Would love a rational explanation for this please...

CoolSmileyGuy

Hi there,

As a skeptic I am finding myself without answers as to what I see in this picture.

Let me explain the situation, I was out in a Restaurant on Friday night located in Temple Bar, Dublin 2..we were seated in the basement dining section..and at the time of taking this picture I honestly do not recall seeing anyone else but my colleague in the picture.



The image was captured on a Blackberry 8900 with a 3.2 Megapixel camera...flash was on.

I see can see 2 figures in the image, the main distinct one, and a second less distinct one to the left, you can just see the neckline of the second figure, they appear to be wearing darker clothes I guess... either way they both appear to be transparent and out of focus, whereas if you note the picture hanging on the wall behind seems to be more in focus

I just don't know.

Would love some constructive feedback/rationalization as to what it is we're seeing here.

I should also mention that although I am not a regular boards user, I am also not a nutjob/wacko/freak that would go out of their way to falsely create such an image...this picture is completely unedited.

Taken on Friday night (12/02), discovered by me the following day.

MrMojoRisin

Okay, that is one very weird photo. Well, if you swear you didn't drag the images of the woman and the other indistinct figure into the photo using PhotoShop afterwards, fair enough. Tbh, it doesn't even look PhotoShopped to me anyway because the images of the two people have the same lighting as the backdrop and still blend in somehow.

If you had posted a photo of something that was a nebulous blur, I'd call it just that, but with this thing, you can make out fairly detailed features and all.

This is a zoomed-in, cropped shot I did of it. You might not be able to see it too well, though...



I'm not too sure what to think of it at this point in time. I wouldn't attribute it to highly concentrated pixelation or the background features ending up muddled to produce a 'figure' because the rest of the photo is very clear.

MrMojoRisin

CoolSmileyGuy wrote: »

... and at the time of taking this picture I honestly do not recall seeing anyone else but my colleague in the picture.

And you're 100% certain that nobody was standing behind him when you took the photo?

Had you drank much alcohol at that stage in the night?

With drink taken, some details of the night (e.g. who was standing where at a certain time) can draw a blank. But you'd think you'd remember seeing some lady in a bright yellow coat standing across from you (more-or-less), though. Maybe...

CoolSmileyGuy

Thanks for the response.

I swear on all that is dear to me that it's fresh off the memory card of my Blackberry...

I can confirm the picture was taken at 20.09 and we'd only just ordered our food so I was defiantly not drunk at that stage, so I am sure there was no one else there in the frame when taking the picture.

In my aim to find a rational explanation I have passed the picture to the a group of people to see if their expertise gives can yield any clue as to what this is.

These guys aim to either conclusively prove or disprove the existence of the Paranormal through verifiable/scientific means.

I'll update the thread as I hear more.

CoolSmileyGuy

Think you might have forgotten to attach said close-up btw

MrMojoRisin

CoolSmileyGuy wrote: »

Think you might have forgotten to attach said close-up btw

I didn't attach it - I included it as part of my post. You can see it above, can't you?

And the 'zoom' was as close as I decided to zoom in.

MrMojoRisin

CoolSmileyGuy wrote: »

In my aim to find a rational explanation I have passed the picture to the a group of people to see if their expertise gives can yield any clue as to what this is.

These guys aim to either conclusively prove or disprove the existence of the Paranormal through verifiable/scientific means.

I know a parapsychologist who's been doing all of that for the last 30-odd years. He's debunked more 'ghost photos' than he's proven to be real, tbh. He's perfectly happy with that obviously. It's his job to separate the wheat from the chaff. That said, he said he's witnessed some mental, unexplainable stuff throughout his 30-odd years of his work.

CoolSmileyGuy

If you could pass the image to him (if not done already) I'd be eager to see what he thinks.

Would also be much appreciated.

Thanks a mil

(still cant see that embedded zoom, have tried both Mozilla and Chrome.)

MrMojoRisin

CoolSmileyGuy wrote: »

If you could pass the image to him (if not done already) I'd be eager to see what he thinks.

