Anyone care to debunk this pic?

lotsapockets

This is a pic of the Long Gallery in King House, Boyle, County Roscommon. Here are environmental obs for 0300hrs;
Temp 62 degrees F
Relative Humidity 47%
Barometric Pressure 1011millibar
EMF no higher than 1.2mg in a sweep of the room
There was no smoking in the building
It was not raining, stars were visible in the sky.



Please don't just jump in with first impressions, check the EXIF data, look at the pic then post.

Thank you.

johnsix

How long was it exposed for?

lotsapockets

For those unable to find it for themselves, here is the EXIF data

johnsix

The expose time was that 1/57th of a second or 1.57 seconds?
Is there only one picture of this?
Who was around the camera at the time?

lotsapockets

The exposure in this image was one fifty seventh of a second as clearly stated in the EXIF data.
There was no one in my imediate vacinity when this particular image was taken.

johnsix

I don't know man, looks suspiciously like a guy walking in front of the camera as the photo is being exsposed

Jimbo

He would want to be walking fairly quickly

monkeyfudge

It is the effect that you get from a long exposure though.

I double checked the EXIF data and it checks out.. but of course these things can be edited.

Here's the camera model here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Praktica-DCZ-7-1-Digital-Camera/dp/B000KP3JO4

I'm not familiar with the location. Is there a history of activity there?

lotsapockets

some more pics from about the same time


Shadow in top left could be from my finger or hand
The first pic taken I believe would be here in the sequence.

lotsapockets

for history of King House check out the ever popular "Haunted" by Paul Fennell. Also is it possible to edit EXIF data to the extent that it doesn't show it has been edited? if so can you show some examples?

CHD

its obvious.its a ghost!

nice pic

6th

lotsapockets wrote: »

Some sort of camera blur, if you look at the lights hanging from the ceiling they appear again in a different position as if they moved. So unless its a ghost and ghost light fittings then its nothing paranormal. Also, does the figure look like any of the members of PRAI? I think it does a bit.

6th

lotsapockets wrote: »

Also is it possible to edit EXIF data to the extent that it doesn't show it has been edited?

There is/was software called EXIF PILOT that can do it.

Superman?

lotsapockets

6th wrote: »

Some sort of camera blur, if you look at the lights hanging from the ceiling they appear again in a different position as if they moved. So unless its a ghost and ghost light fittings then its nothing paranormal. Also, does the figure look like any of the members of PRAI? I think it does a bit.

Agreed the picture is not the sharpest, the lights hanging aren't moving, but there is a shadow of the fittings on the vaulted ceiling, perhaps that's where you are getting confused. I am quite sure that the "figure" does not look like any current or past members of PRAI. Even with EXIF Pilot, if you use EXIF pilot or similar, to read the EXIF data it will show editing. However the EXIF data here is original to the images shown, no editing has taken place. Surely someone can debunk this properly. Yes all these images are fake, I know I faked them. I am putting together some training material. I honestly didn't think I made it that hard. What I'm looking for is someone to state how they are fake. I am a little disappointed that despite the wealth of experience on boards no one has been able to effectively debunk these images.

johnsix

Was I close?
Was it just some guy walking across the camera?

6th

Well If I had to commite to something I would say that the person isnt standing in that position at all, I know it might sound a bit illusionist but is a reflective surface being used?

lotsapockets

I think I'll leave the full reply till this evening, just incase someone hits the nail on the head. Try looking at the image rather than the content of the image Zooming in on areas of contrast may help, ignor the anomaly.

Dingatron

Some sort of reflection off the portrait on the right beside the near door?

Oryx

Was it taken through a glass door that held a reflection?

I no nothing about the data, but simply the brightness of the image would indicate a longer exposure compared to the others?

monkeyfudge

Oryx wrote: »

Was it taken through a glass door that held a reflection?

I no nothing about the data, but simply the brightness of the image would indicate a longer exposure compared to the others?

The exposure time on the photos appears to be variable, but it's pretty much in and around the same on all of them. I don't think a camera of that spec would even give you control over exposure times.

But I have noticed similar effects to this when photos are taken through car windows.

According to the EXIF these photos were all taken within a few seconds of each other, so it would be unlikely that there are any elaborate set ups with panes of glass to make it work.

Oryx

monkeyfudge wrote: »

The exposure time on the photos appears to be variable, but it's pretty much in and around the same on all of them. I don't think a camera of that spec would even give you control over exposure times.

But I have noticed similar effects to this when photos are taken through car windows.

