I do believe in GHOSTS!

CraggyIslander

This is a picture taken this morning (not by me but by a reliable source)

It was taken with a p&s and its the only shot in the series that turned out 'fuzzy' Until you look closer.





Its cropped to to hide identity of main person and location.

I for one definitely believe in ghosts now,. Do You?

monkeyfudge

Was it a digital or a film camera?

Fajitas!

It's either photoshop or another frame from, etc.

Otherwise.

f*ck!*




*It does look a lot like a drawing though.

SuperSean11

Fajitas! wrote: »

It's either photoshop or another frame from, etc.

Otherwise.

f*ck!

Ye it just looks like two images together with one faded

CraggyIslander

digital p&s

Dont know much about the history of the building itself (yet), other than its relatively old and has been used for all sorts of purposes. The pic was taken in a disused gym which closed about 6 months ago.

Eirebear

wether its fake or not...its pretty friggin cool!

CraggyIslander

*hand on heart* came straight from the camera, the guy who took the pic is a carpenter and barely knows how to turn on a pc.....

oh f*ck is right!

Eirebear

Im intrigued...theres probably some "rational" explanation for it....but sometimes its nice to see things we cant explain, great stuff

CraggyIslander

Fajitas! wrote: »

or another frame from, etc.

thought that meself, but its one in the middle of a series of 20-30 shots of the place

Neo#

Wow, that better be a hoax!:D

5uspect

meh, looks photoshopped.

yep looks like a fake, they missed a bit when masking.

I think your friend know you're into photography and is trying to have you on.

Roen

The Trotter brothers seem to be doing some work in the building.

CraggyIslander

the full pic is here (i've put a bar across the top to protect the name of the place) Yer mans face is blurry enough that he isnt easily recognised anyways (besides he's been shouting it from the rooftops already!)

Roen

Aha, well that explains why I saw the name Trotter, I thought it was some Only Fools and Horses reference.

City-Exile

People claim that Ghosts are the spirit of a person who's soul isn't at rest. I can accept that someone could have cause to believe that. What I'd like them to explain though, is do clothes have a soul too?
When you become a Ghost, do you end up in the clothes you died in or the clothes you were buried in?
If you died in the bath, would you be a naked Ghost?
These are important things to consider.

CraggyIslander

5uspect wrote: »

I think your friend know you're into photography and is trying to have you on.

Actually he doesnt know that and may well be trying to pull a fast one on the whole office (and planning some x-mas party 'surprise')

That bit could be sticking out of the trash can, without letting on why I'll ask him for the camera and rest of series tomorrow.

Wont be posting those till tue/wed as I'm off to Lisbon for the weekend

LOL that makes it sound like i'm in on this possible hoax (not convinced myself by long shot), but I'll have pictures that'll say I deffo was in Lisbon :-)

MayMay

That's pretty cool fake or not.

magicbastarder

do ghosts only show up in blurred photos?

5uspect

magicbastarder wrote: »

do ghosts only show up in blurred photos?

Of course, and bad audio recordings.

Muineach

City-Exile wrote: »

If you died in the bath, would you be a naked Ghost?
These are important things to consider.

I wanna be a naked ghost, but wearing a tie, I think it would add class to being a ghost and quite funny

As for the photo, i think PS'ed, any time I see a straight line I think PS, unless it's a building :rolleyes:

Eirebear

Muineach wrote: »

I wanna be a naked ghost, but wearing a tie, I think it would add class to being a ghost and quite funny

As for the photo, i think PS'ed, any time I see a straight line I think PS, unless it's a building :rolleyes:

or a ruler?

Fenster

5uspect wrote: »

Of course, and bad audio recordings.

That's actually a really vexing paradox that plagues the entire crypto-* pantheon: If a photo or video is shaky or bad, it's considered to be possibly a fake. If it's sharp or not shaky it's considered to be clearly manipulated.

City-Exile

Muineach wrote: »

I wanna be a naked ghost, but wearing a tie, I think it would add class to being a ghost and quite funny

If you ever get any pictures of yourself as a Ghost, make sure you mark them "NSFW", when you post them here for C&C.

CraggyIslander

Fenster wrote: »

That's actually a really vexing paradox that plagues the entire crypto-* pantheon: If a photo or video is shaky or bad, it's considered to be possibly a fake. If it's sharp or not shaky it's considered to be clearly manipulated.

Too true, blair witch anyone? :rolleyes:

I'm a big skeptic myself, but given the level of computerskillz both the photographer and the fella in the picture have I was/am giving em the benefit of the doubt. Afcourse they could be being duped themselves if they had 'help' copying the files from the camera.

Guess I should have posted it in the paranormal forum instead eh, ya bunch of PS'ing cynics

monkeyfudge

Yeah... you'd get banned for calling it a fake in the paranormal forum.

Mellor

I think we all think its fake, but the real challange is to come up with concrete prove, for me its because of two things,
[/list]
[*]The ghost is very central
[*]The ghost also kinda of looks to be sharper than the rest of the pic, as if it had a different source
[*]The ghosts head is in front of the mans elbow, but her feet are clearly behind his, so this means he wasn't careful enough were hiding the ghost behind objects, the head should be behind the elbow, like the way its behind the bin
[/list]

Sebzy

Anyone else notice the girl's feet are well behind the guy but her head is not
same with dress.

snickerpuss

Haha I'm blind, I spent ages looking at that before I could make out a shape.
I'm a skeptic unfortunately!

congo_90

Fred C. Dobbs wrote: »

*hand on heart* came straight from the camera, the guy who took the pic is a carpenter and barely knows how to turn on a pc.....

oh f*ck is right!