Would also be much appreciated.

Thanks a mil

No, I hadn't passed the image on to Richard already. I will, though, and I'll post his results on here as soon as I get them. I'm as interested as the next person to read his conclusions.

CoolSmileyGuy wrote: »

(still cant see that embedded zoom, have tried both Mozilla and Chrome.)

Could anyone with a pulse around here who sees my post right now please confirm whether or not you are able to see my post above this one that has the semi-zoomed-in image of the lady in the yellow coat?

Prove I'm not going blind, or that my own laptop isn't banjaxed...

Hi ,
I cannot see it either

BTW this is my boyfriend I got him to post this boards:)

CoolSmileyGuy

(I asked her to try too - no slagging of the similar naming convention please! :P)

WanderingSoul

I can't see the zoomed in shot either.

MrMojoRisin

Okay, can anyone who isn't connected to the 'CoolSmiley..' Boardsies on here comment on whether or not they're able to see the image of the woman with the yellow coat I put in one of my posts above?

Thanks.

CoolSmileyGuy

*points at WanderingSoul's post*

MrMojoRisin

Btw, I emailed on the photo to Richard (the parapsychologist). I texted him to check his email as well. Depending on his workload otherwise, it'll probably take him about two weeks at most to get back to me with his conclusions. He's very thorough with this stuff.

CoolSmileyGuy

Much appreciated MrMojoRisin!

MrMojoRisin

CoolSmileyGuy wrote: »

*points at WanderingSoul's post*

I didn't see WanderingSoul's post until I had written my own post. It hadn't been there beforehand.

MrMojoRisin

MrMojoRisin wrote: »

I'm posting the shot of the lady again (right above these words). I just called my flatmate into the room now and he's looking straight at it with me.

Are we blind, are we hallucinating, or both??

WanderingSoul

I still can't see it (if you're talking about your original post). I'll take a screenshot in a moment.

CoolSmileyGuy

Sorry neither can I...appreciate the 2nd effort nevertheless.

Maybe it requires moderator approval?

call d

I cant see it.

TequilaMockingBird

I can see it.

MemberSince2000

I can't see it either. Tried all the usual browsers.

MrMojoRisin

Today, 18:51 #2 MrMojoRisin
Registered User


Join Date: May 2009
Location: Drogheda
Posts: 511
Adverts | Friends


Okay, that is one very weird photo. Well, if you swear you didn't drag the images of the woman and the other indistinct figure into the photo using PhotoShop afterwards, fair enough. Tbh, it doesn't even look PhotoShopped to me anyway because the images of the two people have the same lighting as the backdrop and still blend in somehow.

If you had posted a photo of something that was a nebulous blur, I'd call it just that, but with this thing, you can make out fairly detailed features and all.

This is a zoomed-in, cropped shot I did of it. You might not be able to see it too well, though...



I'm not too sure what to think of it at this point in time. I wouldn't attribute it to highly concentrated pixelation or the background features ending up muddled to produce a 'figure' because the rest of the photo is very clear.

Well, the above is what I've been seeing. My Operating System is Windows XP, btw, and I have a PC.

MrMojoRisin

CoolSmileyGuy wrote: »

Maybe it requires moderator approval?

Nah, not at all. All it is is a benign pic. I've seen far more potentially inflammatory stuff posted here on Boards. :pac:

MrMojoRisin

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

I can see it.

Well, thank fcuk at long last that I'm not the only one.

WanderingSoul

I still don't see anything in the post in which you show what you've been seeing. Would you be able to post a screenshot and post that? The only thing I see is a continuos "loading" symbol between the report and edit buttons despite the page being loaded. That said though, that's not where the picture should be.

I'm on a mac and I'm using safari.

happyoutscan

I can't see it.

abouttobebanned

I can't see it either and it's derailing a pretty interesting thread

KeithAFC

I can see it and to be honest, i believe you. I think you have caught something really odd. Unexplainble.

northsidedave

no can see

Kelda09

Sorry, cant see it either, I have XP on my laptop, maybe its somethings way of stopping us from viewing it!!:eek::eek:

TequilaMockingBird

I'll copy your post, so hopefully it can be seen then. Possibly a browser problem?

