Invisible Humanoid Being Photographed

Posted by Scott McMan | November 11, 2013 29

You read that right! This one is hot off the wire today as a woman in Chile claims to have photographed something that seems quite impossible.

This story is coming to us from Scott Corrales over at Inexplicata. Scott is the guy who traverses all the Latin countries in search of the unexplained and then is nice enough to translate these stories into English for us.

There’s not much to say as far as a lead in, so lets get right to it with quoted material straight from Inexplicata:

Mrs. Janette Villa Torres, married, with a high school degree and considered a trustworthy person at her place of employment, since she works as a municipal official in downtown Angol (9th Region), never imagined she would manage to photograph what we are showing to our readers.

Her intention was to take a photo of the Moon and the planet Venus, which shone in the heavens on 7 November at 21:30 hours. Mrs. Janette was in the back yard of her home and used her 16.7 pixel Samsung digital camera for this purpose. There was nothing particularly unusual about her surroundings. She even remarked to researcher Raul Gajardo Lepold that there is neither public nor private lighting in this part of her house. She did, however, noticed a sort of spark or noise in the flash at the moment the photo was taken, which we mention for purposes of subsequent analyses. The distance separating her from the shrubs appearing in the photo is some four meters, and their height is also close to four meters.

Upon seeing the image recovered from the device, she rightly astonished to see a transparent entity with light sources in its body over to the right hand side of the photograph. There was no doubt about it: the silhouette of a person with a very clearly defined outline (arms, head and back) could be seen at first sight. All indications are that the being had its back toward the camera and in a diagonal direction (45 degrees)

At this moment we are conducting some inquiries about whether it could be smoke from the other side of the wall that can be seen in the photo, or if a highly peculiar light effect caused this silhouette. It is only logical that there should be a variety of opinions, more so when the effects of digital photography are still little known.

We customarily received a significant number of photos from our readers and we know that photos of “UFOs” and similar subjects are controversial overall. For this reason we have chosen to publish a few that seem curious to us and have a distinct provenance.

We are still following the trail of this story. In the meantime, we attach the photo for our readers’ consideration, as they will surely have their own opinions about it.

And now, the photo of the day:


I have to be honest, I’m stumped on this one at the moment. If the story is true, there is little that can explain it, other than a photographic anomaly of some sort. Of course, that would be an easy answer at this juncture. I honestly wish I had more time today to really look this photo over, but I wanted to get it out there as soon as I could.

I plan to really examine this in the next couple of days and should there be something obvious to deem it a hoax, I’ll certainly let you all know. I will also keep you updated with the ongoing investigation at the location.

I tend to trust Scott Corrales as he tries to be up front about what he reports. Although, he can’t always fully extend that further, he does have several trustworthy constituents.

I’d like to thank the following sources for content provided:

Scott Corrales – Inexplicata
Raul Gajardo-NOUFA

Associated Content:

GT: Paracast: Encounters with Star People
GT: Would We Know If Aliens Were Here?
GT: Strange Hairy Humanoid In Argentina?

The following two tabs change content below.
I grew up in rural NWPA, surrounded in forest. I took an early interest in cryprozoology and sharks and have read many books on various crypto subjects such as Bigfoot and Megalodon over the years. I am not a professional writer or a journalist, but I do the best I can. I have a quirky, obscurely dry and sometimes sarcastic sense of humor than can get me in trouble. Some love me and some hate me, but I am who I am.

29 Responses

  • LOOMfreek

    So hard to even guess what it is based on this image. Is this image the actual photo or cropped part of the photo? Even on Explicata the image in their article looks to be taken from a cell phone camera based on its aspect ratio versus a normal digital camera.

  • The Oshmar

    I agree with you Loom, this sure doesn’t look like a 16.7 megapixel camera image, maybe that’s why it skips the ‘mega’ part in the quoted material =D

    It’s looks like it could just be smoke or breath captured in the image to me, would be better if we could get the full image

  • Megapixels are not the end of image quality. It actually has a lot to do with sensor size. Many high megapixel cameras have small sensors and that is where much of the errors come from. Especially when changing resolution to post low res images online.