According to the EXIF these photos were all taken within a few seconds of each other, so it would be unlikely that there are any elaborate set ups with panes of glass to make it work.

All youd have to do is shut a glass door.:) But only the op knows for now.

A flash was fired. Was it in the others?

6th

I'd say the flas was surpressed in the other shots. Poor quality photos anyway.

GhostInTheRuins

Yeah, the flash was fired in all of them. I can't understand why, if all the shots were taken one after another, there's such a massive difference in the quality. It would appear as if they were altered but according to the exif data they weren't.

Also there's some other artifacts in the other shots too


But really I don't have a clue.

lotsapockets

OK, Here is a big clue.



What do people make of this when you zoom in on the tool box wheel?

Yes the pictures are not of great quality, but be honest how many alleged ghost pictures are good quality? Now as the AV Analyst for PRAI I have been sent similar photos to these. The first thing I do is look at the picture, not the subject. The subject, in this case the figure, can be a distraction. It's a bit of misdirection the investigator gets concerned with how the anomaly was created, not how the picture was created. There are always clues.

lotsapockets

You will notice that there are vertical lines visible, these lines are there because the picture is that of a VDU displaying an image which in itself was a long exposure. This was deliberately done to try and show that first you look at the image as a whole, not just the anomaly. The anomaly is a misdirection from the real fakery. I have received similar images to this as proof of alleged paranormal activity. I thought I had given enough clues about ignoring the anomaly etc. The EXIF data was true to the image shown here but not true to the picture thee image was of. Movement can be seen but the person would have been travelling at about 85.5meters per second which is around 200mph so a little too quick to be normal. The EXIF data has had no editing and that can be checked on a number of programs such as EXIFER or EXIF Pilot. Without noticing how it was faked you would either have to classify it as paranormal or undecided (which almost sounds like a reply from someone who doesn't want to except the evidence so would possibly add to its' notoriety).
Taking pictures of pictures is as old as photography itself, just because we live in a digital age doesn't mean you can't use the old methods, and some people will. Fakes can be hard to spot and this was a simple one, as I said in the beginning this is an image I intend to use as part of some training I am putting together. Thank you all for participating. It is my hope that with images like this that I will be able to teach my trainees that you can't just call something a fake or genuine, you have to understand what makes it a fake or genuine too. By the way, for anyone who is interested, the figure in the picture is Mick Keane, he is one of our prospective trainees, not yet a member of PRAI.

GhostInTheRuins

lotsapockets wrote: »

You will notice that there are vertical lines visible, these lines are there because the picture is that of a VDU displaying an image which in itself was a long exposure. This was deliberately done to try and show that first you look at the image as a whole, not just the anomaly. The anomaly is a misdirection from the real fakery. I have received similar images to this as proof of alleged paranormal activity. I thought I had given enough clues about ignoring the anomaly etc. The EXIF data was true to the image shown here but not true to the picture thee image was of. Movement can be seen but the person would have been travelling at about 85.5meters per second which is around 200mph so a little too quick to be normal. The EXIF data has had no editing and that can be checked on a number of programs such as EXIFER or EXIF Pilot. Without noticing how it was faked you would either have to classify it as paranormal or undecided (which almost sounds like a reply from someone who doesn't want to except the evidence so would possibly add to its' notoriety).
Taking pictures of pictures is as old as photography itself, just because we live in a digital age doesn't mean you can't use the old methods, and some people will. Fakes can be hard to spot and this was a simple one, as I said in the beginning this is an image I intend to use as part of some training I am putting together. Thank you all for participating. It is my hope that with images like this that I will be able to teach my trainees that you can't just call something a fake or genuine, you have to understand what makes it a fake or genuine too. By the way, for anyone who is interested, the figure in the picture is Mick Keane, he is one of our prospective trainees, not yet a member of PRAI.

Thanks for explaining how you did it. Since I found this thread yesterday I've been looking at it on and off trying to work out how it was done, Obviously I'm far from an expert, but I have to admit that is very clever.

If you've got anymore that you could put up, please do.

lotsapockets

I will post some more up when I get the chance replicate some more. For confidentiality reasons I can not post clients photo's here without permission.
In the mean time have a look at this, I call it "Pareadolia in action!"


This is a simple picture of pipe smoke taken with flash. The EXIF data is not intact in this one as it was restored from a deleted file. I have had varying opinions on it, even though I took a picture of smoke, people have claimed to see spirits within the smoke. They state a theory that says as spirits have a similar density to air, the spirits can use the smoke as a medium to show themselves. I can not prove or disprove this theory though I think it is an unlikely one! How many ghostly type things can you spot?

the_syco

lotsapockets wrote: »

They state a theory that says as spirits have a similar density to air, the spirits can use the smoke as a medium to show themselves. I can not prove or disprove this theory though I think it is an unlikely one! How many ghostly type things can you spot?