Well. imo it looks like ps where two photos were cleverly merged together. And using a slight bit of layer transperency before merging. Note how the wood work on the right is not blurred and the blur follows a uniform straight line along the wood work....

Well a hoax. Pretty well done though.

"NSFW"- What does this mean??

Masada

defo a fake in my opinion, and the woman actually looks familiar, i think its some famous pic but i cant put my finger on it, the colour tone of the ghost is completely different to the rest of the picture and the blur doesnt really look like motion blur, more like parts of the original with the woman left in to give it an effect, shes also way to sharp and then theres the positioning reasons mentioned above,.

just a quick play around in PS and you can see the rough cutting around the pic of the woman and at no3 you can see a bit they missed, aswell as no 2.,

Cabaal

Its good but its a good fake imho, image does noot very familar also

Mellor

Sebzy wrote: »

Anyone else notice the girl's feet are well behind the guy but her head is not
same with dress.

Yup, I said that just seconds before you, when you were off in MSPaint

vtec wrote: »

just a quick play around in PS and you can see the rough cutting around the pic of the woman and at no3 you can see a bit they missed, aswell as no 2.,

I think 2 is a bit they missed, but I am 99.9% sure that 3 isn't. I think its the end of the girls sleve from te other photo, if you look at 10o'clock from number 3 you see it again on the other arm.

trooney

Muineach wrote: »

I wanna be a naked ghost, but wearing a tie, I think it would add class to being a ghost and quite funny

What're the rules then? Is it whatever clothes a person dies in or is it the outfit they wear when buried? If you had a mobile with you when you die would this work 'from the other side'? Bet the cost of a call from 'there' to 'here' would be humongous!

trooney

On closer inspection there also seems to be a little bit of an overlap of her sleeve on his pants. But the lower part of his pants/her dress align perfectly. Fake.



Edit: pipped at the post on that one

CraggyIslander

knew he was having us on (not enough of a PS messer myself tho)........ I'll give him a bollocking so

APMom

It took me a few seconds to see it, I wouldn't know whether its been photoshopped or not but however it's been done it looks real.

Dades

I was playing around with slow shutter speeds on Wed night - freaking out the missis with pictures of herself and myself looking like ghosts. i.e. visible in the shot but see-through!

Of course we weren't in period costume.

amcinroy

This is a hoax.

The camera EXIF data has been stripped.

If it's real then lets see the jpg out of camera inclding EXIF data.

Andy

5uspect

The EXIF is in the original the Fred posted.

That's actually a really vexing paradox that plagues the entire crypto-* pantheon: If a photo or video is shaky or bad, it's considered to be possibly a fake. If it's sharp or not shaky it's considered to be clearly manipulated.

Well thats the thing, Occam's Razor applies and as a result easily manulipated photography is not adequate evidence of the supernatural. Why would a camera be more susceptible to the supernatural than a persons eye anyway?

amcinroy

There's no camera EXIF that I can see. Only Adobe Photoshop EXIF indicating a creation time sometime in the early evening (i.e when it's dark).

What was the camera, aperture, shutter speed, time of exposure etc?

All missing.

Andy

CraggyIslander

The exif is probably missing as I copied the crop into a new image.

It is now officially confirmed as a hoax as the techie that helped them get the images off the camera has owned up

Funny thing is that the guy in the picture is working on a magic / illusion production and he fell for it hook, line and sinker

Mellor

5uspect wrote: »

Why would a camera be more susceptible to the supernatural than a persons eye anyway?

The obvious answer is speed, the ghost may only appear for 1/100 of a second.


It reminds me of watching Fight Club with the GF, at the start I seen a flicker, and asked did she see it, she said she wasn't sure. I said it looked like a person in a red jacket leaning of meatloafs sholder. We went back and sure enough there was brad pitt in a red jacket leaning on meatloafs sholder (he was not in the flicker btw) for a single frame, I was able to see this, and make out the stance and clothing, but other people only see a flicker or nothing at all, a single frame might last 3/100 of a sec at shortest,
cameras have capture times much quicker,



getting of track, camara speed aside, the above is a fake

5uspect

Right I'll go get the high speed camera form the lab and head to the nearest haunted house...

the_syco

Can't belive anyone fell for that one. Jeebus: you could see a swing (one of the bars goes leads the bin) to the left of the girl! It looks more like a full transparent image over the actual image.

Hugh_C

Mellor wrote: »

but other people only see a flicker or nothing at all, a single frame might last 3/100 of a sec at shortest,
cameras have capture times much quicker,

1/24th to be precise.

Here's me and my kids as "ghosts" up the mountains ... no photoshop required, just a long exposure.

Valentia

Do all ghosts appear in B&W (or in this case, sepia)??

Cabaal

Valentia wrote: »

Do all ghosts appear in B&W (or in this case, sepia)??

Yeah I hear they prefer it to color,
Makes them seem more mysterious

Mellor

hughchal wrote: »

1/24th to be precise.

1/24th is standard, I said shortest, some digital sources run at faster speeds :D
Computer game ghosts are the quickest, 60 fps :D

MartMax

this thread reminds me of Jennifer Love Hewitt in Ghost Whisperer.. lol

Dades

mart_max wrote: »

this thread reminds me of Jennifer Love Hewitt in Ghost Whisperer.. lol

That program has only got two good things going for it.