  • The Oshmar

    True, still looks like smoke or breath though, has been getting down to like 8-10 degrees C in chile at night.

  • mustangmorris

    So the woman goes out to take a picture of the moon but instead takes a picture of the wall? seems like a hoax.

  • Arcturus

    This is only a little part of the whole photo, correct? Why won’t you show is the entire photo?

  • Scott_McMan

    That is the entire photo aside from a few more leaves at the bottom. Head over to Inexplicata if you don’t believe me. It’s linked right up in the article.

  • Kandinsky

    Doesn’t look like any invisible humanoid I’ve seen before…

    The shrubs cast shadows directly against the wall behind them; shadows that are diffused and created by more than one light source. Sure, there could have been a flash, but it’s also clear that there were other sources of light such as patio-lights or grounded spotlights. We can see this by looking at the different directions of the shadows as they relate to the position of the plants and the focal point.

    Presumably the EXIF is unavailable because the grainy image has been tagged with copyright?

    Going off just this little snippet of a larger image, it seems reasonable to put it down to multiple light sources and pareidolia.

  • bsmsnudge

    How do you manage to see things that are invisible?

  • Elwoodathome

    Ha, Ha. Good point.

  • Stacey Anderson

    “Doesn’t look like any invisible humanoid I’ve seen before…”


  • Scott_McMan

    Wow Stacy, you are a nitpicker, aren’t you? LOLOL! Although, you did get him good with that one. He’s all: The EXIF is bla bla because the magnito assembly was set a quarter turn past true center, bla bla. Then it all blew up! I think I like you.

  • Stacey Anderson

    Don’t get excited.

    This is the internet.

    And I’m really a guy.

  • alanborky

    Scot there’re three main areas of brightness in the figure.

    The central area resembles a small childlike hand pushing its fingertips into a semi diaphanous sheet of some kind the uppermost brightness its forehead the lowermost its legs [especially when viewed in reversed colours].

    Whether it’s an angelic child piercing an ectoplasmic veil or a white garden statue with a vinyl shower curtain draped over it others’ll have to decide for themselves.

    If the latter it’s possibly a reflection in a pond also reflecting an overcast sky or just below the surface of same pond.

    It should be noted though sheets of water especially stagnant ones’re thought t’be notorious vorticial gateways especially for pestilential entities in some circles.

  • Scott_McMan

    *cough*, my name is Scott. You see, my parents though: What can we name our new baby that will really handicap him in life, Michael? Of course not! That’s a #1 winner name. No, lets name him Scott, so he can really fight thru life.

    Uhh, you probably didn’t want all that information, did you?

    Oh, your comment, I concur.

  • bobs your uncle

    “more so when the effects of digital photography are still little known.”
    They are? Digital cameras have been around for like 40 years. They’re pretty well understood.

  • sir rusty knight

    condensation on camera lens defracting lite…

  • Stacey Anderson

    LITE? Spelled L-I-T-E? Are you JOKING?

  • universal homunculus

    oh liten up.

    “when comforting a spelling Nazi I usually say, ‘ their, they’re, there'”

  • Scott_McMan

    Wow, Stacy would probably get very angry with me. I love to throw stuff like that in my posts. My favorite that really gets people mad is when I use “per-say” in an article. LOL!

    She has a point though as there is no reason to misspell with all the helpers available. I think rusty did that one on porpus though.

  • 1Voice

    First of all, she couldn’t have photographed Venus and the Moon at that time. At the time stated on that date, the planet Venus was below the horizon, unseen. The moon was about half below the horizon. Unless she was still taking shots in her area after the planet and moon had set, this didn’t happen while photographing those two heavenly bodies. You say she was approximately 4 meters from the shrubs and the shrubs were approximately 4 meters tall and you mentioned a wall. There is no visible “top of the wall” in the photo. The shadows of the shrubs are extending above the shrubs, however, meaning there is something solid there like a wall. The light areas on the leaves in front of the “invisible man” correspond with light areas on the edges of the “invisible man” with the shadows of the leaves in the center of the invisible man being present. It looks a lot like reflection from a water source or perhaps fog or smoke. Nothing paranormal or mysterious.