I saw a cloud that looked like a bit of cotton wool yesterday...

With items like steam, clouds, etc, people "see" items in them, as the brain tries to make heads or tails of what's it seeing.

DANNY22XX

i think the word your looking for is
matrixing

lotsapockets

The correct term is "pareadolia" hence the title of the pic, matrixing is the "how" the brain converts random patterns in to more recognisable shapes. Basically the brain plays dot to dot with random features, each feature being a dot. Unfortunately the dots aren't numbered so not every one gets the same picture. For a more simple demonstration look to the heavens, the constellations, given familiar shapes by ancient seafarers to teach navigation. One wonders who the first person to twist navigation in to astrology? You can imagine the thought process. Travellers trust stars for navigation and direction, tell them the stars also can tell the direction to go with there life, keep it general and vague enough bits will fit and there might be a few quid in it too! Though I bet even they never envisaged €3 a minute phone lines. OK sorry slight tangent there.

6th

Congrats lotsapockets, the first one was both simple and very clever. I'd hardly hold it against anyone for not getting it though. Its something I hadnt done for years and even then is was for stuff in college not to hoax.

leddpipe

lotsapockets wrote: »

For those unable to find it for themselves, here is the EXIF data

lol

leddpipe

I would have said that the anomaly from the original picture in this thread was composed of various different classes of orbs!
They appear to be fused together by some form of non-corporal substance, most probably ectoplasm!
The anomaly certainly displays signs of intelligence, as it appears to be attempting to manifest itself in the form of a human countenance!
What is the most likely explanation for this is the concentrated and concerted efforts by mediums and psychics who are probably in the vicinity, focusing their mental energies into helping this spirit manifest!
I would like to add that my opinion, while by no means definitive ( but fairly close), has been directed by many years of close work with orbs, psychics and mediums!

lotsapockets

These pictures were not done to hoax, as I stated they were done for training purposes. Yes the first one was very simple with quite a few clues as to its formation, that's the reason I was a little disapointed that no one was able debunk it.

lotsapockets

lotsapockets wrote: »

These pictures were not done to hoax, as I stated they were done for training purposes. Yes the first one was very simple with quite a few clues as to its formation, that's the reason I was a little disapointed that no one was able debunk it.

To be honest i didnt even try . I didnt find anything interesting in it .

leddpipe

Deleted User wrote: »

To be honest i didnt even try . I didnt find anything interesting in it .

Dr.Dre/Dray,........ whatever the funk your name is!
Dont get frustrated becoz of your ignorance!
Just keep tryin little chump, youll get it eventually!
And even if you dont, ill walk you through it!
( Ah bless him hes a harmless effort).

:rolleyes:

lotsapockets

Now come on, people let's not start getting like this. I asked if any one care to debunk this, that means it was a request, if a person decides not to try that is their choice, their reasons and not for us to judge. I think we're all grown ups here, lets act like it.

stevenmu

ledpipe banned.

HEHE i must have rubbed him up the wrong way, did he take the photo ?

But really the only thing paranormal about this photo is that it was posted on the paranormal forum. Photo's dont do it for me to be honest . Video and audio are the way to go.

Or a photo backed up by video. Stand alone evidence doesnt really mean anything anymore .

lotsapockets

No I took the photo and the photo of the photo. I have to say that personally I examine all evidence placed before me, that way I can be sure in my own mind that I have covered all the angles. Though no matter what the source one should be cautious about secondhand evidence. Video and Audio can be manipulated too. This is an obvious one, I'm sure some of you may know the Red Room at Charleville;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=elaqEX2iSlw

malico

I think threads like this are a good idea to keep our skills sharp. And for those who's skills are still developing, it is a good way to learn.

Dre, I have to disagree with you on the point of this photo not being material for the Paranormal forum. As Tony pointed out, we do get a large number of photos from clients, and as most groups who receive content from the public, it would be a good 90% photographic anomalies (or, more likely what the client thinks is an anomaly). Although videos are fantastic evidence, the videos we usually get are from camera phones in the very compressed and lossy format of 3GP, making them hard to analyze in any form of clarity. And if photographic analysis as a basis for the gathering of evidence doesn't float your boat, that's your opinion, and as Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

Stoner

Ok along similar lines

Stoner

and two more, i think a link to the photo forum would yeild a higher viewing result, if i had something i needed explained I'd post it there , and other forums outside boards

malico

malico wrote: »

I think threads like this are a good idea to keep our skills sharp. And for those who's skills are still developing, it is a good way to learn.