MrMojoRisin wrote: »

Today, 18:51 #2 MrMojoRisin
Registered User


Join Date: May 2009
Location: Drogheda
Posts: 511
Adverts | Friends


Okay, that is one very weird photo. Well, if you swear you didn't drag the images of the woman and the other indistinct figure into the photo using PhotoShop afterwards, fair enough. Tbh, it doesn't even look PhotoShopped to me anyway because the images of the two people have the same lighting as the backdrop and still blend in somehow.

If you had posted a photo of something that was a nebulous blur, I'd call it just that, but with this thing, you can make out fairly detailed features and all.

This is a zoomed-in, cropped shot I did of it. You might not be able to see it too well, though...



I'm not too sure what to think of it at this point in time. I wouldn't attribute it to highly concentrated pixelation or the background features ending up muddled to produce a 'figure' because the rest of the photo is very clear.

Well, the above is what I've been seeing. My Operating System is Windows XP, btw, and I have a PC.

WanderingSoul

Nope, still can't see anything.

northsidedave

try something else

ISAW

northsidedave wrote: »

try something else

I see it and it looks like a Warhol image of Marlyn Monroe has worked its way into your image. Funny how all these "ghosts" seem to resemble a commercial art image isn't it? It may be that you had a poster beside you or a poster was reflected in a glass beside you.

CoolSmileyGuy

I tried to find an app that would let me zoom so I could at least post it to avoid this thread going more off topic than it already is..anyway I found Google's Picasa..

After cropping the image I was also able to brighten it some more and adjust a few of the colour saturation levels...this is what I got..the before and after:

Before


After


I don't even know what to think...

abouttobebanned

There are people now joining the thread saying "I can see it" and referring to the ghostly image in the op....to clarify, that's not what we can't see...

CoolSmileyGuy

This topic was not created to discuss whether we can see a fellow posters embedded images or not...

I created it to discuss what I captured in a photograph on Friday night just gone.

Therefore as far as I am concerned it has gone off track somewhat.

WanderingSoul

Tbh, I'm not sure what to think. In the "before" image it seems as though you can see the background through the figure, which would imply it either is semi-transparent or photo-shopped well (which you said you didn't do so will shall assume the former). What I'm surprised by though is the brightness of the black & white dress because compared to the rest of the figure it looks very "solid" imo.

I don't know a lot about all things paranormal hence me not posting about it before. I'm not in a position to give an explanation and anything I say may be way off the mark.

CoolSmileyGuy

All I did pretty much is lighten the light bits and darken the darker parts to make the figures more clear, and a touch of sharpening to get it to stand out some more, and yes it does look a lot more solid (by design), but that doesn't explain the fact you can still see the vertical lines of the back wall pattern through parts of her head and torso...

WanderingSoul

Just to clarify, in my above post I wasn't talking about the after picture at all. Even in the before picture it looks more "solid".

And as I said, I'm not in a position to give an explanation.

CoolSmileyGuy

Appreciate the input eitherway

WanderingSoul

It's no problem and I hope you end up with a conclusion and not an open question.

ISAW

CoolSmileyGuy wrote: »

I tried to find an app that would let me zoom so I could at least post it to avoid this thread going more off topic than it already is..anyway I found Google's Picasa..

After cropping the image I was also able to brighten it some more and adjust a few of the colour saturation levels...this is what I got..the before and after:

Before


After


I don't even know what to think...

I think if you remove the head from your "ghost" image that you are left with the Marlyn Monroe image (draw a line along the top of the wood between the two people on the right). The arms and neck of the "ghost woman" forms the top of the hair of Marlyn and the legs and dress forms the shoulders. I hadn't seen your "woman" but I see the resemblance now you have pointed it out. Of course maybe it is possible if you zoom in on the wood between you and your friend that you can make out the face of Bishop Brennan

TYhe motif of the "dress" of your woman or the "shoulder garment" of Ms Monroe, continues off to the left of the image. You can see it as a white shape to the bottom left of your rendering. It suggests common cause.