  • Imagine

    I’ve been using photo shop for a number of years. I’m not
    saying this is a fake image but, I am saying, I can get these same effects out
    of Photoshop. For instance, that patch of plants at the bottom of the image
    looks like it was cut out of another image and placed at the bottom of this
    one. Also, it looks like shadow lab was used for the shadows behind and at the
    edges of the plants. Also, I could use the smudge tool to pull that entire
    entity out of that background. And, it appears there are nothing else but the
    plants and the entity in that image. I mean nothing in the back ground. Last,
    the entire image seems to have a slight blur on it, maybe to dull any obvious
    sharp edges that would indicate something from another image may have been placed
    in to this image. Also something that can be done in Photoshop. Why is it when
    people have the ultimate image of a ghost, not only the ghost is blurred but, everything
    else in the image is blurred? Anyway, I could be wrong. It could be a real
    ghost. J

  • Scott_McMan

    You may be right. I didn’t run this thru error correction. Frankly, If I picked at every detail, I’d never have anything to post. Lets be realistic, people love this stuff and the less you say, the better. They want to dream and imagine something outside the realm of possibility, so we give it to them. Although there are times where I will do it myself, I’d much rather the readers pick it apart.

  • Doubting Thomas

    Why would you use a flash to photograph astromical objects? That totaly defeats the purpose, the idea is to eliminate outside light .

  • Burt

    I don’t call these type images “hoaxes,” something that implies someone deliberately faked it. But as a longtime professional videographer and photographer (too many decades to even state) I speculate this image is related to digital cameras and their flash units. But it also could happen to a film camera. It is the same phenomena that causes most “orb” photos. In so many of those/these type pictures, the photographer sees nothing until AFTER the shot. That should be a clue. In the vast majority of similar photos I have studied, there are usually reflective surfaces. But wait, you say, there’s nothing there but a bunch of leaves on a bush. Take a close look at most any green leaf and you will see a shiny, waxy coating… angled just right… it can reflect back into the lens, distorted, and show up as basically a lens flare – again, a DISTORTED lens flare. Understand that not all lens flares and refraction are round! Now note the numerous green leaves in this photo and even how many of them are obviously reflecting the flash. Someone commented “Why use a flash to photograph the moon?” Well, many digital cameras automatically trigger the flash when the light falls below a certain level – like at night, or in a poorly lit room. Most inexperienced photographers don’t bother turning off that feature (the strobe light) and some less expensive cameras won’t even allow you to shut off the autoflash. One must realize how bright even a tiny strobe light is on a camera. It’s of extremely short duration, but it is often bright enough to cause reflections back into the lens and create a refraction, that is, a distorted light image that might happen to look like a ghost, human, orb or whatever. From now on, start looking for reflective surfaces when you come aross photos like this. Sometimes the reflective surface is off camera, but many, many times you can spot a surface that will reflect the light and cause similar odd images or orbs when it bounces back into the lens. Don’t believe me? Try it for yourself with the strobe on and in dim light. You’ll have to shoot several dozen shots but I’l bet bet you can get a distorted flare or two if there are enough reflective surfaces around. Glassware, shiney top tables, nick nacks, insects and, yes, even dust particles do it and create those spooky “orbs.” Have fun and show your friends. :) Burt

  • twas brillig

    Little do you realize that the spirits of any type (ghost, nature spirit/elementals etc.) all take full advantage of digital artifacts to make their appearances made. Don’t believe me? Try some DMT.

  • annoying imbecile

    lold so hard

  • kevin w

    Our brains try to make everything we see make sense.

  • crazy much

    Wooooo the ghostys or is it alians

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.