comments
Wow, that's a load of crap, for sure. But it begs the question: is it a camera artifact? I understand lots about optical artifacts, but this one looks like maybe something to do with a CCD or the software that is processing the data, and these are things I know very little about.
Anybody got a clue?
Posted by: boojieboy | February 26, 2007 10:56 AM
Of course, my prior question assumes that it's not a photoshop or some other hoax. Perhaps some photoshop detective might look into the image with exactly that in mind.
Posted by: boojieboy | February 26, 2007 10:57 AM
.gifs essentially use a color key, and paint an image by numbers (a number, usually from 1 to 256, is in each location in the pixel, so the gif approximates with that many colors). My guess is that something may have gone wrong on the software end, and that this image was originally classified as a .gif.
Assuming no intentional fraud here, it's possible that a very bright or dark part of the image would accidentally have been out of the range of that color key, and would be replaced with 'white'. If the software assumes you're using a 32-bit color mode when you're actually using 16-bit (which seems more plausible in 1997), white appears as purple-magenta instead. Just a wacky conspiracy theory though, the explanation offered on the website seems much more likely.
Posted by: Brian | February 26, 2007 12:03 PM
Oh, I misinterpreted the image (the purple was added later). There's just a big glare from his chrome-dome, apparently.
Posted by: Brian | February 26, 2007 12:05 PM
Sandra, Why did you goto the Coasttocoastam.com web site and find out Art Bell's E-mail and ask him how that Photo came about?
If you can't sleep ~1.am EST turn on the AM Radio and find his show. It has Ghost, Mars, remote Viewing, ESP, After death, Big foot, Con trails, goverment cover ups, and so much more.
Posted by: troy | March 2, 2007 9:14 AM