MrMojoRisin

ISAW wrote: »

I see it and it looks like a Warhol image of Marlyn Monroe has worked its way into your image. Funny how all these "ghosts" seem to resemble a commercial art image isn't it? It may be that you had a poster beside you or a poster was reflected in a glass beside you.

FYI, I adjusted the lighting levels in the cropped image - that's why it looks a bit like a "Warhol image". If you want to see the original image of that lady, then go back to page one and look at the full photo embedded by the OP. So, you can put your insinuations back in their box. Nobody is trying to 'create' any 'ghost', or make part of an image resemble the artwork of some wig-wearing, socially inept homosexual.

You've completely missed the point.

MrMojoRisin

I saw the outline of the woman before I read the words of CoolSmileyGuy's post and before I played around with the zoom function. In other words, I knew exactly what I was looking at, and for, right from the beginning.

I actually thought it was a real woman standing in the background - albeit a bit faded - in the photo until the OP said there had been nobody standing there at the time of the photo being taken.

ISAW

MrMojoRisin wrote: »

I saw the outline of the woman before I read the words of CoolSmileyGuy's post and before I played around with the zoom function. In other words, I knew exactly what I was looking at, and for, right from the beginning.

Exactly my point! You drew the patterns yourself! Just as i saw an image of Marlyn Monroe.

I actually thought it was a real woman standing in the background - albeit a bit faded - in the photo until the OP said there had been nobody standing there at the time of the photo being taken.

Yes. And ??? So what? How does that change my Marlyn or someone else's Bishop Brennan?

MrMojoRisin

ISAW wrote: »

Exactly my point! You drew the patterns yourself! Just as i saw an image of Marlyn Monroe.

What point? Yeah, I've made up my mind what I saw in the photo. You're the one who seems to think we're all seeing Marilyn f uckin Monroe or something just because it looks like a woman. Are all unexplainable images of women in photos Marilyn Monroe in your head??

FYI, I showed the photo to my flatmate, asked him what he saw in the photo, and he said, "A guy in a T-shirt sitting there smiling, another guy's head on the left, and some faded-looking woman at the left in the background".

Wow, LOOK! We're all "drawing patterns"! Straight to Sceptics Gallows for that heinous crime!!

ISAW wrote: »

Yes. And ??? So what? How does that change my Marlyn or someone else's Bishop Brennan?

It doesn't. Keep up your visual fantasies of Marilyn Monroe and Bishop Brennan.

CoolSmileyGuy

Whilst having some spare time today I did some reading about the location of where the picture in question was taken...

First see the embedded picture below, this shows another view of where the picture was taken initially...the little yellow stickman being my work colleague, and the cross being the approx location of the figure in the picture....please note the large stone structure to the left :



Now check this out :

http://www.luigimalones.com/images/wall1.pdf

Also in the PDF you'll see the actual seat I took the picture from which is where the pillar is..

Here's the picture from the pdf, shows exactly where I took the picture from:





I didn't realise this location was so steeped in history when I posted this image initially, to be honest I thought the stone structure was just a fireplace or something...as a skeptic I'm not sure how much bearing this might have on the 'possible' origin of the figure in my original picture...but thought I'd share this info eitherway.

Zombrex

CoolSmileyGuy wrote: »

The image was captured on a Blackberry 8900 with a 3.2 Megapixel camera...flash was on.

I think you answered your question there.

Digital sensors, particularly cheap digital sensors like those found in camera phones, are notorious for picking up artifacts and ghosts (left over data, not dead spirits) in low light.

The girl was most likely behind your friend at some point you were snapping away, but not when you actually took that photo, it is simply her left over image data confusing the camera sensor when it has so little data to replace it with due to the low light.