Dre, I have to disagree with you on the point of this photo not being material for the Paranormal forum. As Tony pointed out, we do get a large number of photos from clients, and as most groups who receive content from the public, it would be a good 90% photographic anomalies (or, more likely what the client thinks is an anomaly). Although videos are fantastic evidence, the videos we usually get are from camera phones in the very compressed and lossy format of 3GP, making them hard to analyze in any form of clarity. And if photographic analysis as a basis for the gathering of evidence doesn't float your boat, that's your opinion, and as Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

I wasnt saying that the photo was not for the paranormal forum. Well i didnt mean to come across that way. I think the best bit of evidence is a photo backed up by video cam . Same with EVP . If you get an EVP , have that backed up with another recorder and a video cam.

Photo's are what they are .

malico

Hi Stoner!

Some good pictures there.

88 Looks to be a long exposure shot, the light source, if I'm not mistaken, is with a Inova (tm) X5 Micro Flashlight. The high ISO, 1600, tells me it was taken in near dark.

54 Looks very like the focus of the picture, with a distortion with a photoshop Free Transform and a Transparency Layer of circa 60-70% with a little bit of brightening

34, The lighting of the subject is not consistent with the room itself. The photo does seem to be a double exposure, as there is the reminiscent of the red-filtered light source in the corner of the window. With the all the elements of the photo being in sharp focus with an aperture of 1.8, and a manual focus used, it appears to be a very staged photo.

It's good to have a bit of good discussion!

Emania_Chuck

Hi everyone. I'm Chuck from Emania Paranormal Research. I'm the photographer of the photos Stoner posted (with my permission). I'll wait for a little while longer before revealing the specifics of how each of the photos was created.

I will give a clue that none of the photos was edited. They were taken directly from the camera as you see them.

Stoner

yes it is, to tell you the truth if i got a strange photo that I could not explain (yet to happen) I'd go to chuck in emania, I usually show him any photos that I come across on the web and he created them for the same reasons as you guys, to teach people about dodgy photos, so I thought I'd give you a look at them, it's amazing what can be done , I've learned a bit from chuck, camera settings etc.

It's a good way to teach people, well done.

Sometimes I think that dodgy photos are so hard to prove either way (once the BS has been filtered) that it is a ballgame on it's own trying to figure out what's going on.

edit, chuck I think i gave the game away, it's almost paranormal how we were on at the same time, lol, welcome to boards

Emania_Chuck

Well, since Stoner has given away that they are double exposures (yes, true digital double exposures exist), I'll detail how they were created.

The EXIF data you see in the file is the information for the first exposure in the series. Due to a loophole in the EXIF spec, cameras don't currently have a way to record exposure information for multiple exposures in a single frame. My Nikon D80 has a multiple exposure setting, which I used. Though similar results can be obtained with the 'Image overlay' feature in many digital cameras.

These photos were done as a proof of concept that digital double exposures are possible, and to show that the EXIF data is not reliable when dealing with photos like this.

88 - This photo was composed with no flash and a high ISO to avoid the argument that the 'orb' was caused by flash reflection. The overhead lamp was on to provide light. The shutter speed was fast enough that the motion blur would be strange. The second exposure was shot in the dark with an LED Maglight covered in blue and green craft felt. Exposure time was approximately 15 seconds. I carefully designed the light path to pass behind the chair and in front of the background objects.

54 - This was actually the first photo I did in this series. The first shot was a normal shot of me sitting on the couch. The second exposure was taken in the dark with a small LED flashlight illuminating my head and shoulder. Second exposure was about 5 seconds.

34 - This was an attempt to do a modern day reproduction of the Pink Lady of Greencastle Indiana. It was cold outside, so I didn't consider my settings quite as well on this one. The figure in the window was shot without flash while lit by a red light inside the house. Then a frame was shot with flash to expose the exterior of the house.

Stoner

you would have gotten away with it chuck, we posted within seconds of eachother. I'd the text change in about 30 seconds

Emania_Chuck

Stoner wrote: »

you would have gotten away with it chuck, we posted within seconds of eachother. I'd the text change in about 30 seconds

Possibly, but anyone getting the email notices of updates would have gotten your original text. No fun leaving half the people in the dark while the rest snicker to themselves.